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 23 of 82.
“May I ask the Minister, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether the Singapore General Hospital has expended monies in buying equipment for the Centre before it was decided to house it at Tan Tock Seng Hospital?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand from the Minister, in schools the task of controlling breeding of Aedes mosquitoes or other mosquitoes is left to the schools. May I ask why is his Ministry not undertaking this task?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may it be noted that I am abstaining on this vote.”
“As I indicated earlier, the decision is not mine. The decision is the Party's decision. The Party decided at a meeting of the Executive Council that we should accept the NCMP seat because the circumstances were very different from the one in 1980 when we rejected it. We also accepted this NCMP seat in 1988, and Dr Lee was here. So it was the Party's decision and again it was the Executive Council's decision that I should take the seat, which was assented to by all the other candidates who stood in Cheng San. An hon. Member: Against your advice.”
“May I answer that? Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sure, please.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, yesterday I was told that I had gone back on my principle. My party had considered my coming into this House and we thought the situation was quite different and we should accept the seat. But may I say this, finally, before I sit down, that if it is thought that the Government needs suggestions or advice on any matter, it should not be difficult to obtain it outside the House. The Government may appoint, if they so wish, an advisory body - we have already got a body but we can have another body, if you like - to consider Bills or actions and to advise the Government. What is the special need or reason for them to be in this House? It is not that I have anything against the former NMPs who have acquitted themselves, but to have NMPs and then to go on increasing the number would be to demean this House.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I am keeping to the point because I said I would be coming to the two reasons advanced by the Leader for this motion. One, of course, was that the previous NMPs had acquitted themselves. But that, with respect, is no reason or no need for NMPs in this Parliament. But the second reason is that he said there are now only two elected opposition MPs. And that is why my point is relevant. We would have had more than two elected opposition Members. We would have had at least six if the Government had been sincere in its intention to hear dissenting voices in this House and to be guided by what some Singaporeans are clamouring for. That is the whole point of my speech. Let us go back and see what the voters of Cheng San would want. Then you will get more than two elected MPs. Having said that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I read during the election campaign that Mr Tang Liang Hong had been rejected for a seat in this House as a Nominated Member. He would have provided a dissenting voice, even if he was propounding Chinese chauvinist views, which I do not accept for a minute and I do not think the voters of Cheng San would have accepted. But if you are saying you want dissenting voices, then he should have found a place here. That is why I say all this sounds a bit hollow now. Finally, may I say that I share the sentiment that was expressed by Dr Tan Cheng Bock. As I said, when speaking on the election of the Speaker, this is the people's House and it is the Members who are elected and represent the people who should be in this House. It may, of course, be said and I am sure it would be said, "But you are not elected." That is true, but only because of the Prime Minister and the two Deputy Prime Ministers making threats to our voters of Cheng San.”
“I will come to that. The Leader, in his speech, gave what appears to be two reasons.”
“Prime Minister, in his speech earlier, referred to what he said were my corny excuses for not finding myself elected into Parliament. May I suggest to the Prime Minister that there is a simple test that can be done to see whether what I said were corny or whether they were real. May I suggest, in all earnestness, to the Prime Minister and to the Cabinet that that be put to the test. Let the present PAP candidates from Cheng San resign and let us have another by-election. Let us have no more of these messages to the voters that they are going to lose everything - no more MRT, no LRT, no education benefits, everything - and let us not have the Prime Minister and the two Deputy Prime Ministers break the sections in the Parliamentary Elections Act and swoop on the polling stations to dissuade voters by their presence. Then let us see what the result is. I say this in all sincerity and earnestness. Then we will know whether the reasons I gave are corny or they are real. I am quite ready to be put to the test again to see whether the voters of Cheng San will reject me. If ---”
