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 24 of 82.
“And we must a fortiori, Mr Speaker, Sir, permit professional organizations to comment and criticize, if need be, any proposed legislation for this country. It is the professional organizations more than the ordinary laymen who will be able to contribute informed and responsible criticism or comment on any bill before Parliament. By shutting them out, we or the Government are saying, "Whilst we pay lip service to democracy in this country, we do not want anything of it. Thank you very much. We would rather decide ourselves what is good for this country and you, the electorate, will just accept it." Well, that is a negation of democracy. So I would ask the Minister if he will be good enough to explain why the Government thinks it necessary to deny our citizens this right to make representations. As I understood the Government, they do not deny the private citizen the right. I think the First Deputy Prime Minister was quoted as saying, "Any citizen may comment on legislation but not a professional organization." As I said once before in this House, to allow or to say that a private citizen may comment but a professional organization may not is to me a non sequitur because freedom of assembly - to join together and act together is an integral part of the freedom of speech. And if the private citizen has that freedom, then the professional organization must have that freedom. Mr Speaker, Sir, I see that Mr Harry Elias was questioned at length by the Prime Minister about whether the Law Society in England or the Bar Council took it upon themselves to make comments on bills before Parliament. And I see Mr Elias said he was not able to answer that question.”
“All he has said there, I quote: 'Sir, it is intended that this clause be inserted immediately after clause 3.' And you, Sir, as Chairman, responding: 'This will be done.' There is, again, a complete absence of any explanation why these two sections had to be amended. The Minister quite rightly says that these provisions take us back or revert to the position that existed in the colonial days - that in the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance of 1935, one had these words that the Bar Council in those days could only comment on any legislation submitted to it. But that was the colonial days. The colonial masters thought that the Bar Council should be kept strictly within its functions of servicing themselves and they should not be heard on any public affairs. Why, may I ask, do we in 1986, after 25 years of ruling ourselves, revert to a provision in a colonial statute which denies a professional organization the right to comment on any legislation that might affect the members of the public? It seems to me, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is a completely retrogressive measure and completely unwarranted and unjustified and, what is more, it is inimical completely to the promotion of democracy in this place. Mr Speaker, Sir, the question is quite simple. Do we or do we not want democracy in this country? Do we or do we not want public participation in bills that are to be passed in this country? If we want public participation, and this Government talks about its desire ad nauseam about wanting public participation, setting up feedback units, then the answer is quite simple - we must allow every member of the public, every citizen, to comment on any legislation proposed for the country.”
“As I said a little while ago, Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot find any representation from the Law Society and it does not appear to have been discussed at the public hearings of the Select Committee which were reported. And if one looks at the Report of the Select Committee on pages D11 and D12 when the amendments were introduced - I am reading from this Report at D11, Mr Speaker, Sir - I see that it was brought up by the Minister for Law. It was read the First time, and then the Minister moved that the clause be read a Second time. And I see that this is all he had to say on this amendment to this section: 'This is to tie down the Law Society, as they made representations that they want legislation submitted to them. That is the purpose of this new clause.' I am a little dumbfounded about the statement of the Minister that the amendment was "to tie down the Law Society as they made representations that they want legislation submitted to them." Would the Minister perhaps explain to the House where the representation is to be found, and what was the representation of the Law Society on this? There is nothing in this Report which informs the House or the members of the public, which is more to the point, why the Government has considered it necessary to introduce this amendment to section 39 to restrict drastically the powers of the Council in their servicing of the public, not just servicing themselves but a service that they render to the public. Then if one looks at his introduction of the amendment to section 61(1)(d), again one finds that it was read the First time at the introduction of the Minister, and then there is nothing said by him in explanation when it is read a Second time.”
