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 19 of 82.
“We have the Undesirable Publications Act today which also tries to creep in that direction. Yes, in the pure world of cyberspace, they all converge. But in the real world, it will take some time before they converge and it will take some time before our wisdom catches up with the challenges posed to us by this new technology. So it is in that spirit that I table this Bill to you for your support and approval, not to ask for a change of policy on censorship, but please, to allow me to amend the law so that we keep up with the technology, so that we can maintain as best we can the level of censorship that we are used to and which our community is comfortable with. Of course, from time to time, our standards will change and shift. Lady Chatterley's Lover, once upon a time, shocked the community. Today, it is a subject of historical study. So we move on. Every 10 years, perhaps we take a step back. We appoint an ecumenical council, gather all the Bishops together and say, "Okay, let us make new pronouncements." But we cannot be doing this year by year. In the meantime, we have a system which has worked well, which is practical in its administrative simplicity, which has served us well. And why do I say that? Because so few appeals in the end come up to me, which is a sure sign that, by and large, Singaporeans are quite comfortable with the way the present system is operating. Mr Chew Heng Ching asked whether this Bill will place additional burdens on Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In fact, ISPs are regulated in detail under the Singapore Broadcasting Act and they are not required to blank out sites unless instructed to do so by the Singapore Broadcasting Authority. We allow them to pass through websites, but there could be a conflict with this particular Bill.”
“The purpose of this Bill is not to review censorship provisions or to change the way we censor books or comics or publications. It is to catch up with multimedia technology, and catching up with multimedia technology is breathtaking. I think all of us, as individuals, find it hard enough, and trying to maintain a certain level of censorship in this day and age with the Internet, with CD-ROMS, with VCDs, is an uphill task. So we have got to adopt a very practical approach in the way we go about doing this. The purist would say why not we start afresh. As Prof. Chin said, how can there be a distinction in the electronic media between film, publication, video and so on. That may be. But frankly, the Internet phenomenon, for instance, which is a very recent phenomenon, has exploded so rapidly that no jurisdiction in the world, no regulatory authority in the world, has been able to fully catch up with it, and the debate is still swirling in all four corners of the earth. So what is our general approach? Our general approach is not to try and clean up the universe and anticipate all problems caused by the electronic media. That is not possible. Our basic philosophical approach is to creep. In other words, where do we start from? We are used to films. And in the old days, a film was a film. It was a simple world. Now films have become electronic. Films are no longer on reels. They are on videos. They are on CDs, VCDs, LCDs and what have you. So what we have tried to do is to creep from various acts into the electronic media. Recently, we updated the Singapore Broadcasting Act to take into account some of the new multimedia. We have the Newspaper and Publishing Act which also creeps into the electronic media. We have the Films Act which creeps in the same direction.”
“It is not the intention of this Bill to re-calibrate the general policy of censorship in Singapore. This issue we reopen once every 10 years. We had a review in 1981. The last review was by Prof. Tommy Koh in 1992 and, in that review, they went through the full range films, magazines, newspapers, the performing arts. And many Members are not aware that in fact there is quite an elaborate mechanism to help the controllers. Assisting the controllers, we have in fact an Advisory Panel consisting of a large number of individuals drawn from a broad cross-section of our society, men and women, different religions, different age groups, different professions, different marital status in order that for different categories, like for cartoons and for different language publications, we have a group of fair-minded jury men who will advise the controllers on their work, their internal guidelines and these guidelines are reviewed from time to time to adjust to changing mores and to the changing patterns in the industry. There is a provision for appeal to the Minister. In fact, very few appeals come to me. And even when they do come to me, I would always cause it to be referred to a Publications Appeals Committee chaired by Prof. Eddie Kuo. And it is very rarely that I disagree with their recommendations. I am not sure if Members or indeed members of the public are aware of who are in the Publications Appeals Committee and the Advisory Panel. I think I would now ask my officers, in order to reassure members of the public and Members of the House that in fact these decisions are not taken in isolation, to publish a list of all those who are involved and they are long lists consisting of very upright, fair-minded people in the community.”
“I would urge the Minister that he should not move on to the Third Reading of the Bill this afternoon but that he should refer the Bill to a Select Committee now so that the views of the community may be heard as to what they think of the Bill and its definitions and, particularly, people from the literary and artistic bodies, cultural bodies and educational bodies be heard on what should be considered as objectionable or even obscene. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a difficult question to decide what is obscene. To many, it would appear that the human body itself is obscene if there is a drawing of the human body. Is that what we consider obscene? Sometimes, I am surprised when persons are charged with an obscene act where it would appear that displaying the human body is considered to be an obscene act. So my plea is that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee and the views of the community heard and that we should not rush into passing this Bill this afternoon. But if that is not possible, then consideration should be given to finding other ways than to consign the judgment on these matters just to a single person. And even if that is not acceptable, consideration should be given to providing for a system of an appeal to an independent board or body that will then be able to pronounce on it. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to thank Members for making very thoughtful and helpful suggestions on the Bill and for the general support of its provisions. First, let me take Mr Chew Heng Ching's basic question. Does this Bill signify a change of policy on censorship? I think that is the key question we must ask. Are we tightening or are we loosening? In fact, it is neither.”