“All right. You need nine. But you are going to increase it to 10, I thought, afterwards. We need nine more Nominated Members. May I ask why? I will come to the reasons given by the Leader. I was not in this House when this scheme was first introduced. But I had a look at the debate in this House when the Bill to amend the Constitution to allow for Nominated MPs was introduced. And the present Prime Minister, who was then the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, who moved the Bill, referred to the President's Speech at the Opening of the then Parliament. He referred to the paragraph on "Encouraging Participation" and "Accommodating Dissent", and he quoted the President: `Singaporeans have shown that while they value good government, they also increasingly want alternative views to be expressed and dissenting voices to be heard. The Government will listen to alternative views and dissenting voices, and accommodate them where they are constructive.' I suppose the catch is "constructive". It is constructive as defined by the People's Action Party or by the Government. May I say, without imputing any disrespect to the Prime Minister - I see he has left - that those words now sound a bit hollow in the light of what happened in the last eight days of 1996 and the first two days of this year. If it is dissenting voices in Parliament that they wish to be heard, may I assure the House that there would have been at least six MPs from the opposition were it not for the fact that the Prime Minister and the two Deputy Prime Ministers, as I said yesterday, sent the clearest message to the voters of Cheng San that if they were foolish enough to choose other than the Government candidates, they would lose everything. The Hon.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, as the motion itself states, and as the Leader of the House said, it is necessary for every Parliament to decide whether there is a need for Nominated Members. It has to examine the question anew and not look back at what had gone in the past. So the question is: Is there a need for Nominated Members of Parliament in this present term of Parliament? Singaporeans were told before the elections began that the PAP had combed Singapore and had the best batch that was suitable for entry into Parliament and they were going to introduce 23 of the best, of the cream, in Singapore into Parliament. Now we are told, "Oh, no, it is not good enough. We need six more Nominated Members." An hon. Member: Maximum nine.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Hon. Prime Minister, by way of clarification, a question? I was very moved by his statements that he had tried and it is his hope to bring about a closer relationship with Malaysia, and he called it a symbiotic relationship, and that he was prepared to go the extra mile if necessary. May I ask him, in the light of all that, did he consider how that statement in the affidavit would have been received by Malaysia when they came to know of it? He must have seen that statement before it was filed or after it was filed in court. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister was not aware of it, and so were the other plaintiffs. Did the Prime Minister give any thought to whether that statement in that affidavit would damage the relations with Malaysia? It is not enough, Mr Prime Minister, as SM Lee would have us believe, to say that that affidavit was meant only for the court and it was only to be in chambers. The Prime Minister's lawyers would have advised him that once an affidavit is read in court, whether in chambers or in open court, it can then be released to the public, and so there was a danger that Malaysia would come to know of that statement. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he had given any thought to that?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the last speaker got himself carried away in his enthusiasm, if it can be described as enthusiasm. What he perhaps does not understand is that I was talking about the rule of law. Rule of law does not mean that we have laws and that is enough to satisfy the rule of law. The rule of law is that, besides written laws, there are certain conventions, what the Americans might call due process of law, that have to be observed. This morning I was questioning about the impounding of a passport and what I understand finally is that there was really no reason in law for the impounding of the passport. It is just that the Comptroller of Income Tax wanted some help but that was not what section 87 provides. I can go on giving several instances where the rule of law has not been followed in Singapore. And then about the fear. Only this morning, I saw in the papers that after Prof. Woon, who was a Nominated MP here, urged students to speak up, there were some students who were standing up and saying, "Oh, there is fear. We cannot speak up because we will get into trouble if we speak up." I think we cannot try and blind ourselves to the facts in Singapore. If the Member wants examples of this fear, I can give him countless numbers.”
“May I reply to that? Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---”
“If it pleases you, Sir. PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS Debate on the Address (Fourth Allotted Day) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [2nd June, 1997], `That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.".'. - [Dr Wang Kai Yuen]”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the grounds that were advanced were that it had been dealt with.”
“Thank you. I have no supplementary question, Sir. But may I raise with you, for further clarification, the reasons advanced on your behalf for disallowing my other Question to the Prime Minister that was submitted, asking why Parliament could not sit in March.”
“Will the Minister then confirm that it did not come under section 87 at all? Assoc Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I have said it before, no.”
“Would the Minister say whether any taxes were due from Mrs Tang at the time that her passport was impounded? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, that was not the issue. That was not the purpose for impounding her passport. IRAS was very carefully investigating a person's tax matters, in this case, Mr Tang Liang Hong. They have to do their job judiciously and thoroughly. And if a person is deemed to be able to assist in these investigations, and in this case it is not just that, but she was seen to be involved in removing some of the files from Mr Tang's office, the Comptroller in carrying out his duties would want to be thorough and therefore made a request to the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel and impound her passport, so that she can help in the investigations.”
