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 17 of 82.
“Can we have a public discussion? That is what I am asking. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: We are thinking about it all the time. The Ministry of Law together with the other Ministries is always looking at ways in which our legal system can be improved. Just now, we heard praises from various Members here. Assoc. Prof. Chin talked about international praise for our legal and judicial systems and our laws. Mr Kenneth Chen praised the Legal Aid Bureau. Mr Rai praised the OAPT. That is the mindset that we have. So we are continually looking at how our legal system, including our punishments, can be improved. This is not something that is cast in stone. They can evolve over time. 5.15 pm”
“That is what I am asking. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: So I am saying that in the Singapore context, this is what we have. We decide what is best for us and it works.”
“What are the punishments that should be imposed?”
“There are other Acts. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: But it is mainly in the Penal Code. These are all serious offences: aggravated rape, aggravated extortion, aggravated molest. In other words, when we have minimum mandatory sentences, it is sending a signal that these are serious offences and they should not be trifled with. Anyone who perpetrates the offence will be dealt with in a tough way. Again, as I said, it has played a part in helping to keep Singapore safe. The last time the Penal Code was amended in a relatively bigger way to incorporate mandatory minimum sentences was in 1984. In fact, I was reading the Hansard just now and Mr Jeyaretnam also participated in the debate. That was already some time ago. Having said this, minimum mandatory sentencing, quite contrary to what Mr Jeyaretnam says, does not remove the court's discretion entirely. Because beyond that, there is still a maximum tariff and the court can still decide the sentence to fit the crime. The other concern of Mr Jeyaretnam is caning. All of us know that caning is indeed an effective deterrent. Even hardened criminals fear caning. We know this because, as Members know, the Ministry of Home Affairs is planning to toughen the drug regime to have caning for hard core addicts. Our agencies on the ground tell us that this already has had an effect on the ground, both anecdotal as well as in numbers. So the point to note is, what works. Again, here we do not use caning willy-nilly. It is carefully considered whether caning is required, looking at the nature of the offence and the incidence of occurrence and then caning as an option is put into the law. Mr Jeyaretnam talks about other jurisdictions like Europe and other places. In terms of penal philosophy, every society has to decide for itself.”
“It is just a question. But it is all right.”
“I am sure this is most welcome as parties who contract, of course, intend their contracts to be kept and that they should remain in the business relationship. Going to trial usually sours relations and adds to transactional cost. I hope that gradually parties going to courts for relief will consider mediation as a precursor to any court action that they may wish to pursue. At the moment, it seems that mediation is an unfamiliar method of dispute settlement. I wonder whether more could be done to promote this method before parties take on the more familiar route of fighting it out in the courts. Litigants will need to understand that mediation is, in most instances, a better way of resolving disputes than adjudication. Will the Minister consider ways in which the mediation process can be promoted at all levels of society, between neighbours, between businessmen, indeed between Government agencies and the people?”
“It is a matter on which the public should state their views and a national policy on sentencing reached. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, Singapore, in recent years, has been introducing new methods of dispute settlement. These have gained much attention, acceptance and favour. In particular, the setting up of the first Community Mediation Centre was well received. Residents now have recourse to a Centre where they can settle disputes among themselves instead of complaining or quarrelling or calling for the police. I would like to ask the Minister how well this centre has operated. Has there been a good response among the residents and grassroots leaders towards this centre? In particular, how has the Centre coped with the disputes sent to it, whether these disputes have been settled amicably and what lessons have been learned from its operations? Also, in relation to the recruitment of mediators, last year, I spoke about the need to involve the grassroots leaders in the mediation process in any neighbour dispute. I should like to know whether action has been taken to involve more grassroots leaders in the mediation process. Are there any facilities set up to train such mediators? In these days of economic stringency, I am concerned that the mediation programme may be set back. I would like to ask the Minister whether there will be more centres in the pipeline, especially as mediation is now growing in importance, and social disputes are becoming more in number when economic circumstances are less favourable. Apart from community mediation, I understand that there has also been mediation undertaken by the Singapore Mediation Centre set up by the Academy of Law for commercial disputes.”
“May I say, Sir, it brutalises the society to see that caning of this nature is one of the policies of the Government. Advocates who are urging the abolition of the death sentence have called the death sentence "state murder". Similarly, this imposition of caning by the state may be characterised as "state violence" upon the individual. As I said, it brutalises our citizens. It lowers their resistance to resorting to violence in their own relationships with others. And I did not inform the House that under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and under the covenants, caning is not encouraged or is prohibited. Governments are urged not to resort to caning or to any violent punishment. And indeed the European Court of Human Rights has taken it much further. It has declared corporal punishment, not only of persons who fall foul of the law but even of schoolboys, illegal as it violates the human rights of the child or person. 4.45 pm As I have said in a number of other things, there should be greater public awareness of what should our policy be on caning. I think it is time that we moved on and not stick to the old idea of punishment, but to see whether our present system of punishment is fit for a civilised society and whether it serves the purpose. I hope the Ministry will take steps to initiate public discussion among our citizens on the punishments that are being carried out, because it is very much a matter that concerns our people. If that is not possible, will the Ministry consider setting up a committee to study the whole question of sentencing policy that we adopt in this country? It is not a matter that should be just left to one or two Ministers or even to the Cabinet.”