“How is he going to determine the standards of morality accepted by reasonable members of the community or will he impose his own standards of morality, decency and propriety and say, "That's it. This is what I say should be your morals and you comply with it." Equally, under sub-paragraph (c), he is asked to decide whether it has any merit, value or importance in relation to literary, artistic, social, cultural, educational, scientific or other matters. Is he equipped, Mr Speaker, Sir, to make this judgment? Mr Speaker, Sir, it is time for us to trust our people to take judgments on what is good for the society as a whole and not to continue to behave as though the members of the society cannot make any judgment or decision for themselves but everything must be made for them. I think it was not very long ago, the Economist wrote about the Singapore nanny. I think perhaps we can try and do a little less with the nanny taking charge of everything for the people. There have been suggestions that perhaps a committee should be set up now which will decide questions of morality and other questions as to whether any views or books are likely to cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups. So I would add my plea, the plea that has been made, that the questions that I have raised should not be left to the decision of one person but it is time that we set up a board of persons. We have the Inter-Religious Advisory Board. We have other boards. Is it not possible for us to get their help to formulate standards of morality and decency that the society should follow?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the last speaker in his comment on clause 3 of the Bill on the meaning of obscene, called it archaic. It is almost impossible for anyone to really understand what is meant by a publication that tends to "deprave and corrupt persons". It is an all-catching phrase and there are no criteria set out as to what should be considered as depravity and what should be considered as corrupting persons. And there is nothing in this Bill which says who is to decide what is obscene. There is, of course, a new section 2B, under clause 3, which leaves the question of determining "objectionable" publication to a person authorised by the Minister. As I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, the main object of this Bill would appear to me to consign all our reading materials, all our materials that we see or hear, to the judgment of one person. Is this a fitting way to prepare us for the 21st century? It might have been all right in the 18th century or the 17th century. But is that how we are going to regulate society in the 21st century that decisions about what a citizen shall read, hear or see should all be left in the hands of a single officer? As someone had said, is this Bill retrogressive or is it progressive? Certainly, if you look at the control that is to be given to one particular man to decide what society shall read or hear or see, it is retrogressive. It does not take into account the concern of the society and what the society thinks. Let us look at the definition of "objectionable". In clause 3 (new section 2B(2)(d)) any publication would be considered objectionable if the officer takes the view that it offends the standards of morality, decency and propriety that are generally accepted by reasonable members of the community.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think much of what I wanted to say has already been said by other speakers. But I do wish nevertheless to lend my support and voice the concerns that have been expressed by several of the speakers who spoke on this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Amendment Bill now seeks to assign or to confine to persons, or a person it may be, to decide what we may read, what we may see, or what we may hear. It would appear from the Bill that the community is not to have any say on this, because there is no provision made for any appeal. There is no board, as it were, that is proposed which may hear any appeals from any decision made by the Controller or any authorised officer. So the society is not to have any say at all in what it sees, reads or hears, but it has to be determined by an officer. We know not what the age of this officer will be. He may be a fairly young man who is charged with the task of deciding what is good and what is not good for the society to see, read or hear. The Act itself contains in section 3 a very wide blanket power given to the Minister to prohibit any publication which he considers contrary to the public interest. And that itself is without any appeal to either the courts or to any body set up to consider the Minister's decision. So I would have thought since the Government already has this all-embracing power given to the Minister, objectionable and obscene publications could just as well be brought under the scrutiny of the Minister for him to exercise his power under section 3 of the Act. But now this Bill proposes to add two other definitions, "obscene" and "objectionable" as matters on which the decision of an authorised person is to be final.”
“But really the point is multi-culturalism and racialism as concepts should be practised every day of the year by all Singaporeans, and not to have a day when we say, "Let us be reminded that we should practise racial tolerance or appreciation of each other's culture." The other point of course is, in Singapore, over time, even for different festivals, whether it is Lunar New Year or Hari Raya or even Deepavali, Singaporeans of all races now visit one another, greet one another and, in that sense, reinforce the concepts that Mr Chiam, and I think rightly so, says are important. And indeed, if you want to look at one day which would draw all Singaporeans together, that must be National Day which reminds us that we are one people, one nation.”