“Section 39 of the Act (it is section 39(1)(c)), which has been amended, at present reads as follows: 'The purposes of the Society shall be: (c) to assist the Government and the courts in all matters affecting legislation and the administration and practice of the law in Singapore.' There is no restriction after the word "legislation" and, if you apply a literal interpretation, it clearly includes, among the purposes of the Society, the purpose of assisting the Government and the courts in all matters affecting legislation whether they are asked to assist or not, regardless of whether the legislation is submitted to them or not. Their purpose would be to assist the Government in all matters affecting legislation. Their purpose would be to assist the courts in all matters affecting legislation regardless of whether their view is asked or not. So that is a section which takes the function of the Council of the Law Society wider or beyond its sectarian or narrow functions of regulating the members of the Society and looking after their welfare. And again, if you look at section 61(1)(d) it reads, as it stands at the moment: 'To examine and if it thinks fit to report upon current or proposed legislation and any other legal matters.' Again, there is no restriction at all on the power conferred on the Council by this section to examine and to report on any legislation, regardless of whether the legislation is submitted to the Council or not. The proposed amendment cuts down drastically the purpose of the Society in its service to the public, to the citizens of Singapore who they serve. The profession is a service industry. Members of the Bar are here to service the public and these two amendments cut down very severely that service aspect of the profession.”
“We would not quibble over words, would we? Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, has referred to the representations received from the Law Society and which he said had been accepted by the Select Committee to whom the Bill was committed by this House. That is true in so far as the amendments relating to the disqualification slapped on members of the Council who have been barred or suspended for six months or more or convicted of a crime involving fraud or dishonesty. And it is also true as regards amendments made to the composition of the Disciplinary Committee and to the Inquiry Committee. But there are, quite apart from these new amendments to the Bill, three other amendments and it is about those that I wish to speak, Mr Speaker, Sir. This was briefly referred to by the Minister in his address. The first one is the amendment to section 39(1) (c). I suppose, to avoid repetition, I could take it together with the amendment to section 61(1)(d). I do not think the Minister has said that there was any representation from the Law Society to the Select Committee on these two sections. I myself cannot find any representation from the Law Society on these two sections, although I see that there were some questions addressed to, particularly, one Mr Harry Elias on whether it was proper for the Law Society to comment on Bills. But there was certainly no representation and, as I said, I do not think the Minister has said that there was any representation. The amendments that are proposed to be made to these two sections of the Act, Mr Speaker, Sir, are very far-reaching and they go completely outside the regulation of the members of the legal profession.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. That is a concession that I may speak.”
“But I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“Would the Minister of State say whether he is aware that it is unconstitutional for the Registrar to refuse registration? And it is equally unconstitutional for him to drag his feet in acceding registration to anyone who wishes to form a society under the Societies Act? Is the Minister of State aware of that? Secondly, the Minister would appear to have overlooked that there was a reply to the Registrar's letter of the 29th January 1986 by my letter of the 6th March 1986? And it was in reply to that letter that the Registrar wrote on the 22nd May 1986, another full two months, which was replied on the 8th July 1986, and he took another two months before he replied on the 11th September 1986. Finally, I see that the Minister refused to read my letter. Does he admit that in that letter I was pointing out that the proposed society may take it upon itself to make representations to the Government to oppose any introduction of any plan or scheme for the constituency or to advocate introduction of something which they think is desirable? And I said, "to that extent it may be political." Is that not what I said, Mr Minister?”
“Read the letter. An hon. Member: Don't waste time!”
“Supplementary questions for the Minister of State. Does the Minister appreciate that the Registrar took more than two months to reply to my letter of the 8th July 1986? And does he also appreciate that this has been the pattern of the Registrar's letters replying to our letters even before that --- that he has taken two to three months to give answers to questions posed by us? Secondly, will the Minister state whether the proposed Assembly has declared its intention to have any premises? So does he accept that the requirement that the premises be not used for any political purposes is a non sequitur because there are no premises for this Assembly? Will the Minister state why is the Registrar making a fuss about premises when there is no intention to have any premises? Thirdly, will the Minister of State read the whole of my letter of the 6th October in regard to the Registrar's query whether any of the activities may be political? Does he not think it is only fair that he should read the whole of my letter?”
“Well, I have asked three questions. May I have the answers?”