“I understood the Minister to say that it was because some files were removed from Mr Tang's office by the income tax officer that it was deemed necessary to prevent Mrs Tang leaving. Was it because of that or not? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, again, the Member has not listened to my answer carefully. She was involved herself in the removal of some files from Mr Tang's office. And as IRAS was investigating his tax matters, the Comptroller was of the view that she would be of assistance in answering and furnishing information to the Comptroller on Mr Tang's tax matters.”
“May I ask whether the Minister is aware that under section 87 of the Income Tax Act the power is given to the Comptroller of Income Tax to direct that any person leaving Singapore should be stopped or prevented if he has not paid taxes assessed upon him? Is it under this section that the decision was taken or was it under any other section? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, obviously, Mr Jeyaretnam has not listened to my answer carefully. I stated that it was under the Passports Act and the Passports Regulations wherein the powers have been exercised, not the Income Tax Act.”
“May I know for what reasons or conditions that the restricted passport of Mrs Tang was impounded by the Immigration Department? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) had informed the Minister for Home Affairs that they were investigating the tax matters of Mr Tang Liang Hong, and that Mrs Tang Liang Hong (Madam Teo Siew Har) was involved in removing some tax files from Mr Tang's office to the home. And that she also may be of assistance in answering questions on the administration of Mr Tang's tax matters. The Comptroller of Income Tax was of the view that her passport should be cancelled and impounded. The Minister for Home Affairs considered these grounds and, considering them to be valid, exercised his powers under regulation 15.”
“May I know under what conditions the Singapore passport may be cancelled? Are there any conditions set out? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, under regulation 15(1)(a), the Minister for Home Affairs can give instructions to the Controller of Immigration to cancel the passport. He exercises his discretion in matters where public law and order is concerned. He can issue this instruction.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Question 1. But before that is answered, may I say, before any accusation is made, that I have no pecuniary interest in this question. I have, of course, written on behalf of a person, need I say who, to ask under what powers her passport was impounded. But I have no pecuniary interest at all.”
“But we must look at the context in which the ISA and the CLTPA operate, situations where there is a need to act decisively, situations where it may be difficult to get witnesses to openly testify in court for fear of reprisal by other parties involved which witnesses are testifying against. Particularly in the context of Singapore, which is multi-racial and multi-lingual, there are situations which I mentioned just now, ie, dealing with racial and religious extremists, international terrorists, saboteurs and so forth, where there is a need to act decisively. But do we use it freely, wantonly? We do not. But as a law, it ought to remain because it will be a good measure to fall back on if the need arises. Before I sit down, there is just one point which the Member for Hougang said. We must not leave the impression that the defamation laws are so open-ended that anybody can sue anybody for any criticisms that are made. This cannot be the case because he has been an MP for five years and he has made fierce criticisms of the PAP Government. Has he been sued for defamation? The answer is no. This is because he has not attacked the integrity or the honesty or the character of anyone. So that is important.”
“Sir, the last speaker but one seems to imply that the last election has not left any trauma in the minds of our people, which is what I was saying. Has he not seen the report in the papers of the Prime Minister's statement - I see the Prime Minister has just walked in - that it was time to heal the wounds. What wounds were he talking about? If it were not wounds inflicted in the last election, I should like to know what wounds were the Prime Minister talking about? Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member was saying that we need the ISA and we need the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. Is he not aware that there are other provisions in the law to deal with any incitement to disorder on religious or racial grounds? Is there no other provision? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think in the aftermath of a hard-fought, fair, free election, where there were contending sides, where people voted for different parties, the Prime Minister's call to heal the wounds must be taken in the context that politicians, both from the PAP side and the opposition side, made claims, calling for the people to vote for them. Even Singaporeans in the same family may have voted for different parties. So there will be this feeling in any election, whether it is in Singapore or elsewhere. In all elections, it is right for the winning party, whether it is Mr Blair or Mr Clinton, to say, "Let us heal the wounds. Let us work together. Whether you voted PAP or opposition, let us work together for the good of Singapore." That is the context that we must look at the situation. As for ISA and detention without trial, yes, there may be some laws which deal with situations of incitement and so forth.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask for a clarification?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, by clarification, first of all say that I was not trying to impose my views on the people. I was merely making a plea for them that their views be heard, let them make the decisions. That is all that I was trying to say. Secondly, Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon. Member, if he says that the aspirations of the people lie with the PAP and that is why they have voted the PAP, to explain how is it that we had 50,000 people coming to listen to us? [Laughter.] Well, you may laugh, but that was the estimate that was given to me and half of them must have come from Cheng San itself. It is because they wanted us to translate for them what their hopes and aspirations were? Is he saying that it is not the aspiration of the people to want a greater say in the decision-making in this country?”