“At the moment, we have 11 days set aside as statutory public holidays. Should we have one more, the number of public holidays would be 12 a year. This is not too many when compared to the public holidays of other countries. I have looked up the number of public holidays of 18 countries. Australia has the lowest number of public holidays, at eight days a year, and South Korea has the highest, at 20 days a year. The average number of public holidays per year of those 18 countries is 13 days. Should we increase the number of public holidays to 12 a year, we would still have less number of public holidays a year than the average number of public holidays in those 18 countries. Sir, if this suggestion is taken up, the additional public holiday should be fixed in a month in the latter half of the year, because almost all our present public holidays are bunched up in the first half of the year. There are no public holidays in the months of July, September, or November. We could fix a new public holiday in one of those months. Sir, I hope the Minister would give this proposal his serious consideration and amend the Bill to include a Multi-cultural Day as a public holiday. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first, let me reply to Mr Jeyaretnam. I have checked this matter with the courts. The Bill will not change the current practice of the courts, which will remain. The other point is the suggestion by Mr Chiam to have another holiday in Singapore. I think all of us want more holidays. But the point is whether we ought to have more holidays. The specific suggestion he gives is to have a Multi-cultural or Multi-racial Day.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have only got a question now for the Minister of State. He says there will be an amendment to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and the Subordinate Courts Act to permit the courts, I take it that they will be open, to transact any business. But what I wish to know from the Minister of State is: will this Bill affect the present provisions as to the filing of documents in court and the time prescribed under these rules? As the Minister of State may probably be aware that, under the rules, where the number of days is below a certain number, then the dies non do not count. May I know whether it is intended to do away with all that now? Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I have a question first. It would appear that with this Bill, Sunday is no longer a sacred day, ie, just like any other day. What about people who continue their building construction on Sundays in a residential neighbourhood? This can be very disturbing to the people around there. Is there any provision to prevent people from continuing in the construction of their houses in residential areas on Sundays? Sir, my party recently suggested that an additional day be observed as a public holiday to remind Singaporeans that we are a multi-cultural society. A multi-cultural society means that we are a multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious society. Racial harmony is important in Singapore. Yet, we do not have a public holiday to remind Singaporeans of this important aspect in our way of life. We should have such a public holiday. This new public holiday could be called Multi-racial Day or Multi-cultural Day. I think Multi-cultural Day would be a suitable name. Singapore can afford to have an additional day for a public holiday.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister says that Singapore does not tell other governments how to run their own business. I hope that it is followed by other Ministers as well. But leaving that aside, I do not understand why if Singapore is going to help Indonesia, what is the sensitivity or the reluctance to state Singapore's views on something that Indonesia is planning to do? It is not telling them how to run their country, but to give them our advice. May we know what Singapore's advice is? Secondly, the Deputy Prime Minister says if it is the law, we will come to Parliament. May I ask him: what is the law? Because we had an opinion from the Attorney-General when I asked a question about the loan. So what is the law? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, if what Mr Jeyaretnam says is true, we would not need a Foreign Ministry; only a newspaper to publish our views. There are many dialogues, discussions, consultations between us and other governments, some are sensitive, some are top secret, some we can discuss more openly, some we publish in communiques. Not everything is put out in a communique and we do not express all our views publicly. As for the law, we have verified the position and we have the powers under the MAS Act to give the guarantee and there is no requirement to come to Parliament.”
“It is Parliament's approval I am asking. BG Lee Hsien Loong: If the law requires us, we will come to Parliament. If not, we will act within our powers. On the decision whether Singapore will give such a guarantee if others participate, as I have explained, this is a matter which is still a concept, because the others are now waiting to see how the currency board issue will develop, what the outcome will be, and whether there will be a central bank if a currency board is set up which will guarantee the letters of credit with whom we can deal. If not, the scheme will be unable to proceed. If the scheme can proceed and other countries agree, and since we have suggested it, I think there is a good likelihood that we will participate as well.”
“What are the Singapore Government's views? BG Lee Hsien Loong: We do not go round telling other people how to run their country. We are busy enough running our own. The Prime Minister has stated that there are certain preconditions which a currency board requires in order to have a good chance of success. These have been reported in the newspapers. You must have adequate reserves, there must be confidence, your interest rates should not be too high and you must have a strong banking system. It is the state of these preconditions which I think has caused the IMF to have some reservations as to whether this is the right time to proceed. But finally, these are sovereign judgments which the governments have to make, and in this case, the government of Indonesia has to make. So we will have to wait and see what they decide. As for the guarantee by the central bank, in Singapore, the Monetary Authority of Singapore is de facto the central bank and if we participate, the guarantee will be given by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. Will these be public funds? Yes, of course, the Government has no private funds. Will we go to the President? That is the question which we will answer because Mr Simon Tay has asked.”
“May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister not just one question, but three questions. First of all, I am not quite clear as to whether he has stated what is the Singapore Government's stand on this proposal to set up a currency board. What is the Government's view on it? Does it support the proposal or does it oppose such a set-up of a currency board? May we know from the Deputy Prime Minister about that? The second question is, as I have understood it, this guarantee is to be given by the central banks of the other countries. In Singapore, who would that be in giving the guarantee? Would public funds be tied up in any guarantee given? Thirdly, has any decision been taken, if other countries participate in this scheme, for Singapore to give such a guarantee? I know there is a Question on whether the President's approval will be sought. May I know whether it is the intention to seek the approval of Parliament before any guarantee is given? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of whether Indonesia should or should not have a currency board is one which is for the Indonesian government to decide.”
“It is not a question of Workers' Party or not. It is a question of properly accounting to the public. How do you arrive at the costs?”
