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 21 of 82.
“Of course, there has to be a subsidy. No one doubts that. But the question is: is it something to be flaunted about by the Government saying, "We are subsidising."? Or should it not be looked upon as an investment of our monies in our people. That is what it is. It is not a subsidy. It is an investment of our public money in, what we have always said, our only resource available to us, our people. So the question is not whether it is a subsidy but whether we are making enough investment in our people who are our only resource available to us in this country. I have talked about the bed charges. May I talk a little bit about the outpatient charges? I have with me the bills that were rendered by the hospital to one of our senior citizens, 68 years of age, unemployed, no income at all, and I think he lives with his son and he had a sprain in the neck. He has to go regularly to the hospital because he suffers from other complaints. I think diabetes is one. But he has to go regularly to the hospital for check-ups. In June he had some sprain in his neck and he went to Tan Tock Seng Hospital where he was registered. For the three visits, he had to pay a total of $129.50. This is for outpatient charges. Of course, he had to find the money to pay. But he could ill-afford it because, as I said, he does not work. He has no income. I see the SGH consultation charge is $17 for subsidised patients. C class comes under subsidised patients. For every consultation he has to pay $17. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have also got the figures for a private hospital just across the causeway, not a Government hospital, not a Government restructured hospital. This is a specialist hospital in Johor Baru.”
“My Party, in making a public statement on this, suggested that if that was the real reason, ie, to teach Singaporeans that they have to conserve water, the Ministers should set an example and they should have the supply of water to their homes cut off for four or five hours a day. I see there was no response at all to my call. That would have taught our Singaporeans to do something saying, "There, we have our Ministers setting us an example. They realise the need to save water and they are prepared to do without water for four or five hours a day. So we also must play our part." But that was not responded. No other reasons were given because we have not been told that we have been asked to pay more for our water from where we are getting the water. Again, there is no explanation given apart from teaching people a lesson. May I move on to the hospital charges that we are charging? I have got that in the second half of my motion. Sir, I have got the schedule for hospital charges from the Singapore General Hospital, and for our C class patients, we charge the standard ward a daily fee of $25, and we add to that a daily treatment fee of $11. So that is $36, and it does not include any other examination or treatment that has to be done, such as X-ray examination, laboratory tests, specialised tests and service, and whatnot. That is for our C class patients, standard ward. Tan Tock Seng Hospital is a restructured hospital. I am not talking about private hospitals. The C class patients have to pay $30 $20 for the bed that they sleep on and a daily treatment fee of $10. Sir, again, if I may go back to the amount of time and labour that was lost last year in the Select Committee hearings into whether there was a subsidy or not in the health service provided.”
“Again, there is no explanation given as to why the fees have to go up for waste disposal. If I may give you my own example. I stay alone and because there is very little cooking that is done in my apartment, there is hardly any waste that is thrown out every day. Very little is put out by a maid who comes in about three times a week to do a little bit of ironing and cleaning the apartment for me. Yet, I see on my bill that my waste disposal charges are $21.60. I do not know why. I am not complaining about my own bill, but what I want to know is how this is arrived at. Next, the price of water. This, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we were told, was introduced to teach Singaporeans a lesson, and the lesson that Singaporeans had to be taught was that water is a precious commodity and it should not be wasted. We all agree with that. But who is being taught a lesson? Have we tried to think about this? Is it not obvious that the people who are being taught a lesson are the poorly paid, those who earn below $1,000 a month, those who earn, as I said in the Budget speech, $600 a month? They are being taught a lesson. How are our millionaires being taught a lesson? Will it lead them to use less water? Will it lead them to economise on the use of water? No. So it is our lower income citizens who have to be taught and punished. They have to be told, "You should not have too many baths perhaps, you should not be doing so much of washing, you have to cut down on all that now", whereas the rich people can go on using it and pay.”
“My party, as far back as 1976, has advocated that public transport be nationalised and given over to a Government statutory board with strict control over the fares to be charged. Are there no other ways of keeping prices down and allowing the companies to break even? Have all the other methods been examined? We do not know. Is the public not entitled to know whether all other avenues have been looked at and that the increase is the last resort and it must be taken if the bus and MRT services are to be maintained? Let us be open. We talk all the time about transparency and how open we are. But I cannot see anything open about these increases in public transport fares. Take taxis, for example. Taxi fares were increased because the companies proposed these increases. This is something which I have been speaking on for a long time. Why is it that individuals cannot be allowed to operate their own taxis? If possible and if they were allowed, the fares may not have to go up so much. But tied to companies, they find lots of reasons for proposing an increase in fares. Then there is the diesel tax the taxis have to pay which is about five or six times, I am told, the ordinary tax that private cars pay. Why is that necessary? Could we not put them on the same footing or even cheaper than private cars and private vehicles, and ask them to pass on the savings to the public? Have we looked at all these alternatives to try and keep prices down? Or are we only interested in collecting as much money as we can? Is that the whole purpose of government, to make as much money as is possible, so that we can boast of our surpluses, so that we can boast of our huge foreign reserves? [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 6.45 pm May I move on to the waste disposal charges?”
“The Prime Minister has made no bones about this. He says education is their top priority and they shall see that enough money is provided for the education of our citizens. So what are we doing in spite of our lip service that education is the key to our progress? In a number of countries, education is free in the universities. If I may move on to public transport fares. Because of the enormous cost of owning a car in Singapore, our citizens, especially those earning below $2,000 a month, are forced to rely on public transport, and our workers are forced to rely on public transport. And so it becomes absolutely necessary that these public transport fares should be kept to the minimum. We do not know why it was found necessary to increase the bus and MRT fares. There was a strange thing that happened. They used to say a strange thing happened on the way to the baths during the Roman times. We had CASE at first condemning the increases and then within a week doing a somersault and said they had examined and they found the increases justified. But the people have not been told why these increases are justified. Why is it that the companies are unable to keep the fares low and at the fares at which they were charging? Why is it necessary for them to increase the fares? Is it because they are perhaps spending too much on directors' fees? Or is it because their overheads are too high? Or is it because they have to pay dividends? Public transport is a public undertaking, and it is the last thing that should be run for profit. Profit should not be the only motive in running public transport companies.”