“My time is up. Yes, I will stop. I beg to move, at the end, to add, `but regret that the President makes no mention at all of how our citizens would be prepared to meet the challenges ahead.'”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have given notice of my amendment to the reply to the President. I propose to read my amendment and then move it before I return to my seat.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as a Member returning to this House after some absence, may I also add my congratulations to your election as Speaker of this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, by your election, you have accepted a responsibility for the people of Singapore. We need to remind ourselves that this is the people's assembly. It is to this House that the people will look for their grievances, for their hopes, for their aspirations to be met and discussed. And I am sure, Mr Speaker, Sir, that you, in the discharge of your responsibility to the people, will give adequate recognition to the need for the people's voice to be heard in this Parliament - their grievances, their complaints, their hopes and their aspirations for Singapore. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say, speaking for myself, that I am delighted to be back in this House of the people. And my delight is all the more when I see the joy on the faces of the Frontbench opposite me.”
“Those two amendments are of fundamental importance, Sir.”
“I will accept that invitation. I hope the Minister will be good enough to reply to my question as to what was the urgent need to make the amendments to sections 39 and 61(1)(d). He says, "Government has the prerogative to chop and change." Can he explain a little bit? Why did the Government think it necessary, after the Bill was introduced in this House, to change sections 39 and 61(1)(d)?”
“One is from the panel of retired Judges. The other is a lawyer and another one is a legal officer.”
“So where do the lawyers have a majority?”
“There is a member of the panel, one advocate and solicitor and one legal officer. Only three.”
“You should have asked him. You should know what the members of the Law Society said.”
“You are frightened about the hammer. That's the trouble.”
“They do not have anybody there! Only Workers' Party.”
“Was it in Select Committee? Mr Barker: It need not be. We can change. It is our Bill. We have changed. We made certain proposals. The Bar made certain proposals. We never accepted all, the layman originally on the disciplinary committee. They suggested Inquiry Committee. We accepted that. We proposed a permanent ban. They said five years. We said, "Okay, five years but apply to court to check the track record of the person involved." It does not mean to say you cannot put things in that you want to or change it. We have changed it.”
“That's all. Mr Barker: There is some more. I take you to page B88, Question No. 633. The Prime Minister with Mr Francis Seow: 'Thank you. Now, you therefore would not mind if we went back to the old wording of section 39(1)?' 'The old Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance, which says "of matters submitted to it"?' Answer from Mr Francis Seow: 'I am afraid I am not familiar with the particular section. Where is it? Is it section 39(1)(c)?' Prime Minister: 'Section 39(1)(c) with the words "submitted to it"? --- "To assist the Government and the Courts in all matters affecting legislation"...' So it was referred.”
“I have mentioned it. There were some questions put in to Elias.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, you have ruled and I see that the Member for Whampoa refuses to abide by your ruling.”
“Now he is meandering, in his usual way, quite outside the ambit of the Bill.”
“This is the Third Reading of a Bill and, as I understand the Standing Orders, the debate on the Third Reading must be confined to the contents of the Bill. I spoke on two sections and a third section, and I thought the Member for Whampoa was going to reply to my speech on the two sections.”