“Sir, my subject is how we treat or deal with those members of our community who fall foul of the law and have to be dealt with. And of course, I am speaking of our sentencing policy in Singapore. Under our present provisions, there is an increasing number of offences which carry mandatory sentences that are determined by the legislature. I can see the need for a mandatory minimum sentence in some cases. But this should be left or kept to a minimum. For one thing, mandatory sentences take away the function of the Judiciary whose functions it is to determine what the proper sentence is. So I would urge the Ministry to consider whether they are perhaps going over board in trying to provide mandatory sentences for very many offences. But a more particular concern of mine is the sentence of caning that is now being inflicted on a great number of our offenders and even where they have committed offences of which violence was not a major part or even a minor part. Mankind has come a long way from the time when it treated its prisoners inhumanely and cruelly. There was a time when they were put on the rack. There was a time when they were made to do hard labour and we even had hard labour in our laws at one time. But as I said, we have moved on. And it has been said that one indicia of a civilised society is to see how it treats its prisoners and people who have fallen foul of the law. The caning that we carry out, as I am sure everyone knows, is not the caning that is carried out in schools or even in boys' institutions where boys are kept. This caning that is carried out in the prisons is designed to inflict as much hurt as possible upon the individual and to leave scars. This has been acknowledged as being the aim of the caning sentence.”
“I think there should be clear discussion on these subjects. I do not know why it is not possible for the Ministry to put out a White Paper on the defence of Singapore, so that these questions that I have asked are discussed openly and that the people could see the need for spending what we are spending. It is already, as I said, much higher than almost all other countries in the world, except for 25 countries. I would urge the Minister that we should not just follow what may have been our policy in the 1960s and a little beyond that. Times have changed. The world has become a safer place, and this region has become a safer place. Where it used to be a troubled area, there is, comparatively, now peace in this area. So what are we preparing for? Should we not, first of all, outline what our objectives are in our defence expenditure?”
“Sir, after hearing the last three speakers, I am sure what I am going to say must sound treasonable. But, nevertheless, I propose to say what I wish to say on this subject. But, first of all, may I assure the House, although I do not think it needs any assurance, the Workers' Party does not for one minute suggest that we should compromise on our defences and our capabilities. But the question is: has there been clear thinking about what the objectives are and where the threat is coming from and how best it could be met? The Minister says in his Budget Statement that the Government is prepared to commit up to 6% of its GDP on defence expenditure. Sir, I have made a study of 167 countries on their expenditure and the ratio it bears to the GDP. I find that among these 167 countries, only 25 spent more than Singapore on their defence expenditure as a proportion of the GDP. May I say that these figures are for 1996. But these countries where they spend more are in what has been known as troubled spots, the Middle East, in Central Asia and in other countries where it is recognised that troubles are brewing. Is this region a troubled spot? We must, first of all, try and formulate what are our objectives in our defence. What are the threats that we may encounter and where will they come from? 2.30 pm A number of countries whose spending on defence is much less than Singapore are committed to peace-keeping operations which require them to send their troops outside to keep the peace. I do not see Singapore has ever been called upon to send its troops on peace-keeping operations. So what do we see the need in Singapore? Do we see a need to keep ourselves in readiness for threats from our neighbours or threats from elsewhere? And if so, what would be the nature of the threats?”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, do you think you could allow me my questions? We have had a lot of time with the Ministerial Statement. The Chairman: Yes. But you also took part in it. Dr Lee has withdrawn her amendment. The House has already agreed . The sum of $147,697,030 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $26,922,700 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head K”
“And the larger Ministries are also invited to set up information booths at the seminar. So you get a sense before you apply, what it is about. Normally before a scholar accepts a PSC scholarship, PSC staff will meet him or her to answer any queries he or she has about the public sector career. And where it is appropriate, PSC will ask some officers from the relevant Ministry to meet the scholar, normally to provide further information. And students are advised to think very carefully before accepting a scholarship offer. Finally, PSC runs a mid-course scholarship programme for scholars in their second or third year. The programme includes a two-week attachment with the potential Ministry. In the case of Mr Hector Yee, you will see from the chronology, he was awarded the scholarship in 1995, 2.5 years ago. In 1996, he was attached for a summer attachment to NCB and it was in November 1997 when the idea of continuing on to graduate school arose. So we do make the utmost effort in order to manage the scholars on a constructive and proper path, but unfortunately it does not always work. As for the lighter touch, we are looking for a softer touch in our hands, not gone soft in our heads.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say I found all this very interesting. But what emerges from all this exchange, and it seems to me, is that the Chairman of the EDB was telling Mr Chng Hee Kok and making it clear that it was Government policy to hold these bond holders and that if he felt very strongly about this, then perhaps he should resign. I do not see what is wrong with that. Will Mr Chng Hee Kok now consider resigning from the Party? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, just to respond to Mr Leong Horn Kee on what we do to discourage bond-breakers. He is right that if you just toss a young man into an alien environment and leave him there for three, four years, after quite a short while, his views will be influenced and you will find you have a different person on your hands. Many parents have found that when they send their children overseas. So we take a lot of trouble to make sure that, firstly, we choose the right people. Secondly, we explain to them the nature of their obligation which they are entering into. Thirdly, to keep in touch with them while they are overseas. And finally, if they have particular problems or needs, to address these, and do our utmost to accommodate them so that there is a fit for them and a fit for the organisation. We do not just take scholarship applicants off the streets. PSC organises a scholarship seminar every year in January or February for JC 2 students and their parents, because parents are a critical part of this. And at the seminar, PSC scholars who have started work, we will brief them about their careers and the different PSC scholarships. In other words, the older generation of scholars will come and explain to the younger generation what they can expect.”