“I am far from satisfied with the answer given by the Minister for Home Affairs and the Second Minister for Law. May I ask the Second Minister for Law this question. If he maintains that the law was never changed by this Bill, and that even before the introduction of the Bill, that Members of Parliament committed for contempt had no right to counsel, may I pray what was the reason for the introduction of that Bill? It seems to me to make nonsense of his answers. Secondly, does he realize that the amendment is to an article of the Constitution which does not merely talk about representation or defence. It talks in the first place of consultation, let alone defence. By this amendment the Member of Parliament who is committed has no right even to consult a lawyer, let alone appoint him to appear before any Tribunal of the House. Is that the British practice - that he could not consult any lawyer?”
“Well, I have two or three more supplementary questions, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“No, Sir, I am not. Mr Speaker: All right. One more supplementary question.”
“And the amendment to the Constitution was purely consequential. So there never was an automatic right to counsel. The Privileges Act continued the position and the amendment to the Constitution was consequential. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that puts the matter beyond further dispute. Mr Jeyaretnam rose ---”
“I see the Minister wants to reply on that. The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I step in only to avoid the House wasting more time. The Acting Minister, not being a lawyer, has given a clear reply. The Member for Anson, being a lawyer, fails to appreciate the point. Now, let us first look what Time magazine said. It said: 'The government unexpectedly introduced a constitutional amendment that, if passed, would deny the right to counsel for an MP cited for contempt.' The impression that this sentence gives is that there had always been a right to counsel in contempt cases in Parliament but this had suddenly been taken away by a constitutional amendment. This is factually and legally not true. The best way of addressing this question, Sir, as the Minister has pointed out, is this. What was the position before the Privileges Act was amended and what was the position after the Privileges Act was amended? Sir, before the Privileges Act was amended, this House always had the power to punish persons cited for contempt. Was there a right to counsel? The position was governed by British practice which we followed, and the British practice as stated in Erskine May is, and I quote: 'Persons accused of breaches of the privileges or other contempts of either House are not as a rule allowed to be defended by a counsel.' So before we amended the Privileges Act, there was no automatic right to counsel. When we amended the Privileges Act recently to incorporate amongst other things the punishment of expulsion, the power of committal, what did we do about the right to counsel? We just maintained the status quo, which is, to continue the practice so that there will be no automatic right to counsel.”
“I have a supplementary question for the Minister again.”
“Will the Minister state then what was factually wrong about that statement? Is he now saying the error was to say it was unexpected? Is that what he is saying? Was that the factual error committed by Time magazine?”
“Will the Minister say whether it was the law in Singapore before the introduction of that Bill that a Member of Parliament committed for contempt may not have the right of counsel as provided in the Constitution? Is the Minister saying that that was the law before the Bill was introduced?”
“The question, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the Acting Minister, I repeat, is it factually wrong for the Time magazine to have said that the government "introduced a constitutional amendment"? Has the Minister not heard of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill which was introduced in this House for the first time on the 25th August this year? And does he not accept that it proposed an amendment to the Constitution? May I have an answer to that question? Mr Wong Kan Seng: The so-called constitutional amendment was actually the consequential change to the amendment to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. It is not unexpected. It is to be expected. It follows the amendment to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question for the Acting Minister. Does the Minister recognize that the statement, to which offence was taken by the Prime Minister's Press Secretary, was a statement in the Time magazine that the Government unexpectedly "introduced a constitutional amendment that, if passed, would deny the right to counsel for an MP cited for contempt."? Is the Minister saying that it is factually wrong that the Government introduced a constitutional amendment? Is that factually wrong?”
“When it comes to senior positions where officers have access to sensitive information, naturally the public service would be a bit more careful. The Member also said that taxi drivers are not allowed to drive if they have committed an offence and he quoted the example of a resident of his who has a record of molesting a woman passenger.”
