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 22 of 82.
“Sir, may I ask by way of clarification from the Minister of State? I am, however, indebted to him for the long explanation he has given. I appreciate that. The Minister of State says there are guidelines. May I ask him, are there guidelines indeed about how the Police should interrogate accused persons? Because when police officers are questioned, they say there is no guideline, not even as to the length of time that they can continue with their interrogation of suspects. So the answer we get is that there are no guidelines. It is left to them. I would like to know from the Minister of State what guidelines is he talking about. If I may ask my second question, would the Ministry consider issuing, or at least making available, to the persons who complain a full report of the investigations carried out by the Internal Investigation Section, so that the aggrieved party may feel that his complaint has been properly looked into, and that nothing has been overlooked? The Minister says there is no cover-up. But in the end, the bottom line is - I am sure he will appreciate - the person who has made the complaint must feel that there has been no cover-up. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, on his first point - I think this point was also covered by Prof. Chin - any allegations of police assault during the investigation is subject to scrutiny by the courts. Police takes very seriously instances when the courts say that in this case there was police wrongdoing so that the statements are not admissible. They will look at the judgments. They will look at what the courts have said what not to be done. In this sense, over the years, police will take a reading from what is admissible in law and they are guided by what is admissible in law and admissible by the courts.”
“The statements were admitted in this case. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: But you do know many of the statements were not admitted.”
“May I ask the speaker, by way of clarification, when he talks about interrogation methods of the police and the admissibility of statements, is he aware that in 1989 three men were alleged to have confessed to murder after 28 hours of interrogation when they were totally innocent and finally were acquitted by the court? Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, I believe that the courts and the law reports, which of course Mr Jeyaretnam, as a practising lawyer would be aware of, do document a number of cases where, because of persistent questioning and long hours of questioning, the statements have not been received in evidence. It is not just one case where the statements have been rejected. There have been rejections of statements on a number of occasions which, of course, Mr Jeyaretnam should know about.”
“00 pm Second, does the redesigned structure mean more or less visibility in terms of foot or bicycle patrols in the estates? It has to be recognised that one of the most effective deterrents against crime has been the presence of police officers in vulnerable areas. Fast response cars or car patrols may be more efficient, but not as effective in terms of police presence as men on foot patrols. Third, will the redesigning of the NPPs also take into account the fact that it is now possible to keep watch through the use of surveillance cameras? Surveillance equipment may be expensive but never as good as officers on the ground. However, they can be on 24 hours a day providing round the clock security. These cameras are already a common sight in some private properties here. Although they are used in public streets and facilities, it is much more widespread in other countries such as England. In the long run, such devices may help to alleviate the shortage of manpower in uniformed services, which was referred to by other MPs, while providing a high degree of security in areas monitored by such means. Of course, I do not mean to advocate that these devices are placed in such a manner as to intrude on the privacy of residents. Sir, it is worth emphasising in closing that the prevention of crime is not only the sole task of the police. It is even more important for all residents to be aware of the need for security. All too often, one finds that residents complain about petty thefts of their belongings left out in public corridors, claiming that the police have not done enough. The public needs to be aware that the control of crime is not just a matter for the police but it is the responsibility that is shared by all.”
“It forges ties between officers and residents and provides the latter with a real sense of security. The officers also get to know the neighbourhood well, adding to their ability to cope with local crime quickly. Since the start of the scheme in 1983, the NPP has gained a solid reputation among residents. It is usually the first recourse when residents want to report a crime or dispute. The fact that crime is generally low in the estates testifies to the success of the police in general and the NPP scheme in particular. Earlier this month, the Minister announced the setting up of three Neighbourhood Police Centres (NPCs) to provide better service to the residents; the first to be set up in October, the others in the first part of next year. Sir, the reasons reported for the redesign of the NPP scheme are said to be two-fold: First, expanding the duties of NPP officers will encourage better qualified persons to join the Police. Second, the new scheme will be more efficient in terms of using manpower resources. Whether the redesign will achieve these ends, of course, remains to be seen. In the meantime, there are several concerns that I hope the Minister can address. First, will the reorganisation mean that no new Neighbourhood Police Posts will be built? This is of particular concern to those who have just moved into new neighbourhoods. For example, Woodlands is still served by the Bukit Panjang NPP. It is natural for residents who have just moved to a new area, such as Neighbourhood 5 or 6 in Woodlands, to feel more insecure as they need time to adjust to the new environment. They, more than anyone else, in my experience, have requested for more police patrols. 1.”