“Is the Minister then saying that there is really nothing anyone is going to do except to pray for the rains?”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister whether his answer to Mr Chiam is the correct answer? It is no good saying that Mr Chiam should go to Jakarta to find out for himself. Has the Minister asked for reports from the Indonesian government on what they are doing to enforce these laws? Has he had a report from them?”
“But now, we have been told by the Malaysian government that it has no intention to cut off the water supply. So will the Minister consider waiving even that little bit, cutting off the water tax, because that affects almost every household in Singapore? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Budget should address all sections of the community. As I said, we have no quarrel when it addresses the concerns of the business community. But it abysmally fails to address the concerns of the workers and of those who are not well-to-do. And it is, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in many ways a very disappointing Budget. As has been mentioned, the business community is not exactly clapping. Nobody is clapping at this Budget. It is unfortunate that the Minister has missed the many opportunities that were open to him and to the Government to show that it was concerned about the economy and its effects on the people and that it would take into account the hardships of our people and that is why I call this a most disappointing Budget we have had for many, many years.”
“Is that all the help that the Government proposes to give to people who are going to find themselves without a job and are unable to make their ends meet? Is there nothing else that this Government can do? There was a wonderful opportunity for the Minister and for the Government to do something, not just for the wealthy but for the entire country, and that was to suspend the Goods and Services Tax for the period of the recession. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we were opposed to the Goods and Services Tax. We called it an evil tax, an unfair tax. But the Government proceeded, and the result was an immediate increase in prices of everything. Of course, retailers and manufacturers had to put up their prices if they have to pay the Goods and Services Tax. And I see that it is now a good earner in revenue for the Government. For 1998, it is estimated at $1.95 billion and it has gone up by $90 million over 1997 and it is the third biggest earner in tax revenue. I was curious to see that there was another item "Other Taxes" which brought in $2.3 billion. I wonder whether the Minister would explain what these "Other Taxes" are. And again, the fees and services collections account for a very significant portion of the revenue. May I ask the Minister: was suspension of the GST ever considered at all? Even if it was not thought possible to suspend the whole GST, was any thought given to exempting the tax from basic necessities like food and clothing and education? What about the water tax? Was any thought given to suspending the water tax and other taxes on basic services provided to the people? We were told that the reason for the water tax was because there was a threat to cut off our water supply.”
“I had asked the Minister for Labour to let me know what is being done by the Government on retraining and his private secretary rang up to say, "You can't have it now. The Minister will be giving an answer in the House on Monday and you will have it then." I have not been able then to study the Government's plans on retraining. So it is very difficult for me to speak on that. But I think Mr Chiam has already touched on it slightly, and that is, it does not seem really to provide for the situation that we are facing at the moment. A lot of it is left to the employers or the agencies outside and the Government itself is not controlling the retraining of workers. The Finance Minister went on to speak about the United Kingdom rolling back on welfare. I think the Minister was a little unfair. If he had studied what the Labour Government in the United Kingdom has planned, he will find that it is not just rolling back welfare payments for workers but has prepared well thought-out plans and schemes to find employment for those between 18 and 25 and for those who are over 25 who have been unemployed. There are booklets available and perhaps the Minister should look at them. Why cannot the Singapore Government do something on those lines? Then there is the relief or help for those who lose their jobs. All the Minister can offer is the rent rebates and the service and conservancy rebates and the utilities rebates. But the rent rebates and S&C rebates are lower this year than what they were last year. For 1- and 2-room flats, the S&C is reduced by one month. For a 3-room flat, it is reduced by 1� months. For a 4-room flat, it is reduced from one month to _ month and for a 5-room flat, it is reduced from one month to � month.”
“I was told the other day, when I was at Ang Mo Kio, of a company telling one of its workers that either he took a pay cut or face losing his job. How is the Government going to protect the workers' jobs? Has the Government any plans to stop employers from taking advantage of the recession to terminate the services of workers who have been with them for years and employing cheaper labour? During the last sitting of this House, when there was a question from my Party Member to the Minister about paying retrenchment benefits to workers who have worked for more than 10 years, the Minister of State said that there was no need for any legislation. May I tell the Minister for Labour and the Government that if there had been some legislation protecting the workers' rights by requiring employers to pay compensation for unfair termination, employers would not be trigger-happy, to use that term, to lay off their workers. But we do not have any such law and, as I said then, our workers are completely at the mercy of the employers. What is the position of our workers vis-a-vis foreign workers? Are they going to lose their jobs in preference to foreign workers? Sometime ago, I thought I read about the Secretary-General of the NTUC, who is also a Cabinet Minister, saying that it would not be right to expect companies to keep Singapore workers and only get rid of foreign workers first. Across the Causeway, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I see the government has announced its intention to keep strict watch on companies laying off workers by requiring them to explain the proposed retrenchment. Does the Government here propose to do anything like that? Then there is the question of retraining of workers.”