“These university fees which were announced on 19th March put an extra $600 for non-laboratory-based studies - Arts and Social Sciences, Business, Law, Accountancy. And that is only for this year. For next year, there is another increase of $600, so that it goes up by $1,200 from the present fee of $4,300 to $5,500. And then when we come to students doing Medicine or Dentistry, we put an increase of $800 for this year, 1997-1998, and then another $800 for the following year, an increase of $1,600. One of the reasons, it would appear from this report, is that the universities wish to attract foreign students. They want to increase their present intake of 10% foreign students to 20%. And what do they do for that? They lower the fees that foreign students have to pay. Foreign students, who now pay 50% more than Singaporeans if they are from ASEAN countries and 100% if they are from other countries, will now only pay 25% more than Singaporeans. That is for this year. For the following year, they will pay just 10% more. I do not quarrel with this. It will be good to have foreign students so that our students can compete with them and learn ideas that they bring into Singapore. But should it be at the cost of our students, our citizens? Are we looking to our students to subsidise the foreign students who are being taken into the university? It looks like that. I cannot, reading this report, see that there are many other reasons given. Of course, we know that the cost has gone up, but costs go up everywhere. And all universities do not immediately increase their fees. I know that in Britain recently, the new government has decided to revise university fees. But they have said people below a certain income will not be required to pay these new fees.”
“If I may move on to the economic basis for this motion and that is this. We heard the Minister for Finance not very long ago, last month, say how the workers have contributed to the progress of Singapore and the need to keep prices down so that we are competitive and we can continue to make progress. It is all well and good, we agree with that. But if we are going to keep wages down so that our prices are competitive, then is there not a duty on us to see that our workers do not suffer as a result of that policy, that they are compensated by the Government doing everything it can to keep prices of goods and services supplied to them as low as possible? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot increase charges to the public and then tell them, "Oh no, you must keep your wages down." I think I read sometime ago the Secretary-General of the NTUC,who is also a Cabinet Minister,saying it would be wrong to ask the companies to increase wages just because of these increases. So my third point on this is that it is economically sound. It makes good economic sense for us to try and keep prices of essential services to the people and, of course, when I am talking I am thinking of the workers, as low as possible. It makes good economic sense. If I may now move to the various items for which I have asked for a committee to be appointed. First, of course, is university fees. We again pay lip service often enough to the idea that education is the key factor to our progress, that unless our citizens are sufficiently educated, we will not be able to face the challenges that lie ahead in the 21st century. But we stop with that. And what do we do? We increase the fees for those who wish to improve themselves.”
“00 pm, running from one job to another. It is also reflected in the average monthly income and I am again quoting the table provided in the Household Expenditure Survey for 1992/1993. The lowest quantile, that is 20% of our people get less than $1,093 by way of household income, ie, earnings from all the members of the family. That 20% of our population's average household income is only $1,093. When it comes to the next 20%, their average household income is $1,891. If we take the mean, it comes to about $1,492. So you have 40% of our population whose household income is well below $2,000 per month. The third 20% average monthly income is $2,778. Some time ago, I think it was in the Select Committee proceedings of the last Parliament, figures were given that the average household income was something like $3,500. I checked this with the Statistics Department. I said, "How do you come to that?" And they said, "Well, perhaps, that is not quite correct because we were taking the top earners as well." And they said, "Well, we agree with you, Mr Jeyaretnam, that for 50% of the people, the household income would be well below $2,000 a month." So that is the position. So we are not an affluent society, Mr Speaker, Sir. Of course, we have got in our society people who earn a lot, our Ministers and there are others in Singapore who earn a great deal. But it is for our workers and our lower wage people that I am speaking, not for the million dollar earners and their like. It is my proposition in this House that about 40% at least, or even more, are going to find it very, very difficult to meet these increased charges. Already, life is difficult and, instead of making it easier, we are making it more difficult for them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, and I say it again, these increases strike at the pockets of our people and therefore why is it necessary for Parliament, the representatives of the people, to be consulted. It is simply because our citizens today find life very difficult, very hard, and it will be made harder by these increases. One of the words that is overworked in our society is affordable. Everything is affordable. And then we have the media reporting every now and then of an affluent society as though all our citizens are affluent. They have got money to spare. If I may refer you, Mr Speaker, Sir, to some figures I have to show how affluent we are in this society of ours. I realise that I have only got an hour and time is running and Members have been here for well over five hours. But I have to, if I am to do my work, acquaint the House with some hard facts and that is this. Mr Speaker, Sir, 47.05% of the total employees earned below $1,500 per month. I have not taken it out of my head. It comes from the Labour Force Survey for 1996. And then if you go a bit further up, what you will find is 62.5% earned below $2,000. These are earnings. 62.5% of our workers earned below $2,000 a month. And I do not need to remind the Members that $2,000 does not go a long way in Singapore. Singapore has now become one of the most expensive places to live in in this world. I have people coming from Australia, the United States, England and Europe, telling me how expensive Singapore is now. They are, Mr Speaker, Sir, appalled that there are still 47.05% of the workers earning below $1,500. And the question is how do they manage. Well, they may ask, "How do our people manage?" And they do that by holding down two or three jobs, moonlighting, working from 6.00 am perhaps to 11.”