“Does the Minister agree that most of the land for HDB flats was acquired three or four decades ago at a pittance?”
“May I ask the Minister when did HDB acquire the land? Was it not acquired many, many years ago? Or was it just recently acquired? Mr Lim Hng Kiang: The land on which HDB flats are built comes from different sources: some are acquired, some are reclaimed, while some are crown land reverted to the Singapore Government. HDB purchased land from Land Office at the market rate, based on the location, size and density that we are allowed to build. So every year, HDB will buy land from the Land Office and the land prices will reflect the attributes of the site and location.”
“Is the Minister saying that the accounts of these Government-owned companies are reflected in the Budget? Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: The accounts of the companies are reported in their annual reports. Please read them. SECOND CAUSEWAY (Agreement on scale of fees) 3. Mr Zulkifli bin Baharudin asked the Minister for Communications whether there are any agreements between the Singapore and Malaysian governments on the scale of fees to be charged to motorists using the second causeway and whether the Singapore Government had considered the amount of fees to be charged when the decision was made to construct the second causeway. The Minister of State for Communications (Dr John Chen Seow Phun) (for the Minister for Communications): Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Inter-Government Agreement (IGA) for the Construction of the Second Crossing, each government may independently levy any toll on vehicles using it. The Second Crossing is a project jointly developed by Singapore and Malaysia. We had no specific tolls in mind when we decided to construct the Second Crossing. Malaysia has announced that it would be collecting toll from motorists using the Second Crossing. Singapore has also announced that it will do the same. For a start, we will peg our toll rates to Malaysia's toll charges. We hope that Malaysia will decide on tolls that are fair and reasonable taking into consideration the investment in the bridge and its ancillary facilities, as well as the need to optimise traffic flow across the Second Crossing as well as the Causeway.”
“He talks about overall reporting. Is there any overall reporting to Parliament?”
“But I am concerned with protecting the public's monies.”
“May I ask the Minister how does this answer reconcile with his earlier answer on Micropolis about the accountability of Government-owned companies because they are dealing with public funds?”
“I am saying you could, could you not? You have BG Lee and his wife, I take it, is the Chairman of the Board ---”
“I would ask the Minister not to be personal.”
“A final question, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is the Minister saying then that even if there is a high risk, Government-owned companies will still go into the acquisition or take-over, in the hope that they can turn round the company and make profits? We are dealing with people's money. The companies are trustees.”
“May I ask the Minister whether after it was decided to wind up Micropolis, a statement was made or a report was submitted to this Ministerial Committee to examine the acquisition of Micropolis by Singapore Technologies?”
“May we know from the Minister: is the Cabinet at all informed or consulted before Government-owned and Government-linked companies take over or acquire other businesses? Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: The answer is no. In a general response to his question, there is a Ministerial Committee set up to oversee very large investments exceeding $500 million acquisitions, and this is chaired by DPM Lee, Minister for Finance is a member of the Committee, DPM Tony Tan is also a member, the Minister for Trade and Industry and BG Yeo are also members. But this Committee only concerns itself with very large acquisitions of $500 million or more and particularly with reference to overseas investments where there may be political overtones. Other than that, the companies themselves have their own boards and they are responsible for making their own decisions on a commercial basis. It is not feasible for Government to nanny every company it owns. Do not forget that Temasek Holdings, which is a Government-holding company, has shareholders' funds totalling $34 billion, and it is making profits averaging $1.6 billion per year over the last 10 years and it includes a huge stable of companies of large size, eg, SIA, DBS, and so forth, and they all have responsible boards who take investment decisions on their own after consulting with their professional advisers.”
“May I know who finally makes the decision for Singapore Technologies?”
“May I ask the Minister, particularly in the case which we were discussing yesterday when Question Time came to an end, in regard to Micropolis, from whom did this company seek any advice, if it did, that is, before Singapore Technologies acquired Micropolis?”
“No. I am going to speak on a different matter.”
“We will be our own masters. Mr Speaker, Sir, I regret that no attempt has really been made to grasp the point that I was making. Instead of that, a lot of irrelevant statements were made. The point that I was making is simply this. It is not that the Attorney-General is wrong and that we are right, but the point that I was making is: was the Government seen and manifestly seen to have acted within the terms of the Constitution and that could only have been demonstrated if the decision had been referred to the tribunal and the tribunal had said, "Yes. Of course, in our view, the Government has acted within the law." That is all I was asking. What is the great reluctance on the part of the Government to refer the merit to the tribunal? Question put, and negatived. Motion accordingly negatived. ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“What he was affirming again was that the convictions were not before the Privy Council and, since it had not been set aside, the convictions still remained. Of course, that is true. But the Privy Council itself said that they hoped - they did not say in so many words - that the President would do something about it. But the President of course refused to do anything about it. Finally, may I just deal with Mr Jayakumar's reply. He was not replying to me but he was replying to Mr Simon Tay. He says that when the Government amends the law following any decision by the court, it is not meant to show any disrespect to the court. May I remind him whether he has forgotten that after the decision by the Privy Council, immediately the first thing the Government did was to pass a law abolishing all appeals to the Privy Council from lawyers who have been found guilty or who have been disbarred, preventing them from taking it up to the Privy Council. Is that not a decision taken in pique just because the Privy Council had the temerity to comment on the decision? Equally, was that not the reason for the decision to exclude the courts from inquiring into the merits of detention under the Internal Security Act taken out of pique because the Court of Appeal had said the courts can enquire into the merits? The Court of Appeal was only following what had been established in so many other jurisdictions that the freedom of a subject is so vital that the courts have to determine and remain the final judges on whether the imprisonment or detention is illegal. They overruled the 1942 decision taken in the war time that it was for the Executive to decide that. But of course the Singapore Government could not accept all that. So the immediate answer was `out with all appeals'.”