“I thought I made it quite clear when I spoke that when the public have complaints against the Police, they are not told how the investigation was carried out, what statements were taken and the final report is not made known to the person who made the complaint. That is exactly what I mean when I say accountable. The Police have to be accountable to the people, and if the people have a grievance, then the Police should answer the people and account to them for their actions. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Sir, I just like to make a point about Mr Jeyaretnam's comments just now on the complaint against the Police. He, of course, will know that there are always checks against the misuse or improper use of methods of interrogation by police officers, not only it is provided for in the Penal Code in respect of offences for oppressive questioning, the courts have also taken it upon themselves to monitor and to look at statements made by accused persons to police officers to see whether they are voluntarily obtained. And there have been some cases where such statements have been rejected. Sir, I do believe that a well-trained professional Police Force would want their statements taken by them to be admissible as evidence. I think checks and balances are in the system concerning the control of the Police and that they are accountable. Now I come to crime control in neighbourhoods. Sir, Singapore is fortunate to have a comparatively low crime rate. We must be one of the very few countries in the world that needs to advertise that low crime rate does not mean no crime. The Neighbourhood Police Post (NPP) is a key institution in the fight against crime in Singapore. There are now 91 NPPs in Singapore. The NPP is the most visible link between the Police and the people.”
“That would give our citizens and the public a greater measure of confidence in the Police Force, that there is an independent neutral body which will investigate any complaints made against the police by them. That would enhance the role of the police in the eyes of the people, and they will no longer be looked upon as merely serving their political masters.”
“At the moment, any such complaint is referred to the Internal Investigation Section of the police. It is investigated by police officers, although we are told it forms a separate branch of the police. But nothing is said about how the investigations are carried out and if there is any report, that report is not made known to the public or to the victim who made the complaint. He is merely told in a very curt note that there is no evidence of his complaint. Some four years ago, there was a boy of 14 who was taken in by the police and he was detained for about seven hours. And when he was finally released, he was found to have severe injuries on him. The father reported it to the Internal Investigation Section and later on consulted the solicitors. When the solicitors wrote to the Division for the names of the police officers who had interrogated the boy and in whose custody he had been for seven hours, the Divisional head refused to disclose the names of the officers, and this dragged on for some period of time. I think in the cause of transparency and accountability, it is time that the Ministry considered setting up a body outside the Police Force to consider complaints against the police by members of the public. In Britain, they have had for some time now what is known as a police watch committee. Is it not possible for us in Singapore, in this age, to have such committees in every police area, composed of respectable citizens living in that area and who would be responsible enough to act responsibly, to inquire into the complaints and to direct or to request any action to be taken, if action is to be taken?”
“Sir, before I speak, I suppose I should say that I have no pecuniary interest when I refer to instances but, of course, I am drawing from my knowledge and experience at the Criminal Bar. 12.45 pm I propose to speak on the accountability of the uniformed organisations in this country to the public. We have heard often enough from the Ministers and from the PAP leaders of how the Government is transparent and accountable to the people. I think the time has now come for us to translate some of these utterances into positive steps to show that the Police are accountable, not only the Police but also the other uniformed organisations, are accountable to the people. I think it is time we gave some measure of control over what happens in this country to our people. And my party has been advocating this for some time now in its slogan "Power to the People". I wish to speak on the role of the Police Force. Sir, the Police, first and foremost, serve the public. They are here to look after the interest of the public and to protect them. They must not be seen, and it would be dangerous if they are seen, to be serving their political masters. Some years ago when we had a prosecution against the party, one police officer, who was in the witness stand, quite candidly said, "Anything that comes from a political party, I can't deal with it. I have to refer it to the Minister for instructions," although he had the power to deal with that particular application from the party. But that is not the point of my amendment today. My amendment is about the complaints that are made, from time to time, by members of the public about violence used by the police officers whilst they are under questioning or in the custody of the police.”