“They should, on behalf of the people, question all decisions of the Government, particularly decisions that affect and concern them very deeply. They may not be interested, Mr Speaker, Sir, on the dissolution of the Port of Singapore Authority. They will say good. But what they are concerned with is their lives, their day-to-day lives, and how they are affected by decisions taken by the Government. I have brought this motion to ask that the people, our citizens, be allowed to have a say in all decisions that affect their pockets and that is what really matters and that can only be done if the Government brings all proposals for increases in services and supplies to the people, to this House, for discussion and ratification. If that is not done, Mr Speaker, Sir, it will be to treat Parliament as a body that does not matter. Mr Speaker, Sir, the efficacy of Parliament is not to be measured in terms of how many Bills it passes and how quickly it gets through its work. Today, we have seen no less than five Bills taken through their Third Reading. I doubt whether any other Parliament in any part of the world can equal this record. But are we proud that Parliament can pass five Bills all in one afternoon sitting? The efficacy of this House, the usefulness of this House, is to be measured in how it serves the people's interests, how it reflects the people's views, how it discusses their grievances. And so I say, Sir, that it is a sad reflection on our state in Singapore that these increases were brought about without so much as a "Aye" or "Nay" from our people. If I may move from the philosophical basis on why I brought this motion in this House to the need for this House to control increases, such as we have had, and to monitor and check all future increases.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I first of all propose to deal with the philosophical basis for this motion and the question there is, why am I saying that an All-Party Committee of this House be set up to examine all the increases that were imposed between the election and the convening of Parliament, and all future increases. Why this House? Because it has been suggested by, I think, a Minister that it is not for Parliament, it is for the Executive, and the Executive must take the decisions. It shows a complete ignorance of the accountability of the Executive to Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1954 when the political parties that were then in existence went to London for the All-Party conference to write a new Constitution for this country of ours, they were all unanimous in one thing, and that is, that our system of government should be a parliamentary democracy. And what that means is that Parliament is supreme, that Government should be made accountable to the people through Parliament. And it is Parliament that should be asked to vote on all matters that concern the people at large. In my first speech in this Parliament, Mr Speaker, Sir, I spoke about this being the House of the people. That was not rhetoric, Mr Speaker, Sir. It is the House of the people. It is to this House that the people will look to, as I said then, for the airing of their views, for their views to be heard and given adequate consideration. We pay lip service to the fact that Singapore is a democracy. But it is forgotten that if we are a democracy, then it is the people who are the masters, and the House of the people (Parliament), as the agents of the people, should exercise the power of the people.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That an All-Party Committee of Parliament with power to summon witnesses be set up to examine the justification for the recent increases in:- (i) University fees; (ii) public transport fares; (iii) waste disposal charges; and (iv) the price for water and to examine all future proposals for increases in:- (i) fees charged in all institutions of learning funded wholly or partly from public monies; (ii) charges for patients in Class C wards and those seeking outpatient treatment; (iii) public transport fares; (iv) charges for water and power supply and waste disposal; (v) fees charged by government departments and statutory boards for administrative services; and (vi) rents and selling prices of HDB apartments. Mr Speaker, Sir, when my Party contested the last elections, I promised the electorate that if we were in Parliament, I would table a motion for such a committee to be set up. Parliament, however, did not sit until 26th May this year, almost five months after Parliament was elected by the electorate. And in the meantime, during that period of five months, the opportunity was taken to increase the university fees, transport fares, fees for buses, MRT, taxis, and to increase the fee for the collection of waste disposal from homes and finally to increase the prices for water. There was no indication at all during the election campaign from the ruling Party that all these increases were in the pipeline. No indication whatsoever. Nevertheless, they immediately took steps to bring about these increases without so much as consultation or consent of the electorate. And it is in fulfilment of that promise that I had made to the electorate that I have now moved this motion.”
“Is there any appeal to a Judge of the High Court? That is what I want to know.”
“Point of clarification. I heard the Minister say that if the doctor pays up, he will not be deregistered. Is that provided in the Bill itself? Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng rose ---”
“Let us have some form of democracy in this place.”
“The other point that concerns me is this compulsory voting. I know we have had it in the Legal Profession Act for some years and the Minister says they have decided to follow what is in the Legal Profession Act. I did not know whether the Minister has consulted lawyers as to whether this compulsory voting has done any good to the legal profession. As I heard the Minister say, it is to encourage doctors to take a greater interest in the affairs of their Council and their profession. I am not sure that this compulsory voting that was introduced in the Legal Profession Act has had this effect. I know several lawyers who are not really interested in what is going on because they have a feeling that there is very little they can do about changing anything. So I do not know why we have to have compulsory voting for the doctors as well now. And the principle is you do not compel persons to do something. You got to treat our doctors, our lawyers, and our people as adults who would be able to make their own judgement. We do not have to spoonfeed them and say, "You got to do this. You got to do that. You got to do this, otherwise you're out." That does not make for a mature responsible society. So I would ask the Ministry to reconsider this compulsory voting as well. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, this provision for nominated members exceeding those elected members, as pointed out by Dr Tan, would be a great incentive for doctors not to vote or to spoil their votes. What good is it going to do if there is going to be an excess of nominated members on the Council, nominated by the Government, without consulting them? Will the Ministry see that all nominations are first submitted to the doctors to ask whether they agree with the nominations?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I indicated earlier, I had not intended to speak on this Bill, but having listened to the speakers in this House, I feel I should put in what they call here two-cents worth of my views on this Bill. There are some provisions in this Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, that again alarm me. One, of course, is this deregistration of practitioners who do not perform their bonds. If I may say so, Sir, it is a dangerous thing to do. It is to bring about a compliant society which we are almost becoming, and one sees it in other spheres as well. When somebody wants to renew their business licence registration, they are told, "Oh, you haven't paid up your CPF Medisave account. Unless you go and do that, we are not going to renew your business registration.", and it goes on. This is trying to produce a compliant society. I would ask the Ministry to reconsider this. There is sufficient punishment provided by the bond itself - the requirement that the doctor repays whatever has been spent in training him if he decides to leave the service. Secondly, and what is worse, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that there would appear to be no appeal provided. I have said earlier about the danger of giving Ministers too much power. There is also the provision, as I now heard, that if the Council refuses to register a doctor who seeks registration, there is no appeal again. It is a man's livelihood. Should he not have some redress? Should the Council not be asked to state publicly its reasons for refusing registration? And should that not be challenged in a court of law? Such a system, Mr Speaker, Sir, will point to a government and an administration which is accountable, which is prepared to submit its decisions to an independent body and particularly the Judiciary.”