“I say this because it seems to me that not enough thought has been given to what we are spending on the administration. I have taken the Prime Minister's Office as an example. Now, may I move on, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to my Party's concerns in this Budget. Several speakers have spoken of the concern of the business sector. I am not here to say that we should not take care of the business sector. They are most important. But at the same time, I think one must not forget that labour has an equal part to play in the economy and in attempts to resuscitate the economy. And as I said, my Party is concerned about the effect on the workers. Before I come to that, may I also mention something which I have overlooked, and that is, the total absence in this Budget of any cost cutting measures on the part of the Government. Mention has already been made of no announcement of JTC and HDB decreasing their rental charges or that they have any intention to do so. Neither is any mention made of the amount of revenue that is collected by the Government in fees and licences. Do we still have to maintain these high fees and licence charges when the businesses are finding it difficult to make their ends meet? May I now move on to the Party's concern. The Minister says again, in his Budget, that our priority this year should be to protect jobs. We say amen to that. But look through the Budget Statement and we see no word at all of how the Government proposes to protect the jobs of the workers. As was mentioned by the Singapore National Employers' Federation in their statement on 4th March, the rate of unemployment has increased this year and several speakers have mentioned this.”
“The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau investigates allegations and complaints of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, maintains records of persons investigated by the Bureau and provides screening services to public authorities and authorised organisations." To administer this programme which, as I have read, includes, among other matters, administering the State Arms and Flag, the National Anthem Rules, allocating state cars, the elections programme and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, we are told that the operating expenditure should be raised by another $7.55 million. And we are told also that this programme is administered by no less than four Ministers, one Senior Minister (this post has been vacant for the last two years but apparently it is considered necessary to have a Senior Minister as well, besides the four Ministers), one Minister of State, one Parliamentary Secretary and two Political Secretaries. Really, Mr Deputy Speaker, do we need six Ministers to administer the work programme that I have just read out? And I see that, of the increase in the operating expenditure, it is the expenditure on political appointments that has gone up by $4.4 million from 1997, and it has gone up by $7.4 million from 1996. I see the Prime Minister has left the House, but I was hoping we would hear from the Prime Minister, because the Finance Minister may not be in a position to answer this. Why do we need all these Ministers to administer this programme? Is this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a case of Parkinson's law in operation? And do we still need nannies for the Ministers to oversee what the Ministers are doing in their own Ministries?”
“All right, Sir. I am sorry. But may I also then move on to the other observation that I wish to make, and that is this. He says in his Budget speech that the Government is keeping a "tight lid", a cap on operating and development expenditures. And he goes on to say elsewhere that it was the Government's "deliberate policy to keep the public sector lean and trim". Having said that, if one looks through the Budget, one finds that the operating expenditure has gone up by $1.12 billion over 1997, and that is, after the Minister says it will be the policy of this Government to keep a tight lid on expenditures, particularly operating expenditure. I have no quarrel with the increase in the development expenditure, but this operating expenditure. I look at the expenditure for the Prime Minister's Office. And I see the operating expenditure there has gone up this year by $7.55 million. I also read what was the work programme under the Prime Minister's portfolio. And if I may read from the Budget book, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir: "The work areas under the Administration programme include providing administrative support to the Prime Minister, Senior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, administering the Singapore State Arms and Flag and National Anthem Rules, allocation of state cars as well as matters relating to National Honours and Awards. The Elections programme covers the production and public exhibition of the registers of electors, maintenance of the electoral database and conduct of elections in an election year.”
“A thought passed my mind and that was whether the Finance Minister was perhaps getting a bit too old in being Finance Minister, or getting tired of it.”
“Maybe afterwards. May I move on to the Budget because we are allowed half an hour for the Budget speech. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I make a few introductory remarks about the Budget before I come to the specific concerns of my Party on this Budget. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.35 pm One is that, reading it, it sounded to me more like the 1997 Budget. It seems to be a rehash of the 1997 Budget. It read more like the 1997 Budget than a Budget for this year. The other observation that I wish to make is that, as has been mentioned by a number of speakers, the Government's assessment of the impact of the financial turmoil in the region on Singapore seems to be different from that outside the Government. The Government would appear to take the view that Singapore should come off quite well without getting hurt too badly. But that does not appear to be the view of the people in the business community and outside. We only had the statement of the Singapore National Employers' Federation on 4th March, replying to the head of the NWC saying that there should be no cuts in the basic pay. The Federation's reply was that it was too early to say pay cuts were not necessary and that some companies had already taken the step to cut the pay of their executives. This is something that was lost on the Deputy Prime Minister when he replied to my motion about six weeks ago. Because he seemed to think there were no pay cuts outside the Government and Government should not move in first. So there are these conflicting views. And as has been expressed, this Budget would appear to be not alive to the seriousness of the economic crisis that faces us. I get that impression. It seemed more alive in the 1985 Budget but not in this Budget.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I move on to speak on the Budget, may I just say a few words about how refreshing I found Dr Tan Cheng Bock's outburst on, what I guess, an attempt to silence even an MP speaking up. I do hope that Dr Tan Cheng Bock would accept the invitation of the Leader to move a motion in the House that Singaporeans should not be admonished or stepped down for speaking up, and he will find in me a ready supporter. I await the motion from Dr Tan Cheng Bock. Dr Tan Cheng Bock rose ---”
“Sir, if I may revert to the Minister's reply to my question on delaying the implementation of the ERP for motorcycles, would he agree that his answer is really no answer? Because in the case of road tax, they might probably have already paid or it may not be due for some time. But in the case of ERP, it is a present-day charge, that they keep paying every day when they have to go through the gantry.”