“Sir, my subject is the people's money, the expenditure on defence. I note that the amount allocated for defence this year has gone up by $435 million or so, and it is about 5% of GDP. I hope I am not to be reported tomorrow as advocating that we should all lower our defences, that we should surrender to whoever comes to our shores, as it was reported when I last spoke on defence some years ago. The question is the bottom line on cost effectiveness. Do we need to spend all this money to keep our defences within the limits and possibilities that confront us? I have noticed that countries all around the world are reducing their defence expenditure, but we seem to be increasing it year by year. I wonder whether any proper study has been made to see whether any savings can be made in our defence expenditure. I notice that we spend more than Malaysia and even Indonesia on our defence. I notice that way back in 1992-93 - I do not have the figures for Indonesia after that - Indonesia reduced its military spending. So I would commend to the Ministry that perhaps they should undertake a high-level study to see whether it is necessary for us to spend all that money that we are spending at the moment for our defence needs. There is the question of the length of the national service. I have had complaints from our boys that these 30 months of national service before they are called to the university is too long. And their complaint is also that they are being displaced when it comes to jobs by non-Singaporeans. Is this an area where we can reduce the expenditure by shortening the time of national service for our boys? I would ask the Ministry to consider this.”
“Thank you, Sir. May I have a clear and unequivocal answer as to why it is not possible for us to have an independent elections commission?”
“Sir, could I ask one question before I sit down?”
“Yes, but I am far from finished. I thought I had about 10 minutes.”
“Ever since 1965 and even before that - for two years we were in Malaysia and I think they had an elections commission set up - no effort or attempt has been made to see that elections are conducted and supervised by a neutral, independent body, independent of the Government, independent of any one political party.”
“Sir, my subject is Elections. I wish to assure the Prime Minister, who seems anxious about whether I am going to go back to Cheng San, that is not what I am going to do. So he can relax. I am going to talk about the general conduct of elections in this country. Sir, the manner in which elections are conducted for election to Parliament or to any other legislative body is the touchstone of democracy. That is how other countries will test the question whether or not there is democracy in any particular country. And elections, may I say, are not a matter for the government or for the ruling party. Elections are an act of the people. It is the people's business. They are vitally concerned in the elections. So, in all democratic countries, barring perhaps a few, they have gone on immediately to set up an independent elections commission which will supervise the conduct of elections, and see that the scale is held fairly and firmly between all contestants to the election, and deal adequately with any complaints from any party interested in the elections. When we decided that we wanted to be a governing nation of our own way back in 1954, the All-Party Delegation went to London to discuss this. We decided that what we wanted in Singapore was a free democratic country run on a parliamentary system, ie, we opted for a democratic country and, as I said, elections are the touchstone of the question whether or not democracy exists. And having decided that and the Constitution then having provided for it, what do we do?”
“Would the Minister say whether any reports have been made to the Police of embezzlement of the company's monies by employees after the Chartered Ammunition Industries went into the company?”
“May I ask what study was made of this Sino-Singapore Medical Disposables (Pte) Ltd before Chartered Ammunition Industries decided to go into it?”
“But you said that. Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, I said it because these were his words. I am just repeating what he said in 1984. I was not here. I read up the Hansard, and it is not just in the Hansard but also in The Hammer, that he said the NCMP scheme is by the grace of the Government. BAN ON LOCAL OR FOREIGN PUBLICATIONS 4. Mr Harun A. Ghani asked the Minister for Information and the Arts (a) how many local or foreign publications were banned from 1994 to 1996 and what were the reasons and (b) how many new local and foreign publications were approved for distribution during the same period.”
“You call it the grace of the Government.”