“But here 70 statutes are involved which cover many provisions. If we were to amend each of them individually, it would be very taxing on parliamentary time. And in view of the nature of these amendments which are procedural and administrative, this is the approach we have taken. 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. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. SINGAPORE TOTALISATOR BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.05 pm”
“Sir, it is open to the judge in Singapore, when he decides a case, should there be a doctrine or a principle enunciated by a UK judge which is applicable in the Singapore context, he can apply it. I think there is no doubt about that. That is the first point I want to make. Very clearly, the purport of today's exercise is not to change the substantive law. And this, in fact, relates to the second point that Mr Jeyaretnam makes, because it is not a matter of transferring powers from the President to the Minister with regard to the powers set down in clause 7. The powers of the President mentioned in that clause are powers where he acts on advice. In other words, matters which would have gone up to him for his formal assent would now not go to him, because these are matters which he in fact has said that he should not be burdened with. The President has asked for this exercise himself. We had very carefully sifted through many statutory provisions - 500, in fact - and recommending only about 70 provisions where it will not go to him. So the Minister exercises the powers, and the difference here is only whether the President has sight of these matters. In the past, he would have sight of these matters and because under Article 21 of the Constitution, he acts on advice, he will say yes. Now, the point is that they would not go up to him. Sir, it is not a matter of powers being transferred or whether there is a need for further appeal. It is a tidying up exercise where because of the nature of these powers, he will not have sight of the decision by the Minister. I think we have to see this exercise in this context. It is not an exercise to pull wool over anybody, even though it is "Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill". We do not do this in the normal course of events.”
“Mr Jeyaretnam brings up a point which really harks back to the Application of English Law Act which was debated in 1993 and, indeed, I think very eloquently put by Dr Toh See Kiat, all the reasons were canvassed at that time why we should have an Act like that so that there is certainty in the application of English Law in Singapore. If Mr Jeyaretnam will remember, maybe he has read about this doctrine of continuing reception, in the past, in so far as commercial law matter is concerned, a local court would decide an issue with respect to a commercial law matter as though an English court would have decided that issue sitting in England, and that was not satisfactory. Therefore, the Application of English Law Act was passed for certainty and indeed there was a cut-off as set out in section 3 whereby the common law of England became part of our law. That is for certainty sake, a cut-off in 1993. And amendments were also made to those statutes which are listed in the Schedule to the Act, to modify particular phrases, particular practices, so that they would apply in Singapore in the local context. And this is what this current exercise continues to do. On the common law of England, if a judgment is made by judges in England, and if a local judge so deems it to be applicable and can be applied in a local context and if the judge applies that law, then it becomes local law. In that sense, it is not a situation where a judge in Singapore is bound by the common law. I think Dr Toh has mentioned it very clearly. We have to develop our own jurisprudence, as we have been doing all along.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just clarify one or two things? Mr Speaker, Sir, the last speaker, Dr Toh, with respect, has not quite followed what I was trying to say. I am not against calling the law which is applied in Singapore as common law and not as the common law of England. I am all in favour of discarding the term "common law of England" when it is applied in Singapore. What I was trying to say is that if you look at the Application of English Law Act that was passed in 1993, it made the common law as applied in England until 1993 part of the common law of Singapore. It then went on to say what was to happen to the common law developed after 1993 and the judges, I think, continued to import the English common law as developed by judges. My question is: is this law, that is, the amendment that is proposed, intended now to stop our judges from considering the common law developed by judges after 1993 and in the future? I said it is not quite clear. Dr Toh thinks it will not, but may we know from the Minister what is the intention of the Government, whether the judges will be allowed to consider the common law of England as it now is and, of course, if it is applicable, it is suitable, to import it. I am not suggesting that every idea developed in England should be imported here, if it is not suitable for our needs. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the object of today's exercise is quite simple. It is an exercise where under the name "Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments)", we are dealing with matters which are tidying up in nature, procedural and administrative.”
“When Mr Jeyaretnam said that this amendment would shut out the common law, I believe that is a misunderstanding because nowhere in this amendment does it say that, henceforth, no judge in Singapore should look at the English law precedents. But I think the whole concept that I learned in my first year continues to apply even now to our courts, which is that our judges can borrow ideas from anywhere in the world that they wish to, so long as they remember to adapt and modify it for our circumstances, when necessary.”