“We found that 56% of them are working, gainfully employed; 25% of them are not employed because they were just recently released from prison or they have recently ceased employment; 1% could not be employed because they are disabled or because they are studying; and 5% are doing national service. We do not know what happened to the remaining 14% because they did not follow up with us. Of the other category of prisoners under statutory supervision, these are the young offenders and the habitual offenders, we have 148 of them on our record. Of these, as at 31st August, 55% of them are working, 22% studying, 5% in national service, only 7.6% unemployed because they have been released recently or awaiting placement. The last 11% was suspended from supervision because they have breached the supervision rules. So you see the Government has taken on the rehabilitative efforts of the prisoners and spends a great deal of effort in them. Altogether, there are about 100 full-time staff employed by the Home Affairs and Community Development Ministries as well as SCORE in helping these prisoners and discharged prisoners. There are also more than 1,000 voluntary after-care officers helping these people to readjust into society. What about the Government jobs, the Member asked? Well, the answer has already been given by the Minister for Home Affairs as well as the Minister for Finance on previous occasions, ie, that it depends on the individual merit of the discharged prisoner. As you know, jobs in the civil service require integrity and honesty. But some jobs are open to people with prison records and it is up to the Permanent Secretary to decide, especially if they are the lower division jobs.”
“Those who do not take up vocational training but have an inclination for academic studies attend classes leading to the 'O' level examinations. For the prisoners under the criminal law category as well as those who are serving short-term sentences of six months or less, or those with long-term sentences but have six months more to serve, will take part in day-release schemes where they go out and work, receive pay like any other worker, so that they can eventually reintegrate into society when they are released. All these activities prepare them for acceptance into society. Except for the special category of prisoners, the young and habitual offenders, after-care for the other kinds of discharged prisoners is voluntary. It depends very much on the willingness of the prisoner to receive help and to seek assistance from the Prison Welfare Service. But not all of them take advantage of this because some want to shed off their past and have nothing more to do with official attention. Others are capable of looking after themselves and getting into the mainstream of society. Still others would like to enjoy the flush of freedom which is set upon them and they do not seek help until they are in trouble again. For those who do not come to the Community Development Ministry or the Home Affairs Ministry for help, they can still go to the Labour Ministry which does not distinguish whether or not a person has a prison record before it offers help. Let me give some examples and statistics on how discharged prisoners fare under the care of the Prison Welfare Service. As at 31st August, there are 412 discharged prisoners. These are the voluntary cases who come to us for help.”
“I will show how much effort the Government spends in rehabilitating a prisoner, and in helping, counselling, assisting him, after he has been discharged from prison. And I will also show that society generally does not have prejudice against such people unless, of course, these people repeatedly commit crimes. My Ministry has a Prison Welfare Service. The Prison Welfare Service takes care of prisoners, long-term prisoners as well as those under statutory supervision like young offenders and habitual offenders. The Ministry of Home Affairs takes care of the criminal law detainees and drug offenders through the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) and the Central Narcotics Bureau's job placement unit. And there are also a number of voluntary organizations, for example, the Singapore After-Care Association (SACA), helping in the rehabilitative effort of the ex-prisoners. SACA will visit the prisoner one or two months before his release. The Prison Welfare Officer deals with the prisoner the moment he is in and if he falls into the category of prisoners to be serviced by the Prison Welfare Service. While in prison, the Prison Department through SCORE provides skills training, vocational training and academic training to those who can benefit from such training. Everything possible is done to make the prisoner's reintegration into society easy after his release. Just as an example, SCORE provides vocational training and work programmes, including VITB approved training courses in electrical wiring, general welding, industrial training in furniture, metal, electronic products, bakery, cane products, laundry, tailoring and printing.”
“I wrote to the Registrar of Vehicles and I had a reply in this case, and the reply is, "He does not have a clean record, therefore we cannot give him a licence." It is these sort of cases, I think, which show the complete harshness of the rule. As I said, if they have been made to pay the penalty or the price and they have paid it, then they should be accepted into the society again. They may not be accepted into responsible positions but at least they should be accepted back into society, into positions of employment, so that they can lead a useful life. If we still continue to deprive them of any gainful employment, the answer surely must be that we are driving them back into crime. I hope the Ministry takes notice of that. Thank you, Sir. The Acting Minister for Community Development (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson raises this question of the plight of people who have served sentences. He has raised this question, in fact, a number of times over the years in Parliament and he has been given the answers. It shows that he is still not satisfied with the answers. He said at the beginning that he has no personal interest in what he is raising today despite the sentence that he has to serve if his appeal fails at the end of next month. I am glad he also said that an enlightened government should have rehabilitation as its main feature in its penal policy. Sir, this is indeed what the Government is doing. Imprisonment of an offender is not something invented by Singapore. It is a practice as old as the hills. But imprisonment has two purposes, incarceration of an offender and rehabilitation.”