“Again, may I say I am surprised at what I have heard. Perhaps, I should say, first of all, what was before the Privy Council was not the order of convictions made by the criminal court. What was before the Privy Council was the order of the High Court disbarring me from practice as a lawyer. So that was what they were hearing. And as they themselves observed, they had the power to set aside that order and they set aside that order. They had the jurisdiction and I am sure the Minister of State for Law must know this. That even before that decision, there was a High Court decision in Singapore which said that the court listening to a disciplinary proceeding against a lawyer can, in proper cases, go behind the convictions. So that was established as the law. And the Privy Council said, "Of course, that is the law. In proper cases, we can go behind the convictions." So they had the jurisdiction and they went behind the convictions, acting perfectly within their jurisdiction. But they said, "Unfortunately for this man here (I was there at that time) we cannot set aside the convictions because the convictions are not before us." But that does not make it any less a decision of the Privy Council on those convictions. They were saying the convictions were all wrong. And that was the reason for setting aside the order. I am glad the Minister has now referred to this judgement of Justice Brooke. Justice Brooke is just an ordinary judge of the High Court of England. He does not rank above the Privy Council and he is being quoted out of context by the PAP leaders time and time again. He was not saying that the Privy Council was wrong in saying that the convictions were wrong.”
“He is a member of the Executive. He is the chief legal advisor. He touches on the decision of the Privy Council and, if I understood him correctly, he says the Privy Council has no jurisdiction to examine convictions. I am surprised that the Minister of State makes the same mistake that has been made over and over again by others. Is the Minister --- Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Deputy Speaker, can I just clarify on this point? Like I said, first, the case has been fully ventilated in the press, exchange of letters, in this House, and the Government's position has remained consistent all this time. As regards the comments made by the Privy Council in relation to Mr Jeyaretnam's criminal convictions, these comments are not binding on the Government because the Privy Council was not seized of the matter, ie, criminal convictions, they were examining Mr Jeyaretnam's appeal against his debarment. And the Privy Council, in its judgement, said as such that the comments could not overturn the criminal convictions. And in fact, the position taken by the Government was also backed up by comments of an English judge, Justice Brooke, who agreed with the points made by the Government. So it is not just a matter of the Government or the AG making these points, but even an outside person.”
“Well, I will do. But that does not necessarily mean because the Attorney-General gives his opinion, and to you, it is crystal clear, or to the Government, it is crystal clear, that the Attorney-General is right, with due respect to the Attorney-General. May I just answer this point on which clarification was sought. Of course, the Workers' Party can ask for a declaration by way of an action in the High Court. But there is already provision in the Constitution, there is this machinery set up. There is a tribunal. Why should we be asked to go by an ordinary action in the High Court when it is the tribunal which has been invested with the powers to determine any opinion as to what an Article in the Constitution means? I do not quite understand the suggestion that you can go that way, you can go this way when already the way has been provided for you. There is one way set out for you. [Interruption by Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee.] Whether it is the Workers' Party or not, would the Government concede, please, for the last time that this is a matter of public concern? The public wants to know whether in agreeing to give $8 billion loan to Indonesia, the Government acted under the Constitution. Is it a matter for the public, for the taxpayers? Or are you saying it is only a matter for the Workers' Party? The Workers' Party tries to represent the people. It does not act as though it is a law unto itself. The other point is this. He says that the AG is not a member of the Executive, if I have understood him correctly. He says he is the chief legal advisor. Does that mean he is not a member of the Executive? He can be a legal advisor but does it not mean he is a member of the Executive? What is he? A member of the Judiciary? Or is he a member of this Parliament?”