“It is necessary, of course, in doing so, we borrow from every country in the world that has got good ideas. And I think our Parliament and our judges have continued to do so. Where a system of law or the provisions of the law are unsuitable because of culture, social circumstances and so on, we need to say that this is not an idea for this country. In delinking our legal system from the English common law, we are not saying that henceforth, we will not use English precedents. I think even as a first-year law student, we were told that the English, when they brought their English common law system to Singapore, developed this idea that the English common law has to be modified and adapted to our local circumstances. And in many instances, for example, in family law, the judges who sat at those times, they were English judges, mind you, trained in England, adapted the laws of England in respect of monogamous marriage, for example, and applied it to Singapore and said that the personal law of Singaporeans would have to prevail over the system that the English courts imposed. Delinking our legal system from the English common law system is also all the more important now because England and the United Kingdom have increasingly been importing legal provisions and laws from the European Union because of their treaty obligations and many of these are based on concepts and principles that are built on considerations which are very different from our own circumstances here in Singapore. I would urge Mr Jeyaretnam to remember that even though there are many good ideas in the English courts and the English Parliament, we must follow the examples of independent and sovereign nations like Canada, Australia and New Zealand and to rethink some of these things that should be changed.”
“I remember that one of the first things I learned as a first-year law student was that the common law was the common law of England as it first began, because we were a British colony and we therefore first used the laws that our colonizers imposed on us. This itself is a historical fact which is common to many countries of the Commonwealth and also the United States of America. In America today, lawyers, professors and judges talk about the common law but, in no way, if you ask them, would they define it as the common law of England. To them, the common law is a law that is common to the jurisdiction in America, in whatever state they practise in, or in the Federal Courts that they practise in. So the common law is the law that is common to the particular nation that is governed by that law. But it has grown from a system which was first planted in England, the concepts having been imported into the particular country using that law. So we find that countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand too apply what they call the common law. They have also in recent years asserted their independence in this particular area because they feel that the common law that they borrowed and imported from England has to be modified and adapted to the circumstances of their own countries. So you will find that, in the past, they would have blindly followed precedents from the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal in England. But in recent years, they have deliberately and expressly departed from many English decisions. They have taken their own steps to stamp the authority on their own countries' laws. We are a sovereign nation, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I think our judges and our Parliament have to also impose and stamp their authority on our own laws.”
“It seeks to transfer, as the Minister of State has pointed out, powers from the President to the Minister. I see, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Medical Registration Bill, on which I shall not be speaking but I happened to glance at it, that the power is given to the Minister to determine the suspension of a doctor by a Health Committee and to make the Minister's decision final without any appeal therefrom. I have had occasions when I was here previously in Parliament to call attention to the danger of increasing the powers of the Ministers without any appeal or any redress given to the citizen from such decisions made by the Ministers. This was commented upon in 1926 by a committee in England which drew the dangers of giving Ministers too much power. I know the Minister of State has said in his speech that again it is purely routine and administrative. But even routine matters, Mr Speaker, Sir, can sometimes be important to the citizen. I would ask whether it is proposed, with the transfer of these powers, to provide an appeal from the Minister's decision to the courts. I think it is important that the aggrieved citizen must feel that he has a right to take a decision of the Minister, the Executive, to another independent body to question the propriety and sometimes even the merits of the decision made by the Executive. That is all I have to say, Mr Speaker, Sir. Dr Toh See Kiat: Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence to speak as a person who studied the law in Singapore, the USA and the UK, and who has been teaching law at the Nanyang Technological University for some time. I would like to speak on a point that Mr Jeyaretnam has mentioned about the common law.”
“May that be clarified - that after the passing of this Bill, judges may not look at the common law as it was developed in England or in other countries after 1993, but we are to stick to the previous common law? Law is not a static thing, Mr Speaker, Sir. Law continuously changes, adapts itself to the needs of the society and to the circumstances. It cannot be static. When the judges have decided that something should be done, then perhaps Parliament takes it on again and makes it part of a statute law. So I am a little alarmed at this blanket stopping of the importation of any common law, that is, common law and ideas developed by the judges overseas. The Minister of State says that it was referred to the Law Society. I, of course, was not aware of it. But was the Law Society asked to particularly address itself to clause 6 of the Bill? If they were, then I think, as a member, I have to query the Law Society Council as to what they did about it. I would also like to know whether this particular clause was referred to the various Chambers of Commerce for their views and comments about shutting out any principles of law developed in other countries after 1993. When I say "developed", it means "developed by the judges". I remember at one time the present Senior Minister when he was then the Prime Minister saying that one of the inducements for foreign companies to come to Singapore to do business was the knowledge that the laws would be in accordance with developments in other countries because there were appeals to the Privy Council. That is no longer a route that is available. So I would like to know whether the views of the Chambers of Commerce were asked about the importation of common law into Singapore. Finally, may I say a few words about clause 7.”
“" And then by subsection 2, it is provided: "The common law shall continue to be in force in Singapore, as provided in subsection (1), so far as it is applicable to the circumstances of Singapore and its inhabitants and subject to such modifications as those circumstances may require." At the first reading of section 3, it did not strike me, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it prevented the importation of the English common law even where it was developed after 1993. All it purported to do was to make the common law of England before 1993 part of Singapore's laws, so that it is no longer the common law, it is the Singapore law. But it did not seem to me at any rate to prevent the importation of common law developed after 1993. I understand the purport of this new Amendment, although I do not know that it clearly specifies even that, is to prevent the importation of the English common law into Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, the common law is judge-made law as distinct from statutes or written law. And judges are continuously making new laws to keep apace with developments not only in their own country but abroad. The common law of England is now also the common law in a number of other Commonwealth countries, and they develop the common law as they see it. And why are we now shutting out the judges here from importing any common law that has been developed overseas, not only in Britain but other countries, from being made a part of the Singapore law? Mr Speaker, Sir, there is so much talk about Singapore being a global city and how it has to respond to what is happening in other countries to the laws and the practices there. But this Amendment would appear now to make Singapore enter into an isolationist stage as regards the importation of new ideas in the law. Is that the intention?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, because of other matters which were claiming my urgent attention, I have not been able to study the various Bills that had been presented to this House and for whose Second Reading today was designated. But I took time to look at this particular Bill, the Statues (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. I see the Minister of State tries to gloss over this Bill by his statement that it is purely procedural and administrative. I am not sure that it is, in all the various clauses. There are particularly two clauses which cause me somewhat alarm, and that is, clause 6. Clause 6 is not purely administrative and procedural. Clause 6, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you look at the First Schedule, and if you look at the first Act, which is to be amended, proposes to delete the definition of "common law" and substitute the following definition: "common law" means the common law in so far as it is in operation in Singapore and any custom or usage having the force of law in Singapore;". As it presently stands, the definition of "common law" in the Interpretation Act is the common law of England. The explanatory note says these amendments are necessary "in order to stop the continued importation of English law, practices and procedures into the local legal system". And it says that they are a follow through of the amendments effected by the Application of English Law Act (Cap. 7A). But I have taken the opportunity to look at this Application of English Law Act which was passed in 1993. And by section 3 of that Act, it says: "The common law of England . so far as it was part of the law of Singapore immediately before 12th November 1993, shall continue to be part of the law of Singapore.”