“May I ask the Minister what does he exactly mean when he says "by grace of the Government?" Is it not provided in the Constitution? I know that the scheme was introduced by the Government, but it has now become a matter of law. Is it still right to call it a grace of the Government?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, by way of clarification. Did I say that I claim to represent? I said, leaving aside the question that there are some 48,000, perhaps not 48,000, but 45,000 residents in Cheng San who may wish to, and do sometimes, see me about their problems. Quite apart from representation, we are talking about caring for and attending to their needs.”
“I have another supplementary question for the Minister. He says that the elected MPs are paid this because they have constituents to care for and attend to, leaving aside the question whether I have a duty to 48,000 residents in Cheng San or not. May I ask what legislative research will be necessary to help constituents to get a flat faster or to solve one of their little domestic problems? What legislative research will be necessary for that?”
“I have another supplementary question. Would the Minister say when was this change in the decision made between 3rd January and 27th May this year? And why precisely was the reason for this change?”
“If it pleases you, Sir. Is the Minister aware, I am sure he is, that after Parliament was elected, and to be precise on 3rd January 1997, the regulations provided for the payment of legislative allowances for NMPs and NCMPs. Then suddenly on 27th May this year, just four days before Parliament sat, it was revised to take them out. May I ask what was the momentous reason for the sudden change in a policy that had been adopted for some years now?”
“A point of clarification then, Sir. Because in other parliaments, questions directed to the Prime Minister have to be answered by the Prime Minister.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a few supplementary questions. But, first of all, may I ask on a point of order, Sir, whether the Prime Minister himself should not be present in the House to answer questions directed to the Prime Minister.”
“Question 3, Sir. But before it is answered, may I point out that it concerns me as well. I take it that it is in order.”
“" It is enterprise of our people, the entire nation, I hope, not just a select few. And then he goes on to say, "I have decided to reward their effort." Now, how does this Santa Claus of our nation reward the people? He says that he proposes to give a rebate of 10% in the income tax paid by our people. But he goes on to say that 70% of our people do not pay income tax. So the rebate does not, on his own admission, do anything for this 70%. How could they say? It is not because of the GST. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Labour Force Survey of 1996, you will find that 62.5% of our employees earned below $2,000 per month. I have obtained from the Income Tax Department a table on the income tax paid, and I found that if you had a chargeable income of $14,603, then you do not pay any income tax. That is why they are not paying any income tax because they are too poor. So who is going to benefit by this 10% rebate in the income tax? Again, from the Income Tax Department, in an appendix setting out the assessment made up to 31st March 1996, I find that 385 residents in Singapore, each had an assessable income of more than $1 million a year. They would each get a rebate, as promised by the Minister, on an average, of $56,913 each. Not everyone is going to get that. It is an average. You divide the amount of the whole rebate for 385 and you get that figure. And he says that the 10% rebate will cost the nation $250 million. So who is he rewarding? He is rewarding, without any question, Mr Speaker, Sir, the wealthy.”
“Could we be told exactly what is it that these Ministers are doing? The Senior Minister, we read from time to time, is often overseas. And I have asked for the amount of money that has been spent on travels and I have been given some figures, and I may come back to it later in the Committee of Supply debate. But may we know exactly what the Senior Minister does? We know that he goes abroad, as I said, from time to time, preaching to the other countries about democracy not being viable or desirable for Asian societies which a departing governor describes as being fit for the birds. And then we have got two Ministers in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Do we really need two Ministers in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? I must not be taken to be cavilling, but it is not just the Ministers. I think I mentioned some years ago that a Japanese economist wrote that Singapore was a place of high salaries and low wages. We should look at the whole salary structure in Singapore, not only Ministers but of the top civil servants, the judges and the others, to see whether perhaps we are paying them too much. So I would ask that we do examine our expenditure or some attempt be made to examine the expenditure. If I may move on, Mr Speaker, Sir. I told the Straits Times - a reporter rang me up four or five days ago, I do not often speak to this press, they know it, but he must have caught me in one of my generous moods and I responded. This is, as has been said, a budget that favours the big companies, the MNCs and the rich men in Singapore. It is not a budget for the ordinary working man. He does not see any joy in this budget. The Minister says, "We had 7% growth in 1996. It is good and is due in no small part to the hard work and enterprise of our people.”