“The provision has to be made in the Budget. The money is not taken from any other assets or reserves, for these car loans. So the Attorney-General is clearly wrong on that. It is so elementary to me that he overlooks that that would have been included in the Budget. And is the Minister --- Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee rose ---”
“So the Cabinet has to advise him to refer the matter to the tribunal. And so ultimately it is a decision for the Cabinet to take. The Minister says, "Oh, we got the opinion of the Attorney-General. It is so crystal clear to us." It completely misses the point I have tried to get across. It is not for this House. It is not for the Attorney-General to say what the law means. He may have his views like anybody else. But he may be wrong. He is not infallible. And as Mr Simon Tay has rightly pointed out and underscored, the final arbiter of this question is the Judiciary. So what is wrong if you feel that you are right, that it cannot be wrong? What is so very difficult about referring it to the tribunal and getting them to confirm that you are indeed right, that the Government is indeed right? But as I said, it is not for us here to decide. I know Mr Simon Tay says that he now thinks the Government's interpretation is right. It may well be right. I do not know. But I said, let us have a decision by the tribunal which is competent to decide this question. The Minister says, "Will Mr Jeyaretnam take the trouble to read the opinion?" I have not gone through it very carefully but because he picked out paragraph 8, he says Mr Jeyaretnam's interpretation is wrong because if he is right, it would mean that the Government may not give car loans or computer loans to civil servants. Well, I was amazed to see that because I would have thought that provision would have been made in the Budget every year. Provision would have been made in the Budget for car loans in Ministries and Government offices, and the Budget would have been passed by Parliament and then assented to by the President. So there is parliamentary approval for loans to its officials to be made by the Government.”
“We said that we did not want to be burdened and simply because the Government knows the Workers' Party does not have the funds to pay the cost and no one will help us with these funds because of the climate of fear in Singapore. So we are not ashamed of the fact that we cannot ourselves bear any cost. But one would have expected the Government to have said, "Yes, please do, we will let this matter be decided without costs becoming a stumbling block." But, no. The Minister very conveniently forgets what I have pointed out, which I later realised, that the Workers' Party could not have taken this to the tribunal. It had to be only by the President but Simon Tay also knows that the President acts on the advice of the Cabinet. He is required to act on the advice of the Cabinet. Some hon. Members: No.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not intend to keep the House very long in my reply because I think I can deal very shortly with all that had been said by the Minister of State. But before I begin to reply to him, may I say I resent his descent into a personal attack by saying that I am moving this or asking for this because I am craving for publicity. I have heard this several times. That is always the standard reply of the PAP if somebody asks for anything, "Oh, he is craving for publicity." They forget that the Ministers and the PAP occupy the whole of the media space and time. So they do not crave for publicity but anyone who tries to question anything craves for publicity. So I do resent this. It casts doubts on my motives and on my sincerity which I do resent very strongly. And he also goes on to suggest that I am being hypocritical. I have heard this so many times. It is nothing new. But I find it surprising that it should come from this Minister of State now. May I now reply to his points. The Minister refers to the press releases by my Party and the answers from the Ministry of Law and he says it is an absurd position taken by the Workers' Party to ask for costs. May I say this. When replying to the Ministry's statement made in the first instance that it was always open to the Workers' Party to refer the matter to the court, I had overlooked quite candidly Article 100A of the Constitution. And so we said, "Yes, all right, we will take it." But we do not want to be burdened with the costs of it, if we should be proved to be wrong. We are quite happy to admit that we may be wrong. We do not take the stand of the Government that it is always right, that nobody else can be right.”
“You got me completely wrong. I will reply to you. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: All right. It is very clear. The grounds are there. The matter before the Privy Council in that case was disbarment, not the criminal convictions. So whatever comments the Privy Council made on the convictions were not binding, and the Privy Council, in fact, said that. Also, because the Public Prosecutor was not present, important points of law were not argued. These are just examples. The main point that Mr Jeyaretnam wants us to look at is really the motion. I do not think we should be side-tracked by these examples which I have said are old examples. He would like us to re-visit these issues, but they are really all in the books. Government stands by what it has said in the past which is totally defensible. Therefore, Sir, once again, I urge this House to reject the motion. Let me conclude by affirming that the job of government is to govern. And we will govern effectively so as to safeguard our interests domestically, in foreign relations and defence, and we will do this in a manner and in the best interest of Singapore, and in accordance with the law. If it requires getting the President's approval or coming to Parliament to pass laws or debate policies, we will do it. But if it requires decisive Executive action, as was the case for the loan because timing was a consideration, then we will continue to take such decisive actions. [Applause].”
“1988, not 1987. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Thank you. The grounds have been fully ventilated. Indeed, this was debated in this House in January 1989, when the Minister for Law answered a question raised by Dr Lee Siew Choh on this matter. So it was fully ventilated. The grounds are very clear. In fact, the Privy Council, as Mr Jeyaretnam said himself, had no jurisdiction in terms of commenting on the criminal convictions.”
“Before I conclude, I think Mr Jeyaretnam will remind me of one more example he cited, his own case in 1987. Here again, the grounds have been fully ventilated.”