“The company was prepared to take him as a bus driver but when the application was made to the Registry of Vehicles for a vocational driver's licence to enable him to drive a bus with the Singapore Bus Services, that was denied him. So the man has been without a job now, since 1984. I wrote on his behalf on the 8th May to the Registrar of Vehicles and I have not, to this date, received any reply from the Registrar of Vehicles. He came to see me only on the 17th of this month again, and he is desperate. He says, "All that I can do is to drive. I can drive a taxi or a bus but I can't get a job." And to make matters worse for him, the Housing and Development Board has slapped a notice on him saying that he owes the Board something like $2,586 in arrears for instalments due on the flat and threatening to acquire the flat for non-payment of the instalments under section 48. So there you have a human situation, of a man who did not go to prison but who was just fined $1,000 and now completely deprived of any livelihood or of the livelihood that he knows. He cannot be employed as a bus driver. I, really for the life of me, cannot see why he cannot be employed as a bus driver, if it is felt that he cannot be a taxi driver because he might be left with a passenger alone in the taxi. I have another case and this time of a man who applied for a taxi driver vocational licence. He has a very casual job at the moment and he wishes to drive a taxi and I think he has a job available. But he again applied to the Registrar of Vehicles for a taxi driver vocational licence and he has been refused. Because he tells me that he was charged and probably convicted, I think, in court in 1979.”
“They are, may I say, still members of the society and they are entitled to some respect and consideration even though they may have gone astray in time past. There is also the question that I wish to ask, and that is, the fact of the identity card numbers of certain persons who have been convicted of, perhaps, the graver offences, crimes, being altered by the addition of another number onto it. I am told that where a person has been convicted of certain scheduled offences, upon his release another number is added on to his identity card number. I have asked the Commissioner for Registration of Persons for the legislative authority for this and he was unable to help me. Perhaps I have not been very fair to him because I only rang him up this morning. And at one o'clock when I went back, he was still unable to help me with this. So perhaps the Minister could tell us about this legislative authority whereby persons who are released are given a different identity card numbering which immediately identifies them as criminals or persons with past records. The Commissioner for Registration did not seem to be aware of it. Quite apart from employment, Sir, I have had two instances of persons applying for licences. They have been told that they cannot get their licences. These two instances relate to licences for driving public service vehicles. I had a man who came to see me in May last year. He was a taxi-driver for some years. Then he was convicted by a court and fined $1,000. I believe the offence was because he had attacked a woman passenger in his taxi. Then his taxi licence was immediately revoked by the Registry of Vehicles and the man was thrown out of a livelihood. He says, subsequently he applied to the Singapore Bus Services to be taken on as a bus driver.”
“But perhaps the Minister can tell us, or whoever is replying to this, as to whether previous convictions are now released to every enquiry from a prospective employer. I can well understand that persons who are to be employed as cashiers or to have custody of money should not be persons who have previously had two or three convictions for embezzlement. But I cannot see why they cannot be employed in other occupations. So I would like to know whether the previous convictions of offenders are made known readily to all and sundry. Secondly, I wonder whether the Ministry would consider, even in cases where they are made known, whether this should be limited to a period of time for a few years, say, where the persons have been convicted within the three years preceding the enquiry and not disclosing any offences where the person had kept away from crime, had proved himself to have taken the necessary steps to keep away from crime for three years or more. It would be sort of, as it were, he has undergone a probationary period after his release and has shown himself to be able to resist any propensity to crime. I would ask the Minister to consider this because some of them have told me that although they have been out of the courts and the prisons for three to five years, the convictions sustained by them 10 years earlier or eight years earlier are still held against them. I would also ask whether the Ministry would consider advising statutory boards and the Government to extend some positive help to these people by going out of their way to employ them, particularly where they have been out of employment for a number of years. I say they need help and they are crying out for help and they say they are not getting it.”