“But why, and when was it proposed? Was it proposed when the Attorney -General met with the members of the Law Society who were appointed as a working committee to meet with him after the Select Committee had concluded the hearings? I would like the Minister to say whether this amendment was proposed and accepted by the members of the working committee who met with the Attorney-General? Or was it purely an amendment that was brought in by the Attorney-General? And I see in the Report of the Committee that the Minister for Law does not make any reference to this. I would want to question the need for the inclusion of a legal officer in the Inquiry Committee stage. Objection has already been taken by the Law Society to the situation where a complaint originates from the Attorney-General or a Judge of the Supreme Court to having a legal officer sitting on the Disciplinary Committee. It must apply equally to a legal officer sitting on the Inquiry Committee. I see no exception has been made for his absence from the Inquiry Committee stage where the complaint originates from the Attorney-General or from a Judge of the Supreme Court. But that is not to say that it is acceptable otherwise. The regulation of the conduct of the members of the Bar should be left with the members of the Society, and there are ample provisions, ample safeguards, to put them right if they go wrong. As I pointed out, the Chief Justice virtually has control over all stages of these proceedings. What is the great need for bringing in a legal officer into the Inquiry Committee stage? I particularly would like to know when it was introduced and whether the working committee of the Law Society gave their assent to this? Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. 12.50 pm”
“As you please, Mr Speaker, Sir. Then there is another amendment which has not been touched by the Minister in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, and that is, a new provision in the amendment to section 86 of the Legal Profession Act. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Bill was first introduced in this House, section 86 was proposed to be amended but it dealt with the enlargement of the Inquiry Committee under the new Bill and for the appointment of a Panel of the Inquiry Committee to inquire into any complaint without the whole of the Inquiry Committee inquiring into the complaint. The new clause goes much further than that. It takes into account the suggestion made by the Law Society, that a lay member should be included at the Inquiry Committee stage. That has been accepted and that was the representation by the Law Society, and it is a commendable one. But along with it a new provision has been added and the provision is to be found, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the proposed subsection (2A) for the section. As is proposed, the Inquiry Committee is to consist of two members of the Inquiry Panel who are advocates and solicitors, one member of the Inquiry Panel who is a lay person, which is the representation made by the Law Society and which has been accepted. And then you come to this, "a legal officer who has not less than 10 years' experience." Again, I cannot find anywhere in the representation made by the Law Society a suggestion that a legal officer should also be included at the Inquiry Committee stage. I would like the Minister to say how did this new provision find its way into the Bill. I cannot see anything in it in the public hearings before the Select Committee at which the Law Society were present. I know it was proposed by the Government.”
“I will be sticking to it very shortly, but may I comment on the Minister's statement about politicking.”
“And I notice only the other day that the First Deputy Prime Minister has proposed that the members of the Town Council which has been hailed as another step in the growth of democracy in this country should come from the members or the activists of this political party. So this would appear to be the rule - that whilst it is all right for members of one political party ---”
“Well, may I tell the Minister that not very long ago the Law Society made a very exhaustive study of a bill that was before Parliament on Police powers, and made their views public. But you do not have to go to England. Just across the Causeway, I see reported in the Sunday Times, for last Sunday, that the Bar Council of West Malaysia has passed a resolution condemning the proposed move in their Parliament to amend the Official Secrets Act. I do not know whether the bill was sent to the Bar Council for their comments. But they take it upon themselves as their duty, and so it is. And so it is, Members of the House, they take it upon themselves as their duty to comment on the legislation. And what is more, they are proposing further legislation to guarantee the participation of the electorate in the law-making process. I was talking about the hearings before the Select Committee, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I see the Minister made brief reference about politicking in professional organizations. May I say, Sir, that is not my comment but I have heard it said that the Select Committee hearings were reminiscent of the hearings in the 1950-60s and which came to be known as the McCarthy hearings in the United States. A lot of the energy of the Committee would appear to have been taken to weeding out perceived Workers' Party sympathisers (I said "perceived") in the Council of the Law Society. But I see that the Government does not consider it at all wrong for members of a certain political party to take control of organizations and to direct their activities. I asked the Prime Minister in a press release whether he would ask all members of all professional bodies and societies and clubs to declare their allegiance to any political party. And I see he has chosen to remain silent.”