“Will the Minister agree that motorcycles are used by the working class and people with low incomes to get to work? In view of the possible pay cuts, even in basic pay, and their loss of income, why should the Ministry not consider deferring the implementation for motorcycles at least, until the situation improves?”
“May I ask how much of this has been brought to the notice of the workers?”
“As I understand from the Minister, 80% of the cost will be funded from the Government. Is it the intention that the retrenched workers should bear the 20%?”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister by way of clarification? I understood him to say that if videotapes were allowed in the elections, and he mentioned one, two, three constituencies, it would transform the nature of this House. I take it that the Minister says we would then have more opposition Members in Parliament. And he says that the damage would have been done. May I know what would be the damage if you had more opposition Members in Parliament? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Sir, I was not saying that at all. If we had political videos, Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam may not be in this House. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [BG George Yong-Boon Yeo]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. TELECOMMUNICATION AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“About issues. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: On political issues, in places of worship. Mr Jeyaretnam's position on this is clear. Our position on this is clear. I think the majority of Singapore's position on this is also very clear. So too our proposal here to exclude film as a very poor medium, and a degrading medium, for political debate in Singapore.”
“But if it is just a fringe activity, firstly, I do not think we will take notice, and secondly, if it is unbiased and takes in all views, I think that may well qualify as a reporting rather than anything else. The key is: is it partisan? Is it biased? Is it intended to influence an election, or legislation? An MP asked, "Why not have more civic participation? Why not have a Select Committee?" There are so many consultation boards in Singapore that I have quite lost count. In my Ministry alone, we have proliferated. So have the other Ministries. Many Singaporeans complain that they are being asked to sit on so many boards and so many panels. Far from it being that we do not consult, if there is a criticism now, it is perhaps that we consult a little too lightly and too frequently. Is this somehow a restriction of free speech, free debate, in Singapore? Recently, the two major financial television channels merged, ABN, which is owned by Dow Jones and TCI, and CNBC, which has a joint arrangement with Microsoft. They merged and they decided to keep as their common entity, CNBC. CNBC was based in Hong Kong, and ABN in Singapore. The merged entity would be called CNBC. They decided that it should be based in Singapore and not Hong Kong. If we blithely enact laws to prevent debate and free speech and the education of our people, would big international media corporations like Dow Jones and TCI and NBC have taken such a position? But this does not mean that we should not be masters of our own destiny and shape the evolution of our own democracy. Once again, I thank Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam for providing contrast to our argument. He asked why we should separate religion from politics, by which I infer that he would encourage monks and priests and ulamas to talk about politics.”
“It is not, in non-party political fields, to do anything more than what we are doing now. Mr Chiam and Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam suggested that we are denying high-tech to the opposition. You will remember that some years ago, I caused the Young PAP to start an Internet web site, knowing full well that we would have to eventually regulate political web sites on the Internet. Letters which Mr Jeyaretnam complains are not being printed in the Straits Times, he is quite free to post them on his web site. Singaporeans are free to click in on his web site and be moved by the force of his arguments. I would suggest to members of the public from time to time to scan political web sites to see what is on them. If our political parties are really so deprived, so excluded from all channels of communications, so denied of free speech, you would have thought that their web sites would be flourishing centres of debate and discussion and enlightenment. Are they? Some Members have also asked, "We already have the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the Internal Security Act. Are they not enough?" In an election campaign, you cannot lightly use the Internal Security Act because it would be immediately misunderstood. If you use it after the elections are over, the damage is already done. It is a blunt instrument. We need something finer. Dr Toh See Kiat asked whether the definition of political films would somehow prevent discussion on animal rights or about the moral issues concerning cloning or whatever. It depends on the actual facts of the situation. If animal rights become a gripping political issue in Singapore, and all political parties take positions, then, yes.”