“Generally, an enlightened policy is adopted towards convicted persons who apply for jobs in the public sector. Each case will be considered on its own merit. The seriousness and nature of the offence as well as evidence of rehabilitation and likelihood of recidivism and the nature of the job applied for need to be considered.' That as a statement of principle is perfectly acceptable. But it does not do enough for this class of persons. I do not know what the number is and it would be useful if we could have some idea (I don't suppose we will get it this evening) of the number of persons who are in this category. The answer given to that question seems to adopt or take a negative line - We do not as a rule exclude persons from seeking employment in the Civil Service or Statutory Boards. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have had people coming to see me who want to make amends, who want to get back into the society and who find themselves completely shut out at every effort they make to get back into the society. The only way they can get back into the society is if they can find gainful employment. I have had people who say that the moment they apply, they are told they would be considered and then later on they are told, "We can't take you on because of your previous convictions." It does not matter how many years past, these previous convictions were sustained. And so the man is under a lifelong disability, it would appear, from ever seeking any employment. I think it is to this that we must address ourselves and see whether it is right, and whether we should now take some positive steps to see that these persons are rehabilitated and accepted into the society. I do not know what the policy is.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have claimed the right to speak on the Adjournment in order that I may bring into this House a cry for help that I get from time to time. But, first of all, may I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker and Members, that this is not an appeal on behalf of myself or a cry for help from me because I would be thought to come into this category. I am, of course, speaking on behalf of persons who have been convicted in the courts and served their sentences and then released. And I am speaking of the difficulties and problems that they encounter in our society after their release. Before I speak of their particular problems, may I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, without attempting to deliver a long lecture on this, that rehabilitation of the offender into the society is the main object or, if that is not accepted, one of the main objects of an enlightened penal policy, quite apart from deterrent and other objects. It must be the rehabilitation of the offender back into the society. And the rehabilitation of the offender is best achieved by the offender made to feel that he is accepted as a member of the society and that he is not disbarred for life from any right or privilege that other members of the society may enjoy. After all, he has paid the penalty, the price, for his wrongdoing. And upon payment of that price or penalty, he should be accepted. To try and continue to deprive him would be continuing the punishment and would be completely unjust and harsh. I asked the Minister for Home Affairs a Question for Written Answer on the 31st October 1985, and his answer was: 'The Government does not as a rule exclude persons with previous convictions from seeking employment in the Civil Service or Statutory Boards.”
“Thank you. Resolved, That the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. CIVIL DEFENCE BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.20 pm”
“No, no. I am referring to section 94(2).”
“I will check that with him because I spoke to him this morning.”
“I was told by the President. I do not know whether this is correct or not.”
“Similarly, I said section 97 where the Disciplinary Committee concludes that there is no case, the applicant can still go to the Court and get the Judge's ruling on it. So I would like to know where have I misled the House when I referred to all these sections.”
“Firstly, it is this question about sending a copy of the Bill to the Council. My point was that before the Bill was introduced on the 25th August in this House, there was no reference of it to the Council. The Minister says I have misled. But he comes back and he says even before Members of the House saw the Bill, he had sent it to the Council. The question simply is this: did the Minister send it to the Council before the Bill was introduced in Parliament? That was the point. I have spoken to the President this morning and he said there was no communication whatsoever to him before the Bill was introduced in Parliament. So would the Minister put this right and not try and mislead the House? He says the first communication was a letter of the 15th September from the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Law. Secondly, the Minister accuses me of misleading. If he looks at section 94(2) of the Act, the Minister will find that if the Disciplinary Committee determines that no cause of sufficient gravity exists, the court can direct further action, notwithstanding the report of the Disciplinary Committee. This is where I said the Chief Justice has control over the whole proceedings. And I said the report of the Disciplinary Committee must also go to the Chief Justice. So he does not have to accept the report of the Disciplinary Committee, regardless of whether the Council accepts it or not. And I do think the Minister was unfair to me in accusing me of misleading because I specifically referred to sections 96 and 97 of the Act. I said where the Inquiry Committee does not recommend a formal investigation, the applicant can still apply to the Court and the Judge can then direct that the matter be sent to the Disciplinary Committee.”