“21st century! WEST COAST HIGHWAY AND PASIR PANJANG ROAD (Development plans) 13. Mr S. Iswaran asked the Minister for Communications what plans there are for the further development of West Coast Highway and Pasir Panjang Road, and when these are likely to be implemented.”
“And I want to know how the Singapore Government distinguishes between its policy towards Myanmar and to Cambodia. But may I repeat, not that I disagree with the attitude taken towards Cambodia, I am certainly most upset with ASEAN's decision to admit Myanmar into ASEAN. There, we have in power a military which has usurped the power from the people. Is that Singapore's policy, that we support usurpation of power by a military? Let us have it clearly. And is that why Singapore is quite ready to admit Myanmar? Then we hear constantly talk about constructive engagement. May I know exactly what this constructive engagement consists of? Has the Government engaged the military regime in Myanmar in discussions to try and bring about a peaceful resolution of the situation in that country? Have they suggested a dialogue between the military regime and the leaders of the party which should have been elected into power? Has the Government sought to discuss with the leaders of that party to find out what their views are? So may we know clearly what this constructive engagement consists of? Is it the Government's policy to try and bring about an eventual transition in Myanmar, so that the people's will may prevail, and that a government chosen by the people may be put in place? I think this is something that concerns not only Singapore but the whole region. There are countries which have condemned the military usurpation of power in Myanmar. We never had Singapore condemn it. May I know clearly from the Minister what exactly differentiates Singapore's policy between Myanmar and Cambodia? How is Myanmar different? Was there not a violent change of government?”
“All right. Sir, I may seem to be going over what has already been discussed. But I do want to know from the Minister for Foreign Affairs what are the guidelines that govern Singapore's foreign policy. Is there a consistent foreign policy that is followed by Singapore, or does it change according to the country with which it is dealing, applying one set of rules to one country and another set of rules to another country? What are Singapore's principles as regards this question of non-interference? How does the Government reconcile its oft-stated principle that no country should interfere in the internal affairs of another with the travels abroad of its Senior Minister who goes abroad to other countries and seeks to give them advice on how they should conduct their governments by persuading them, particularly, that democracy is not viable or suitable for Asians, and we should accept something else? How does the Government reconcile this? But more particularly, I am interested, Sir, in what I clearly see as a contradiction in the Government's foreign policy, the policy adopted on Myanmar and Cambodia, not that I disapprove of the decision to exclude Cambodia from ASEAN even if it is temporary. The Foreign Minister has said, and it was even reported in the papers - I suppose he was speaking for ASEAN, and this morning he was speaking perhaps for Singapore - that we cannot condone a violent change of government. That cannot be Singapore's policy. 2.45 pm What happened in Burma or Myanmar? There, the people of that country elected, through peaceful means, a government. Then what happened? The military forcefully kept the government from assuming office. Is that not violence? If it is not violence, what is it?”
“All right, Sir. Thank you. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $206,090,290 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $488,136,400 for Head T ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head O -”
“Mr Speaker, may I ask, with your permission, Sir”
“We asked whether the Public Prosecutor would hold a press conference and explain his decision as to why it was not an offence for Mr Goh Chok Tong and the two Deputy Prime Ministers to be present not only in the grounds but even in the polling areas where people were casting their votes. We have not had any response to this. Are we to understand that at future elections - I would like an answer now on this - any number of the public can come into the grounds of polling stations and wait there in large numbers? Is that the law? Or is the law, as we have said it, that no one other than a person casting his vote or the candidate has any business to be inside a polling station, in the grounds and, more so, in the polling area? The law provides for police officers to arrest on sight anyone who breaks any of these provisions and yet we found that on polling day, the Prime Minister and the two Deputy Prime Ministers were allowed to break this law with impunity. May I know from the Minister what is the answer to this? Will the Public Prosecutor be asked to explain his decision in a press conference at which he may be questioned further on his decision?”
“All right, Sir. On 9th January this year, three members of the Workers' Party filed complaints with the Police that the Prime Minister and the two Deputy Prime Ministers had been present within the polling centres in Cheng San Constituency on polling day. The complaint was lodged because of the provision in the Parliamentary Elections Act. That section is, to us, clear enough, Mr Chairman, Sir. It says, "No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote." So it punishes anyone who waits outside the polling station. Another sub-section says, "No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day." So that seeks to punish anyone who loiters within 200 metres. It seemed to us patently clear that the whole purpose of those provisions was to prevent anyone trying to persuade or deter persons from casting the vote of their own choice by their mere presence. We should have thought that if the law made it clear that no one can wait outside or within 200 metres, it must be again patently clear that the law would not allow anyone to wait inside the polling station. As we said in our public statement on the police announcement, if the law is that people who are not voting cannot wait outside the polling station or loiter within 200 metres, but they can all flock into the polling station area and wait inside the grounds, then, as we said, the law would appear to be an ass. So we were very baffled by the decision of the Public Prosecutor as announced in the papers that it was not an offence.”