“But we are talking principally about films, about people coming together for a group exhibition being moved together one way or another. Why the heavy fine of $100,000 and up to two years of jail sentence? Because the impact during an election campaign can be dramatic. Let us say, $2,000, as proposed by Mr Chiam. Election day minus two, you suddenly mass-distribute throughout Singapore in key constituencies and you swing the public vote, whether PAP or opposition. And we transform the nature of this House. After that, you can pay the fine. But the damage has been done. The damage can be dramatic and catastrophic. So there must be no doubts in people's minds as to the seriousness of this offence. Of course, if this is done years before an election and under less serious circumstances, I am sure the judge would take it into account. But the purpose of having a high maximum is because in an election campaign, the consequences of such a wrongdoing can affect gravely our country. A number of Members have asked, "Why can't we just restrict the definition to films made by political parties? Then it is a simple definition. It is clear. I am not a political party. I do not make the film. That's that." But imagine if we had confined it in this restrictive way, and you are a political party desperate to win votes and wanting to use film as a way to win votes, what would you do? You get your friends outside the party to produce and to distribute the films. You do it in the Workers' Party, the SDP will do it, the PAP will do it. This is why the second limb has to be constructed because if you do not construct the second limb, that wider definition, you cannot maintain the position in the first limb. But the intent is clear.”
“Singapore's own brand of democracy. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Every society treats film as a special category, because it has a mass impact which books and other forms of broadcast do not have. For television, we are watching different channels. We watch desultorily. I may be in the toilet, I may come back with popcorn. There is no focused attention. For books, we read different books. For Internet, there are millions of web pages. But when you gather a group of people together in a theatrette or an amphitheatre and watch the same drama, by words, pictures, music, sound, you can bring everyone to laughter and tears into their eyes or you can arouse in them deep hatred and a desire for revenge. The communists and the fascists work this into an art. In China today, the whole of China, in a year they show 200 films. They treat the cinema hall as they do the television station. Every year, we show over a thousand films in Singapore. We consider them mostly entertainment. But in the wrong hands, films can have a powerful impact. It is for this reason that over a period of time, in all societies special laws have been enacted to govern the making, distribution and production of films. This is why this Act is different from, say, the Publications Act or the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act or the Singapore Broadcasting Act. Many Members have talked about whether somehow we would stop having discussions on television, whether party political broadcast would cease, whether we would stop foreign views coming in through SCV. None of it. Because the Act makes it very plain that it does not cover broadcasting. We are talking about films and its variants, videos and new mutants on the Internet.”
“Singapore's own democracy. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Yes, which allow Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam to now make this interruption.”
“For obscenity and violence, detailed guidelines have been drawn up and this is also my answer to the NMP, Claire Chiang. If a film is made, which inflames public emotions, let us say, the Indian Army's storming of the Golden Temple in Amritsar, we will have to look at it very carefully. If it is inflammatory or incendiary, we would have stopped it. That's that. This is because the public interest requires it. But in this particular case, because it affects the evolution of political debate and discussion in Singapore, we thought it better to have a full airing so that we all know why we are doing this. It is not because we have to, not because we are under pressure to, but because it is good for the development of our democracy in Singapore.”
“Keep it to an encounter of ideas so that Singaporeans will decide whom to vote for, whom to represent them in this House on the basis of ideas. Because it was a very serious matter, I put it up to the Cabinet. We had a discussion in the Cabinet. Then my Ministry issued a policy instruction to BFC to say, "Look, we should not allow the making and distribution of political films." So the SDP's application was turned down. That was in July 1996. At that time, we had three SDP Members in this House. We had a Member from the Workers' Party. Did anyone of them raise a single question and cause the matter to be debated? Not a word. If it was such an important matter, so crucial to the outcome of the election, all of them would have jumped up and down. Did they? The records speak for themselves. We could have gotten by, I could have gotten by, without tabling this Amendment Bill because, under the existing Films Act, we are able to ban political videos, and that's that. But why then did we decide to enact this amendment? In order that we have this debate in the House today. Because it is such an important matter, and is a matter which will recur, it is very important for the public mind that we know what the issues are, and if Singaporeans are excluded from using film as a medium for political debate, they know why. I was under no pressure from the opposition, or from anybody for that matter, to enact this amendment. Mr Simon Tay asked, "If politics, why not race or religion?" In fact, the Films Act does not explicitly state the grounds on which films can be censored. We inherited this Act from the British. It is left open so that internal guidelines would build up over a period of time.”
“It is an art form. They will teach us all kinds of new tricks, how we should sit down, how we should look when the TV camera pans at us, how many seconds of sound bites we should plan for, what kind of particular spin to give to every political ball that we kick. It is not good for the political process in Singapore. We will reduce it to the selling of detergent. Every evening, when we watch the television, toothpaste, detergents, soaps, hamburgers, any number of reasons attractively put across. With ditties our children are able to reproduce with accuracy. If the quality of our democracy in Singapore is reduced to that, our democracy would be debased. That was the question we had to ask ourselves: should we or should we not encourage this medium in Singapore for political debate? If we do, then all of us are in. Mr Simon Tay talked about unequal impact. If we are in, I think the PAP would not necessarily be disadvantaged, because you will need money, and because of our wide base of support in Singapore, we are likely to be able to raise more money than the opposition can. But to its credit since 1959, the PAP has never used the financial hurdle to keep out the opposition from this House. Till today, does it cost a lot for Mr Chiam and Mr Low Thia Khiang? Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam has a different problem because he skirts on the margin of libel and so gets caught out from time to time. But did it cost Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong a lot of money to get voted in? Did they have to be businessmen? Did they have to be independently wealthy? You can get in today on a shoe-string if you can win the hearts and the minds of the people of Singapore. And that is what it should continue to be. Do not make it show business.”