“But let me ask him: has he once stood up for the Judiciary? On the contrary, the Member was censured by this House in 1987 which found him guilty of abuse of the privileges of Parliament in his allegation of Executive interference in the Judiciary. So he himself impugned the integrity of the Judiciary and Parliament punished him with a maximum fine of $1,000. I should say that he is the least qualified to talk of respect for the Judiciary. Sir, the position of the Executive, and indeed of this House, has always been that our Judiciary should be accorded due respect and its integrity defended. This is on record. It is very clear from Government's actions. We stand by the rule of law. We subscribe to the separation of powers and the independence of our Judiciary. Indeed, if Mr Low can remember - Mr Jeyaretnam was not here at that time - it was only a few years ago in November 1995 that the Government on that occasion stoutly defended the integrity and independence of our Judiciary. On that occasion, this House passed a motion denouncing the SDP for attacking the Judiciary. The message was clear. The greatest respect should be shown to our Judges. Even Mr Chiam See Tong - he is not here today - I think all of us remember that episode, he was then still an SDP member, stood up for a principle and defended our Judiciary, even if it meant disassociating himself from the then leadership of the SDP. He voted in favour of the motion. The Workers' Party, on the other hand, issued a statement that it would not participate in the debate and its sole representative in the House, Mr Low, abstained in the voting. Sir, therefore, I would urge this House to soundly reject this motion. It is baseless. It is mischievous. It is hypocritical.”
“Three. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: All right. Two instances as regards AG's role as Public Prosecutor, which is also set out in Article 35. We all know that the AG has got the discretion to prosecute or not to prosecute, and he will do that fairly, impartially. Sir, this point about PAP leaders not being prosecuted for acts done in connection with the last General Election, again, this has been fully debated in this House when the Minister for Law answered and gave a full reply. He also set out an opinion by the AG which again was made public. So it is examined by everybody why the provisions do not apply. The same argument applies to the Prevention of Corruption Act. Is it relevant? Is it applicable? The AG will have to decide, and he does this acting in his constitutional role of Public Prosecutor, acting fairly and impartially. Before I go on to the other point, Mr Low Thia Khiang talked about a loophole in the Constitution - can Government just lend money? The Government has the power to lend money, but, ultimately, I think he will agree that all of us know that the Government's actions are accountable to the people. So if we make imprudent loans and we cannot defend what we do, we answer for it in the next general election. So there is an element of accountability. And if you look at AG's opinion, he also mentioned Article 148G where the Accountant-General and the Auditor-General have the duty to advise the President should there be transactions or proposed transactions which to their knowledge are likely to draw on the reserves. So there are checks and balances, I would like to assure Mr Low. Then the question arises: is Mr Jeyaretnam therefore hypocritical in moving this motion? I ask this because he accuses the Government of not respecting the Judiciary.”
“It will then redeem itself in the eyes of the public. It will show itself as a Government that is sensitive to public opinion, that heeds the necessity to abide by the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Question proposed. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.22 pm”
“There are other instances where the Government and officers have not been seen and perceived to be acting within the law. It is my submission that, by so doing, the Government loses its credibility. It loses its moral authority to govern Singapore if it refuses to abide by the Constitution which is the supreme law and which binds the Government, Parliament and even the Judiciary. Any government which is sensitive to its role as a democratic government and observing the rule of law would only be too ready to submit its decisions for examination by a competent authority, competent to examine its decisions and make any pronouncement on it. But apparently, this Government is not prepared to do so. The Government behaves, as I said, as though it is a law unto itself. No one is right except itself. That, may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a very arrogant attitude to be taken by any government. So it is my plea in this House - let us forget about the other instances - that this question of granting the loan of S$8 billion or agreeing to grant the loan was taken in accordance with the Constitution be referred immediately to this tribunal. We cannot do it, as I said. The Workers' Party cannot do it. No member of the public can do it. The President, and the President of course acts, as he is required to under the Constitution, on the advice of the Government. So I do hope that the Government will reconsider its reluctance and have this matter now referred to the tribunal under Article 100A and if the tribunal wishes to hear arguments, we, in the Workers' Party, will be quite happy to appear before the tribunal and present what we think is the contrary argument. But it is the tribunal which has to decide that, not the Government. And my plea is that the Government should do that now.”
“And yet when Singapore's highest court, as it was in 1988, made a pronouncement that the convictions were wrong and that there had been a serious miscarriage of justice, how did the Government react to a pronouncement by its own court? Let it not be forgotten that the Privy Council, although it was staffed by Britishers, was Singapore's court set up by the Singapore Government to hear appeals and it was praised as serving a very useful task. And the reason given was that the Privy Council had no jurisdiction. The Privy Council itself admitted that it had no jurisdiction to set aside the conviction. We did not need the Government to tell us because the convictions were not before the Council. But the Privy Council had the jurisdiction - and this was not only a decision of the Privy Council, it was also the decision of the High Court of Singapore - that it had jurisdiction to consider the validity of the convictions in a related appeal. Having looked at the convictions and how they were obtained, they said that there was a serious miscarriage of justice. And the Government not only ignored the pronouncement but committed contempt of court, despite the then Prime Minister, now Senior Minister, saying before the Committee of Privileges in 1986 that if it was shown that there was any injustice, Parliament should ask immediately the President to set aside the convictions or to order a new trial. That apparently meant nothing. And then the Prime Minister when he went to Williams College committed blatant contempt of the Judiciary by saying they were playing politics. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have selected these four instances because they seem to me to be very glaring.”