“Sir, how many minutes are you going to give me on this?”
“All right, Sir. I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $60,245,080 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $16,059,900 for Head E ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. 1.45 pm Head T -”
“Well, as I said, you have only given us 10 minutes. I have to stop.”
“But there are, as I said, cases where a man has been sentenced to 8 years or 15-20 years and he appeals to the High Court, and his conviction is affirmed and he has no other method of testing that judgment in the Appeal Court although he might feel very aggrieved about the conviction and has a point of law that should perhaps be looked at by more than two judges. There is a procedure at the moment for referring an aggrieved accused's question to the Court of Criminal Appeal. But it is very circumscribed, Sir. The provision is that he can apply to the judge who heard the appeal to refer a question of law to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The decision to refer or not to refer is left to the judge himself and if he does not refer the man's point of law, however strongly he feels, it cannot be looked at by the Court of Criminal Appeal. In Malaysia, they had this provision but it was changed some many years ago when they gave this power of referring a matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal itself. The application is made not to the judge who heard the appeal from the Subordinate Courts but the application is made to the Court of Criminal Appeal and that Court has to decide whether the matter should come before it. I should have mentioned that our law seems to be lopsided in that if the Public Prosecutor wishes to take up any matter from a decision of a single judge on appeal, he can do so without the leave of the court. The court has to give its consent where it is the Public Prosecutor who wishes to take it up, but not where an accused wishes to take it up.”
“Sir, you have only given us 10 minutes under this head, so I have to be very snappy about this. I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head E of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, my concern is the present provision for appeals in the courts. I need hardly say that confidence in the system of justice and judicial administration will be undermined if there is a growing feeling that there is not adequate protection against wrong convictions and that is the main purpose for providing appeals in all countries which have a judicial system. In most common law countries, there are two-tier appeals. But we do not have them in Singapore. But my primary concern is the criminal convictions sustained in the Subordinate Courts. The Subordinate Courts have had very wide jurisdiction in criminal matters and they dispose of 80%-90% of the criminal cases in this country. And the Subordinate Courts, that is the District Courts, have powers to pass sentences which can be quite severe. Some of them even have power to pass a sentence up to 20 years in certain offences. So there is considerable power given to Subordinate Courts in dealing with criminal cases. What is the provision for appeals from convictions in the Subordinate Courts? At the moment, an appeal goes to a single judge of the High Court and it stops there. We have had cases where a person who has been acquitted by the District Court on the facts and on the merits having his appeal overturned and a conviction substituted. From there, the man cannot appeal. That seems to me to be the most unsatisfactory feature of our system where he has been acquitted. But it is not just that. That is the most unsatisfactory feature.”
“Sir, the Minister says it is confidential. May I know whether any loss was suffered as a result of this intervention? Or is that confidential?”
“I am again in pursuit of people's power and people's rights. This time I ask the Ministry whether it is time that we had a Prisons Board set up of responsible individuals outside in the community who will listen to complaints from the prisoners. I know we have visitors but I want a body that will take decisions and see that they are implemented. At the moment, Sir, when it comes to disciplinary control of prisoners, everything is left in the hands of the Superintendent. And offences are classified into minor and major offences or misconduct, as they may be termed in the Act, and some of these sentences that are handed out by the Superintendent are quite severe. I think it is time we set up a Prisons Board, as has often been claimed that we are transparent, transparency in the way that we treat people who are charged with offences, even though if they are in the prisons. I would ask the Ministry to consider whether it will think of setting up a Prisons Board to investigate complaints against prison authorities or prison officials.”
“Yes, Sir, you have said that we are running short of time and I will try and be very brief.”
“I think this is the key challenge, how to organise activities that will attract the whole range of our youths, not just those who believe in these activities, but those who may be averse to being organised. I think there are still ways where we can creatively help them feel that they can belong to a gang, but do not belong to a gang that fights and does wrong things but belong to a gang that will do good things. Young people like to belong to gangs. They can be in a football gang or whatever gang. But let us have more gangs in Singapore where there is voluntarism. Several speakers have spoken about the need for more voluntarism and let this be a call to all Singaporeans that if they want to find a cause to champion, champion the cause of our youths in Singapore. 2.00 pm”
“They are youths who are already found by police to be associating with secret society types. Therefore, the alternative to them coming on board in this programme will be that they are registered under the Registrar of Societies as being members of teen gangs. So we feel that to motivate them, it is better to say, "We give you an option." Most will come on board because here is a programme which helps them and parents are involved. And because it is packaged as a voluntary programme, they will be more motivated and the success rate will be higher. Sir, I think time is running on. We still have many topics to go. I just want to say that all the suggestions that have been made in this House will be considered, including Mr David Lim's. He actually questioned whether the ban will be effective, quoting a youngster. He said that they can dance anywhere. Indeed, they can dance anywhere. I would encourage it. In fact, I have asked Mr David Lim to organise tea dances or discos in his community centres. Because there is nothing wrong in dancing and, in fact, in these settings, the youngsters will come and vent their excess energies. But what is important is that I do not think the secret society types will want to come to our CCs. So that is the approach we have taken. We know that this is not the solution, but I hope that this latest spate of measures will encourage everybody in Singapore, first of all, to say yes, this is the situation that we need to address; secondly, everybody can play a role where they are; and, thirdly, specifically, how to organise activities which will attract our youths.”