“The media is up there to report on everything that is happening. You do a political video, we worry about sound bites. We watch the tone of our voice. We smarten ourselves up. We distribute. You distribute. To whom? I do not know. We distribute. To whom? You do not know. After a while, members of the public, receiving all these versions, will develop a very cynical view of who we are. We are not film stars. We are not TCS stars. We are here elected by the people of Singapore to discuss serious matters. And when we have a debate, let us have an encounter, a meeting. If you object about something written about you in the newspapers, you write in to rebut. You write something scurrilous or libelous in a political newspaper, the offended party can require you to clarify, if a case can be put up to the judges. On television, do we really want political parties to have the right to buy commercials? You know how expensive TV airtime is. In America, before you think about running for elections, you first ask yourself, "Can I raise the money?" And the financial hurdle is enormous. We are a small city state. Even if there were a massive power failure and there is no television and the telephone lines are dead, within a few hours, from one end of the island to the other, from Changi to Tuas, the grapevine will operate. Singaporeans are not ignorant. How could we be where we are now as a major financial trading centre in the world if we are an ignorant people, if we are as suppressed the way Mr J B Jeyaretnam would have us believe? But if we allow this medium, what happens? We will all become entrepreneurial. There will be any number of PR men in Singapore or foreign consultants offering their services to us. You know, in America, it is an industry and they are very good at it.”
“There is no need to define it at this point in time more clearly. Internet broadcast will be covered under the Singapore Broadcasting Act. These are some of the clarifications which I owe Members. I would now like to talk about the special amendment to ban party political films. In 1996, around March, Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP wrote to BFC to ask whether he required a licence to distribute political videos. BFC said yes. Then he submitted an application. This is the first time anything of this sort had happened in Singapore. For those Members who talked about this restriction somehow affecting fair and free elections in Singapore, we have had free and fair elections all these years in the pre-video age. I do not think with or without this provision, it will affect substantially the way elections are conducted in Singapore. The Chairman of the Board of Film Censors, sensing that this is a new area, referred the matter to the Ministry and asked for policy guidance. There were two approaches we could have taken. We could have allowed political films. If we had allowed party political films for the SDP, then naturally the Workers' Party and the PAP would all have jumped in. Right through the nine-day campaign period, we would all be busy putting on make-up, combing our hair, dressing up, appearing in political videos and distributing them to Singaporeans in order to win votes. Or we could say, do we want everybody to jump into this new medium? The question we have to ask ourselves is: will this new medium improve democracy in Singapore or degrade it? The advantage of having a debate in this House is that there is an immediate encounter. A point is raised, a point is rebutted. Views are immediately clarified.”
“The only recourse we had in the past was between giving them a warning and withdrawing their licence, and we felt we needed something in between. A number of MPs asked whether the proposed changes would somehow stifle the arts or stifle the growth of the film industry. Not at all. In fact, what we have tried to do is to clarify a particular area about which I will talk in greater detail later. But our objective remains the same, which is to promote the arts and to promote the film industry. In fact, it is the plan of the Ministry of Information and the Arts to form a Films Commission under the National Arts Council specifically to help promote the growth and prosperity of the film industry. Films like Twelve Storeys will not be affected. The same process of consultation between BFC and the trade will continue. If you are not sure whether a film will infringe censorship guidelines, you can consult the censors. They will give you advice. They will say, "These are the benchmarks. These are the things we have allowed in the past. These are the things we have disallowed. So please adjust accordingly." And we also have a system for classification. Whether films to educate members of the public produced by Ministries will be affected, no. It is clear in the Bill that Government films are exempted from the provisions of the Act. Dr Toh See Kiat asked some questions about definitions. "Election" is separately defined in the beginning of the Bill to make it clear that it does not refer to elections for private clubs or whatever. The definition of "broadcasting" is the dictionary definition, which is if you broadcast programmes, television or radio, by wireless or by cable. It is a simple definition. It suits our purpose.”
“How did I lose? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: He came in here because of a provision we made to ensure that there will always be a lively debate in this House, and for which I think we are all happy that he has spoken his piece, somewhat tediously perhaps, but still by the extreme way he has presented his views, he has helped to clarify the landscape. Now our main positions have emerged and everything else in between are details. Sir, I am very grateful to many Members of the House for spending time looking into the details of the Bill. I have no doubt that all those who spoke spent a lot of time checking the Bill, the original Act, looking for inconsistencies, checking definitions in the Bill with definitions in other Acts. It shows how important this Act is to us. Before I touch on the rather controversial amendment on party political films, let me first clarify some of the other issues which were raised. By and large, Members supported the other amendments, but there were some questions raised which I feel I ought to respond to. Mr Chew Heng Ching asked whether the threat to forfeit all or part of the deposit might somehow inhibit the growth of the film industry. Not at all. The purpose is a practical one. It is in response to a practical problem. Ever since we introduced R(A) rating in our cinemas, we have required cinema operators to check the ICs of young people who buy tickets to ensure that they are above 21 before they can watch R(A) rated movies. Sometimes they have been lax and young people have gotten in. So this is to ensure that they can be fined, that a penalty can be imposed upon them when they have not kept to the conditions of their licence. It is an administrative thing, a provision which we have not had in the past.”