“But is it not time, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we should also make an attempt to see whether all the expenditure, not on the development or the infrastructure expenditure, but particularly the administrative expenditure, can be cut down now? It does not follow that because we are able to show budget surpluses year after year, running into billions of dollars, that we should be spending money when it could be put to better use. We have got to, first of all, have a scale of priorities in the expenditure of our monies. It is the people's monies. What merits the highest priority? Of course, education does. I see the new British Labour government has put education as number one in its top priority. So I ask: is there a need to examine this question of cutting down on some of the administrative costs of governing us? We are after all, Mr Speaker, Sir, a nation built upon about 3 million people, smaller than many of the big cities. And we have, to govern us, 16 Ministers, three Senior Ministers of State, five Ministers of State, two Senior Parliamentary Secretaries and three Parliamentary Secretaries. Could we look into this question as to whether this is really necessary? May I move into some posts. We have a Minister without portfolio. Could the people of Singapore be told what exactly is the Minister without portfolio being paid for? What is the work that he is doing that the Singapore taxpayers have been called upon to pay his salary amounting to almost a million dollars a year, without being told exactly what is it that he is doing for his salary? Then we have three Ministers in the Prime Minister's Office. We have, of course, the Prime Minister. Then we have the Senior Minister and one Deputy Prime Minister attached to the Prime Minister's Office.”
“So I said, "What do you do then?" They said, "Well, the moment we leave here, we have got to run on to other jobs. We finish work at 2 o'clock or 2.30. Then we start another one at 3.00." And they go on till 10 in the night? So what time do they have to improve themselves when they have to work for 12-14 hours a day, just to keep themselves and their families going? The Government collects huge sums in foreign worker levy. What is this foreign worker levy being put to use? Is it not possible for that to be set apart to improve the workers' skills and give them the basic education that is needed? The Minister says that they have recently cut the foreign worker levy for the manufacturing sector. But the question that arises, Mr Speaker, Sir, is if we do not have the skills in our workers, and we need the skills and the expertise brought in by foreign workers, then is it right that we should make the companies doing business pay and incur further costs by paying the levies? Is it not time to reconsider the whole question of foreign worker levy? I am not saying that it should be for all, but you have to try to come to some judgment as to how much, what is the need of foreign workers in Singapore's economy? And if that is so, then should it not be made easier for those who need them to bring them into Singapore? If I may move on to the expenditure policy of this Government. No one will quarrel with the Government when it says it will exercise prudence as the cornerstone of its expenditure policy. And no one will quarrel with expenditure to improve the infrastructure and the economy of the country.”
“Or does it propose to try to reduce them so that the burden on people doing business is lightened even a little bit? So I think we should hear from the Minister what is the Government's contribution or what is the Government's part in helping Singapore to remain competitive? Or is it to be left to the businessmen, with the Government's exhortations, "Oh, you must be competitive. You must keep your prices down."? We have heard enough of that. What we want from the Government, to develop Singapore, is to set an example. The Minister has talked about the labour costs in Singapore and about the lack of skilled labour, expert workers in Singapore. And Mr Chiam has rightly pointed out the educational level of our workers. What does the Government plan to do about this? Mr Speaker, Sir, it is no good preaching to the workers that they must improve themselves, they must acquire new skills, they must learn more to remain in their jobs. Has the Government considered at all running workers' classes at no cost to the workers, providing them free education, especially for workers who may not find it possible to meet the cost of education to better themselves? As Mr Chiam has pointed out, a great proportion of our workers have not even got the basic education that is needed. Will the Government consider starting workers' classes for them to improve? But it is not just that, Mr Speaker, Sir. I was talking only yesterday to two Ministry of the Environment workers in the area where I am living, and they are grass-cutters and road sweepers. When I asked them, "How much are you paid?", they told me, "Well, Mr Jeyaretnam, at the end of the month we take home the princely sum of $600." "Oh," I said, "that's a lot, isn't it?" This is after payment of the CPF and other things.”