“No, Sir, but here, at the Second Reading, because in his speech the Minister has accused me of misleading. I would like to clarify that. And, secondly, he has just said that I have misled the House on certain sections. I have to put that right.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask in clarification?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I in clarification say that when I talked about the humiliation of the members of the Law Society, I was referring to the introduction of the Bill in Parliament without any consultation or discussion with the members. That is the humiliation I was talking about. I know it will be referred to a Select Committee, but that is completely a different thing. There was no consultation with the members before the Bill was introduced. That is the humiliation.”
“The Member talked about delay in the Inquiry Committee proceedings. Is he not aware that in the Act, the Inquiry Committee must report within two months?”
“On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, by way of clarification again. Is the Member not aware that if the Disciplinary Committee drags its feet over anything, he can write to the Chief Justice who can command the Disciplinary Committee to report immediately what progress it has made? That is the whole point of the Member for Potong Pasir's question. Here is a Member who says he is concerned about it. He has been, by now, 20 months a member of the profession. What has he done?”
“I meant to ask him to go before the members tonight.”
“In 1979, there was an amendment to bring in three Government appointed members on to the Council. The Minister was given the power to nominate three members on to the Council. May I say, Members of the House, that over the Causeway, they trust their lawyers. They allow their lawyers to regulate, and I think they discharge their duties. But not here. Mention has been made about suspended members not holding office. As the Member for Potong Pasir said, I think in a press statement, that apparently does not disqualify someone being appointed by the Government to a high office. So I find so many inconsistencies and contradictions in this Bill. And one is left with the feeling, I repeat, that the whole purpose of this Bill is simply to humiliate our legal brethren here, members of the Law Society. And why? Because they have spoken. They have discharged their duty to their fellow members of society. That is the unforgivable thing that they have done. They have at last woken up to their duty and they tried to discharge it. But lo and behold, the Government comes down upon them. It is for this reason, Sir, that I will oppose this Bill, and I give notice that I shall be calling for a division.”
“It is in the annual report. It is available. The Chief Justice will have it. The Minister for Law, if he calls for it, I am sure the Law Society will send it to him. What I would like to know, please, Sir, is: why is the present procedure faulty? The Minister says the present procedure is faulty. In what way does he find the present procedure faulty? I cannot find anything that is faulty about the present procedure. As I said, it is the only profession whose members are controlled by the Judges of the Supreme Court. Does he find that faulty? Does he think that somebody else should control the members of the Law Society? The Minister says self-regulation has become a farce. The point is that the Council does not regulate. The regulation is now left to the Judges of the Supreme Court. So may we have clear details about all the statements made by the Minister? There is one section on which I must speak, Mr Speaker, Sir, and that is on clause 8 which seeks to amend section 91 of the principal Act and which deals with the appointment by the Chief Justice of the members to the Disciplinary Committee. At present, it is all members of the profession who are appointed to the Disciplinary Committee. This amendment seeks to bring in somebody from outside the profession, which I commend. I think it is a step in the right direction. But what I do not understand is the inclusion of a legal officer who has at least eight years' service. If a complaint is made by the Attorney-General against a member of the Law Society, is it right and proper that a legal officer should be sitting on the Disciplinary Committee inquiring into the charge or complaint made by the Attorney-General? In any case, why is it necessary to have a legal officer?”
“No one can be allowed to regulate their own affairs and to run their own house but the Government must control it. There is yet one other incident, Mr Speaker, Sir, before I sit down and which comes to mind is this summoning by the Prime Minister of the pilots of the Singapore Airlines. There they were complaining, they were involved in a wage dispute with the company over their pay and the matter had been referred to the Industrial Arbitration Court. And I think the Industrial Arbitration Court is equated to the High Court. Notwithstanding that the matter was before the Court, the Prime Minister summoned the executive body of the Pilots' Association and gave them a dressing down and they were asked to withdraw all their demands. As I said, this is all in line; it is part of a pattern, a pattern that was set when the PAP took office in 1959. And it makes nonsense of all their protestations after 1984, of listening to the people, of a desire to relax and let the people have their say. Mr Speaker, Sir, before I sit down, may I just run through one or two points made by the Minister. One of his points was that the Law Society does not disclose the number of complaints. As I said, they make a report. The Inquiry Committee furnishes a report every year.”