“In fact, it is an extension of what has already been done with regard to billiard saloons. On the same basis, the police identified billiard saloons as places where gangs dominate. They go there, they influence others who are unwitting, who are innocent, and then they recruit these members. It is the same with tea dances and other such places where teens may gather, which is a closed setting. In other words, they go there unwittingly because they are young. That is why Mr Choo asked this point. Why 16? Because the police assessment is that 13-15 is a very vulnerable age group, Sec. 1, Sec. 2, Sec. 3. Those of us with teens will know that. They are very impressionable. They are suddenly exposed into the secondary school setting. So we are targetting this group. These people come along unwittingly and then they are influenced by gangs. Mr Chen says they can be recruited anywhere. That is true. We can ban them from going to void decks and other places. But since tea dance as a setting is identified with the purveying of negative influences, I think we must act. The question is, as Mr Choo and Mr Peh have asked, whether we want to extend it to under-18 or to more places. My response will be, let us wait and see. I think we want to be incremental. Our approach is to be incremental, to see the efficacy of the programme before we even consider whether we should extend it. And the same goes to the other suggestions like night curfew and other places. Mr Choo has made this point about street wise programme, whether the curfew should be voluntary. We have taken this approach because these youths who are given the opportunity to come on board for this curfew programme are already a targeted group.”
“And we have coordinated the introduction of many programmes in the past year; court-driven ones such as boot camp and family conferencing; school-based ones such as expansion of pastoral care and career guidance programmes, and peer support schemes. And also pulling in VWOs, VP mentoring schemes and also enhancing greater network amongst all parties - schools, police, MOE, approved homes, through seminars, guides, and networking. The list can go on, but I think the first point I want to make is that we have taken this approach of making sure that everybody pulls together. And this is partly why the number of juveniles arrested has come down. But in view of this recent phenomenon of teen fighting, I have asked the IMJD now to focus in this area. And whilst they focus in this area, it will not be at the expense of all the other measures that we have introduced. All the other measures are still in place. We will continue to monitor them and fine-tune them, if necessary. But now the targeted approach is how to cut down on teen fighting. As Members have mentioned, many initiatives have been launched, whether it is in prevention, the ordinary VSC scheme or better liaison or indeed some of the police programmes that we are introducing. I just want to speak a bit about teen gangs. I think this is the other area that has captured Singaporeans' attention over the past 2-3 weeks, particularly since the announcement of the under-16 ban. Let me first say that I want to thank all Members who have spoken up here in support of the ban on 16-year olds going to tea dances and other outlets where there is public entertainment and dancing. Let me assure all Members that we do not take this measure in an unthinking fashion or desperate fashion.”
“Of course, the bad news all of us know is that fightings have gone up, instances when teens and young people are involved in fighting. Mr Chng Hee Kok, GPC Chairman, and Mr Choo urged the Government to take a comprehensive approach towards juvenile delinquency. This is, in fact, a good suggestion and this is the approach the Government has taken. Last year, I told the House that the Government would take an inter-Ministry approach towards tackling juvenile delinquency. This is because we realise that juvenile delinquency is not just about crimes, but a host of complex issues such as effective parenting, peer influence, media influence, use of free time and whatever else. This Inter-Ministry Committee on Juvenile Delinquency (IMJD) was formed in April 1996, which I chair, and members are drawn from many sectors - MHA, MCD, MOE, AG's Chambers, Juvenile Court, National Youth Council, National Council of Social Services, social work professionals and MPs are also on board. I think it is good if I spend a few minutes to outline what the Committee has done. Otherwise people may think that we are taking short-term solutions to the measures that are introduced. This is not the case. The latest host of measures, in fact, come as a package after a long series of other measures that have been put in place. The IMJD adopted a comprehensive three-pronged approach - prevention, enforcement and rehabilitation. This philosophy is, first and foremost, to prevent youths from drifting into delinquency. Next, strict enforcement action against those who create law and order problems and, finally, to provide rehabilitation opportunities for those who are amenable to change.”
“That is different. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I am drawing an analogy. Firstly, the complainant may not fully understand, as I said just know, what has transpired in terms of investigative techniques, in terms of the professional matters that pertain to the workings of any police force. And in his lack of understanding, he may not fully appreciate the fact that indeed much careful work has been done. I think Mr Jeyaretnam, as a lawyer, probably also suffers from this sometimes. When you feel that you have done all your best for your client, you have put in your best work, you have done this, you have done that, and when you furnish the accounts your client says, "What work have you done?" And in spite of the fact that you furnished him a whole list of what you have done, he or she will still be unhappy. Therefore, like I said, ultimately, it must be the question whether the system works. And I think Mr Jeyaretnam must agree that the system works. It is his prerogative not to agree, but like I have said, if a large percentage of Singaporeans say so and if Singaporeans feel very safe on the road, if outsiders praise us for our system, then it cannot be that it does not. So the IID, and not the IIS which he spoke about, must be allowed to do its job. Sir, let me first thank all the Members for speaking on this very relevant topic of juvenile delinquency. I have the figures. The good news is that the number of juveniles arrested for crime has, in fact, fallen from 2,574 in 1995 to 2,101 last year. The overall number of arrests has, in fact, come down. And close to 70% of the arrests last year were for theft and related crimes, not very serious crimes.”
“I think this is an important point because we always talk about possible police wrongdoing and investigations. But this is the ultimate barometer and test. Any police officer who conducts an investigation will know that if a confession statement is extracted, there is a possibility that it could be challenged in court. And when he comes to court, he has to explain, he has to produce his diary, he has to convince the court that there was no wrongdoing. Over the years, certainly in terms of what ought to be done and what ought not to be done, police knows the limits. The second point that Mr Jeyaretnam mentions is: should we furnish the full report to the complainant? Should the schools furnish the fully marked paper to the students?”