“But section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is again explicit and it says, if I may read it, Mr Speaker, Sir: "Where in any proceedings against a person for an offence under section 5 or 6, it is proved that any gratification has been paid or given to or received by a person in the employment of the Government or any department thereof or of a public body by or from a person or agent of a person who has or seeks to have any dealing with the Government or any department thereof or any public body, that gratification shall be deemed to have been paid or given and received corruptly as an inducement or reward as hereinbefore mentioned unless the contrary is proved." So under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the decision is left to the court to determine so long as it is found that the recipient is a public official and the gratification has been received or agreed to be received from a body which has or would have dealings with the Government. And there was no question that the developer would have had dealings with the Government. And if one looks at the definition of gratification, it seems to us to be plain that the giving of the discount was covered within the meaning of the word "gratification". So, again, the courts were not given an opportunity to pronounce on this. Going further back, and this was of course in 1988 and it concerns me, the Government ignored a pronouncement of Singapore's highest court. Government wastes no time in paying lip service to respecting the courts and does not waste any time to punish anyone who it says is in contempt of the court.”
“That was made clear by section 39(4) which says: "The presiding officer . shall exclude all other persons", that is, persons other than those that I have mentioned. But when we complained to the Police, and it appeared to us that it was only the Police that could take action under this, we were told that the Attorney-General had ruled that no offence had been committed because the section did not mean what the Workers' Party was trying to say it meant. All I wish to say, commenting on it, is that I was told, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there was a story on the Internet. I do not surf the Internet, as they say these days. The story was about a boy who was caught by his mother coming out of a disco, and the mother seized the boy and said, "My son, didn't I tell you that you are not to go anywhere near a disco?" And the boy said, "But, mother, I was not anywhere near the disco. I was inside. So how can you say I didn't follow what you told me." That is the only comment that I wish to make. It seems to us plain that the Act prevented or prohibited persons, other than those I have mentioned, from being present inside the polling station. Then there was yet another matter on which the Government seems reluctant. And this was the question that I posed to the Finance Minister on the sitting on 19th November and emerged from it. I had asked the question whether section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was considered by him when he was asked by the Prime Minister to inquire into the purchases at Nassim Jade and Scotts 28 by the Senior Minister and DPM Lee. The answer given seemed to me to confirm that section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was never considered. And his answer was that it was not considered because nobody thought it had any application to the purchases.”
“If you want us to appear, we will be quite happy to appear, provided, in the event we are found to have been wrong in our interpretation, no costs are levied against us." It seems to be quite a reasonable request, may I say, on a matter which concerns our taxpayers. And it is not a trifling little sum that is in question. It is nothing less than S$8 billion. And so we went on, to and fro and finally the Party asked two questions: that the Ministry of Law should answer whether it was the business of the court to interpret or not and whether this was a matter of supreme public importance. We never got an answer to that. And, of course, the silence is deafening. The Ministry of Law could not very well come and say it is not for the court to interpret. So it is, I repeat, a matter for regret that on a matter like this, of supreme public importance, the taxpayers' monies of $8 billion, the Government is dragging its feet when it is suggested to it that it should get a decision from a competent tribunal which will be able to put this matter at rest. All we can say, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is to be deplored. But this is not the only instance, although this is the most outstanding or significant instance and of very recent memory. There was the question whether the Prime Minister and the two Deputy Prime Ministers had broken the law on polling day when they entered the polling stations. My Party had made a complaint that it was in clear violation of the section in the Parliamentary Elections Act. It seems to us plain that the Act prohibited any person other than the candidate and his polling agent or election agent and, of course, other than the election officials, the police and the voters, from entering into the polling station.”
“Thank you, Sir. As I was saying, we have a Tribunal. We know very little of the circumstances under which the loan came to be granted or agreed to be granted to Indonesia. Indeed, when I raised the question in Parliament, the Minister for Finance was not quite clear even as to where the decision was taken and it would appear that the decision was not really taken by the Cabinet itself but was taken by the Prime Minister in consultation with one or two other Ministers and later ratified by the Cabinet. But, as I said, we are not here to inquire into all that. The question that we are here to consider is whether in so doing the Government has complied with Article 144 of the Constitution. When my Party first raised this, the answer from the Minister was, "No, we have been advised that it does not apply because way back in 1980 or 1986 the then Presidents had approved purchase of Indonesian equities or securities." Then when my Party took this matter up outside Parliament, in press releases, we heard from the Ministry of Law that the Article should be interpreted in a particular way - I don't want to go into all that - and that we had got it grievously wrong in our interpretation. So we offered immediately and said, "All right. If you say we have got it wrong, why not let the court decide this." And as I said, there was a tribunal already in place which could have decided this question once and for all. The answer came back, "Oh no! We don't have to refer it. If you want, you refer it." Forgetting, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is only the President who may refer these questions to the tribunal. The Ministry of Law forgets this and says the Workers' Party can refer it. Then the Party said, "All right.”