“Why should he be denied this right and privilege to stand for election to the Council of the Law Society? The Minister says that it came as an utter surprise, to the utter amazement of the Government, that the members of the Law Society should be so foolish, should be so unwise, had gone out of their minds perhaps, to elect as their President someone who had been suspended at one time from the membership of the Society. May I ask the Minister whether any squeak was heard from the Government when he was elected? Did the Government express any regret? Did the Minister for Law express regret? Nothing. We heard nothing about it. But, of course, the position changed when the Law Society committed the unforgivable sin in Singapore of speaking against the Government on a proposed Bill. That is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is necessary to expose the hypocrisy behind this Bill. I say that the motives are not genuine and it is brought simply because the Government has decided it is time that the Law Society should be punished. And this, of course, is in line with the entire manner in which things have been done in Singapore. In 1973, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was a member of the Council of the Law Society, and so was Mr Dennis Murphy a member of the Council of the Law Society. But I was told, after it happened, that the Prime Minister had summoned all the members of the Council, excluding me and Mr Murphy. He did not want to see us. He had summoned all the other members of the Council and had told them how they should run their affairs. And it was there, I was told, that the Prime Minister said that he was going to deal with me outside. That was why I was not there before him. But this is it, this desire, this insatiable thirst, to control every activity in Singapore.”
“As I said earlier, we are left then with only one reason, and that is, the Law Society and its members have to be put in their place, and their place is not to criticize the august Government, however gently they may do it; their place is simply to obey; that the Government was the embodiment of all that is good for Singapore, and that nobody should be allowed to deviate from the Government's embodiment of what is good for Singapore. So the Government decided that the Society and the President had to be punished. The President of the Law Society, under the amendment, will have to vacate his office. It is quite clear to me that once this Bill becomes law, he can no longer remain as President of the Law Society. If one looks at clause 3, one finds that section 59(1) which deals with members of the Council vacating their office, is amended by deleting the existing paragraph and substituting the new paragraph (a) which reads: 'he has been struck off the roll or suspended from practice for a period of 6 months or more or has been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty;' So it seems to me patently clear that the President will have to vacate his office. And this is a slap in the face for the members of the Law Society. They elected him and the Government decides that they should not have elected him. This is gross interference with the rights of the members of the Law Society. There is a section in the Act which says that all members of the Society shall enjoy the same privileges and rights. Of course, for the period of the suspension, the member does not enjoy the same rights and privileges. But once the suspension is over or he is restored to the roll of advocates and solicitors, then he enjoys the same rights and privileges.”
“Of these, 22 were dismissed and fines imposed on eight, and Disciplinary Committee appointed in only three cases. I should perhaps explain, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the benefit of Members, that a fine is the discretion given to the Council where the Council agrees with the view that no sufficient gravity exists for the member to be asked to show cause but nevertheless feels a fine should be imposed, and under the Act, the Society may fine any member up to $5,000. Then if you come to the last year for which I have the figure, and this is October 1984 to September 1985, there were 25 cases inquired into by the Inquiry Committee, of which 21 were dismissed, fines imposed on three and Disciplinary Committee appointed in one. That is the position up to 1985. I do not have the figures after that. Do they show, Mr Speaker, Sir, an alarming state of affairs in the legal profession? Mr Speaker, Sir, we have more than 1,000 members in the legal profession. I think the latest count would probably be about 1,350 or more. And the number of complaints does not come up to 5% in any year. May I say that is a remarkably low figure - complaints from members of the public - because if you look at the position in the United Kingdom, for example, again of course, they have got far more solicitors, you will see the complaints there come up to quite a big figure. So why has the Government suddenly come up with this Bill? The Minister has not explained to this House why he considers the present sections in the Act inadequate and what is wrong about them.”