“The Minister says in his Budget Speech, and I quote him, just this phrase, "there is no choice but to stay internationally competitive". Elsewhere he says, "we must watch the overall cost of doing business in Singapore". Again elsewhere, he says, "labour costs in Singapore are high too". But what the Minister dismally fails to answer is whether the Government has any part in the efforts that are to be made to see that we remain competitive and that we are not priced out of the market for our goods and services. Many have spoken and I think it is public knowledge - it does not need repeating - that the cost of doing business in Singapore has risen and is rising. What has the Government got to say about this? Has the Government any proposals to see that not only the cost does not rise, but it can perhaps be reduced? I think it was about two years ago after the PSA increased its handling charges or rates, sitting at a small restaurant I heard some people (they were expatriates who must have been in the importing or shipping business) talking that Singapore was becoming too expensive and that the PSA stood for "Please Stay Away from Singapore". The PSA was saying, "do not come in, we are going to charge you very high rates." It is not only the rates that are being charged to people doing business in Singapore, but it is also the fees and charges that are being made for services rendered by the Government. Something has been said about the fees and I think it was Mr Chiam who spoke on the very substantial increase in the fees and charges. Has the Government not got anything to say about this? Does it still propose to maintain the fees and charges at the present level?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I echo what was said by the first speaker? I asked this in a Question and you disallowed it, but may I just say that, as he himself said, we are more than three months late in discussing this Budget Statement. We hope that we may have some explanation as to why we have had to wait till July to debate this Budget. Having said that, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may move on to the Budget. I do not wish to repeat what has been said by speakers before me, except perhaps to underscore some of the matters that have been said. As has been said, this Budget - what one has come to expect from this Government, and which I knew when I was in the House years ago - is long on generalities and very short on practical suggestions on what should be done for the economy of the country. It is very long on generalisations that we should do this, we should do that, we should be careful, but nothing is said about what the Government proposes to do. The Minister says the outlook for 1997 is "cautiously optimistic". I wish he had gone on to elaborate a little bit further on what he meant by "cautiously optimistic". Others have said before me that many a Singaporean do not share the view that the economy is taking off again. In fact, the people that I have spoken to and, of course, I speak to the middle or the small businessmen, a lot of them are very pessimistic about the future for their business and the country, and a number of them think there will be a further slowdown, which has been already said by others. In the face of all this, what is the Government planning to do even though it may be a small recession or a slowdown in the country's economy?”
“May I ask whether only market forces are taken into consideration or whether the needs of the community around there are considered?”
“May I ask how does the HDB arrive at this reserve price?”
“Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister says that Mr Chia Thye Poh has not availed himself of the opportunity given to him to appear before the Advisory Board. Is the Minister aware that in proceedings before the Board, he is not allowed to see any statements or question anyone who has made any allegation against him, or produced any evidence against him? That is the only reason why he has not sought to appear before the Advisory Board.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I just respond very briefly to this?”
“If it is not possible that he be given an opportunity now to answer these allegations and to confront whatever evidence that the Government can produce against him, he should at least be now spared the humiliation of having to live as an outcast in our own society. As I say, what is his crime? His crime is that he was trying to further the interest and the welfare of his fellow beings as he thought right. Is it right that we should go on punishing him? How long are we to go on punishing him? I ask the Government to consider seriously, first of all, whether it is not time now to give Mr Chia Thye Poh an opportunity to answer these allegations, and if that is not possible, to immediately release him from these conditions that still fetter him.”