“All right, Mr Speaker, Sir. What I will say to the Government is this. Why do we not be honest? Why does the Government, the PAP, not say that our brand of democracy - because that is what it has often said - that Singapore's democracy is something quite different. Our brand of democracy will not permit opposition political parties to put forward their views, unless the views conform to what we say are the stated goals and objectives. Then at least one can say that the Government is being honest about it. At the moment, a lot of Singapore is pure pretense, pretense that we have got democracy, pretense that people are allowed free discussion on matters that concern them, pretense that we have a responsible press, pretense that we have a responsible trade union movement. This amendment Bill seeks only to strengthen the PAP's hold on Singapore, and that clearly seems to be the object despite all the high-sounding words that have been said to justify the amendment to ban all party political films. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is our brand of democracy that has enabled the NCMP to be here in this House to speak on this Bill. He opposed the NCMP provision, in case we forget. He lost in the election at Cheng San.”
“All right, Mr Speaker, Sir. What I am attempting to say is that this amendment drives another nail into the coffin, an attempt to kill all political activities in Singapore. That is what I am attempting to say here, that one by one, all political activities are being killed off in Singapore. And it may not be very long before we have another Bill presented to this House which will perhaps even prohibit the publication by a political party of any newspaper or journal because it may contain issues concerning the people which might arouse their emotions. I can see that coming with this Bill that seeks to ban films put out by a political party to educate the people on any issues in Singapore. The speakers who spoke after the Minister also made a number of assumptions which I do question. As Mr Chiam has already pointed out, an assumption is made that elections in Singapore are free and fair. Knowing how elections are held in other countries and how elections are held in Singapore, may I say that elections in Singapore are not free and fair. They are anything but free and fair. Then again the assumption made by a number of speakers, that there are other areas for serious discussion. But no attempt is made to try and define where these areas exist. There are no areas for public discussion of issues in Singapore. Has the PAP made any attempt to call a public meeting of citizens to discuss any policy or Bill that they propose to bring into Parliament? Have we heard of any such meeting or read of any such meeting? This Bill and the way it has been introduced demonstrates that only too clearly. This is a momentous decision, to stop one form of political activity.”
“I am dealing with suppression of political activities. This is one of them.”
“It is again based on the fallacy that religion and politics are two distinct and different things, forgetting that religion has to do with the citizen's views and attitudes to the society around him. That is what politics is all about. So you cannot divorce religion from politics. Then there was the onslaught against the opposition political parties. It is very difficult for anyone who has not been in any opposition party to know the difficulties and problems that are put in the way of opposition parties. We are not allowed any public meetings other than the meetings perhaps on National Day or Labour Day.”
“At one time, Mr Speaker, Sir, there was some freedom in the press. It tried to be a responsible press. I recall that, before the 1959 elections, when the then Secretary-General of the People's Action Party was threatening fire and thunder against the press because he thought they would be advocating wrong ideas, they sent their representative to Helsinki to protest against this intention announced by the Secretary-General. But after the PAP took over, by a number of manoeuvres, the press have now become mere propaganda agents for the Government. What real opportunities are there for serious political issues to be debated or advocated through the press? We have in the Party sent a number of press releases, I have written a number of letters and a substantial number of them never see the light of day. It is probably because they all have got to be cleared first. So the press have ceased to play any part in providing a forum for political discussion. Then there is the clamp down on professional and religious organisations. One by one the professional bodies were told, "You are not to concern yourself with any issues that may concern Singaporeans. You are only to concern yourself with matters that affect your members." And so the Legal Profession (Amendment) Act was passed which forbade the Law Society from commenting on any Bill that was to be presented to Parliament unless the Bill had first been sent to them for their comments. And then there were the religious bodies. Now we have the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and under which any cleric can lose his licence if he dares to comment on any issue that may concern the Government.”
“I really wonder whether the Minister has thought about what he is saying that there are enough opportunities provided in Singapore for political discussion. The PAP's record, ever since it took power in 1959, is one to stamp out political discussion, to stamp out any raising of issues by people who feel concerned about what is happening in the society. Why has this Government continued and strengthened the Internal Security Act when previously there was an appeal to an independent board from any detention? This Government took away that appeal and so it has a very effective tool in silencing any discussion on politics in Singapore. As I said, the record of this Government is one of deliberate and systematic suppression of any political debate or discussion in Singapore. Politics has become a dirty word in Singapore, and we see it here, it is to be lumped with obscenity. That is the place for politics in Singapore, not anywhere else. After the PAP took power in 1959, they began a deliberate and systematic suppression of the institutions in Singapore that may provide opportunities for political discussion and debate. I do not propose to dwell at length on this track record of the PAP. But I wish to highlight to Singaporeans the principal ways in which they went about this. The trade unions were brought under control. Trade unions were not allowed to express any views on issues that concerned the people at large. The trade union movement was put under a man of their own party who was brought out from Malaysia to lead the trade union movement. And after him, the trade union movement has been put into the care of a Cabinet Minister. So what freedom was there left for trade unions to express their views on matters that concern the society? Then there was the press.”