“The last order that was made against him on 28th November 1996 requires that he does not issue public statements, address public meetings or hold office in, or take part, or in any way assist in the activities of or act as adviser to, or be a member of any organisation or association, or take part in any political activity without the prior written approval of the Director, Internal Security Department. And, secondly, that he shall not knowingly associate with anyone who has been detained. Sir, these are civic rights which should be accorded to every citizen of Singapore. Why is Mr Chia Thye Poh still deprived of these rights, may I ask? How is he a threat to Singapore at this moment? Mr Chia Thye Poh has been accused of advocating violence. Sir, I have known him now for many, many years and I think it is very difficult to find a more peace loving man than Mr Chia Thye Poh, with his gentle manner and mode of speaking. So, I would, in all conscience, appeal now to the Government and to this House that it is time we tried to set the record right for Mr Chia Thye Poh. Was he really a member of the Communist Party of Malaya? Did he really advocate violence? Was he all these wicked things that we say he was? I would ask the Government to consider seriously the setting up of a tribunal to consider these allegations against him and give him the opportunity that he has been clamouring all these years to answer. Communism is no longer a threat in this country. It was a threat perhaps many years ago, but it has now receded in most countries. Why do we still hang on to this bogey of Communism and threat to our society?”
“He is Chia Thye Poh, a member of the illegal Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). Chia was specifically instructed by the CPM to penetrate the Barisan Sosialis and engage in Communist united front agitation to destabilize the Government. This he did by mounting a series of illegal demonstrations and industrial strikes. Chia was therefore placed under preventive detention in November 1966. He will be released as soon as he is prepared to give a public undertaking disowning the CPM's use of force and terror to overthrow the Government.' Be it noted, Sir, that it took 19 years for the Minister for Home Affairs to come up with this allegation for the first time that Mr Chia Thye Poh was a member of the Communist Party of Malaya and was engaging in Communist united front agitation to destabilize the Government. At no time, I understand, was this allegation made and yet the man had been detained for 19 years. Mr Chia asked, not only once but several times, that he be tried on these allegations, but he was never given this opportunity, an opportunity which any society which observes Rule of Law and believes in natural justice would have granted. But we quoting, as it were, a supposed threat to our society have not granted him this opportunity. Is it not time that we now put this right - this man whose crime, as it were, was to voice his opinions on what he thought then was wrong about our society and to detain him for that? Is it not time that we put this right and give him an opportunity to answer these allegations? I think any person with a sense of justice would say we should. But even if we do not do that, is it really necessary that we continue to constrain him with these conditions?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the House has listened to the Minister for Finance outlining his Government's plans for continued economic growth of the country. I now crave leave of this House to listen to what some may think a mundane matter, but albeit a matter which concerns the human dignity, the human rights of one of our citizens. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 5.47 pm Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, one of the things that a civilised society with a conscience has to do is to redress any wrong done to a member of the society if the society is not satisfied of the wrongdoing of the person concerned. This is the least that a civilised society can do. Sir, I asked to speak on the adjournment on the conditions imposed on persons released after serving terms of years under detention, under the Internal Security Act. But I did say in my notice that I would confine or concentrate on the conditions that still hover around a man who was detained for 23 years and although physically free, not kept within the confines of a cell, is still subjected to constraints which other members of the society are not. And this, as I said, has gone on for 31 years. Is it not time that we asked ourselves, in all honesty and in all conscience, whether this state of affairs should continue in this society? Mr Chia Thye Poh was detained in 1966 under the catch-all phrase that he was a threat to the stability of the country. No precise allegations, as I understand it, were levelled at him. But under this, he was detained. In 1985, speaking in this House sometime in May, I asked the Minister for Home Affairs about the persons detained under the Internal Security Act. The Minister replying said and I quote: `. only one person was detained ...”
“May I ask the Minister whether there was an inquiry into this alleged misconduct?”
“May I ask what is the protection given to employees of SGH against any unfair termination?”
“Was her termination referred to the Public Service Commission?”
“May I ask the Minister whether Dr Maurine Tsakok was on the permanent staff or was she on contract?”
“Sir, the Minister says the matter was referred to the CPIB. Was it considered that it came within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act? And, if so, what was the reply of the CPIB to that?”
“Regardless of whether the NCMP represents voters or not, and that is a moot question, why is it not considered necessary that Government departments and statutory boards should answer letters from Members of Parliament here writing on behalf of members of the public?”
“May I ask the Leader, in the light of what he said, whether the Ministries and statutory boards have been directed to reply to any questions from NCMPs if no letters had been sent on the same subject by elected MPs?”
“Is there a danger, may I ask the Minister, of a duplication of services at extra cost?”