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 25 of 82.
“Let us look, Mr Speaker, Sir, at some of the figures over the last five years of reports made to the Law Society and what action has been taken in those cases. I have culled these figures from the reports of the Inquiry Committees which were presented along with the annual reports of the Law Society. The Law Society, like every other society, presents an annual report, and attached to the annual report is a report of the Inquiry Committee. So the figures are taken from those reports. For the year October 1980 to September 1981, there were only 29 complaints which were investigated by the Inquiry Committee. Out of these, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Inquiry Committee held that 21 either had no grounds for complaint or that they should be dismissed. So out of 29, 21 were dismissed by the Inquiry Committee. And, as I said, the person who made the complaint could have taken it up if he had any qualms about the decision, and again the Chief Justice could have taken it up if he had any qualms or doubt about the decision. Fines were imposed only on six lawyers, and only in one case was a Disciplinary Committee appointed. We come to the year October 1981 to September 1982. There were 38 cases which were inquired into by the Inquiry Committee. I have only got the figures for dismissals. About 15 were dismissed and only in four cases were Disciplinary Committees appointed. For the year October 1982 to September 1983, there were 40 complaints and the Inquiry Committee held that 27 of them either had no grounds or that there was not enough evidence to justify the complaint. So 27 were dismissed and fines were imposed on six and Disciplinary Committees appointed in seven. Then if you look at the October 1983 to September 1984, 33 cases were inquired into by the Inquiry Committee.”
“And in cases where the Disciplinary Committee recommends that no sufficient gravity exists to ask the member to show cause, the Chief Justice can still direct the Council to apply to the Court by way of Originating Summons for the member to show cause. So there you have it. Even where the Disciplinary Committee says, "We don't think it is necessary for the member to show cause" after their formal investigation, the Chief Justice can disagree. Of course, the Council cannot, but the Chief Justice can and he can direct the Council to apply to the High Court for an order to show cause. So I hope I have made it quite clear that the real control lies with the Chief Justice, not with the Council. And then you have sections 96 and 97 of the Act. By these sections, Mr Speaker, Sir, any applicant who is not satisfied (by an applicant, of course, I mean a member of the public who has complained about the conduct of a member of the Society) if he is not satisfied with the decision of the Inquiry Committee that it should not go up to a Disciplinary Committee or, again, if he is not satisfied with the report of the Disciplinary Committee that the member should not be asked to show cause, he still has a remedy. He can himself take out an application in the High Court before a Judge and ask the Judge to direct that the Inquiry Committee's findings be set aside and the matter be referred to the Disciplinary Committee, or that the Disciplinary Committee's findings be set aside and that the man should be made to show cause. We have had instances of that in the recent past. So the public are adequately protected and, at the risk of repetition, the control vests with the Chief Justice and the Judges of the Supreme Court.”
“The Inquiry Committee must report whether a formal investigation is necessary and, Members of the House, that means that the matter should be referred to a Disciplinary Committee, or the Inquiry Committee can report that a formal investigation is not necessary, or it can report that the Council itself can take action on it. Then once the Council receives the report from the Inquiry Committee, the Council must determine within one month what it proposes to do. If the Inquiry Committee recommends a formal investigation, the Council has no choice in the matter. It must go to the Disciplinary Committee. But the Council is allowed to disagree with the Inquiry Committee if it proposes no formal investigation. The Council can, nevertheless, still refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee even when the Inquiry Committee says no formal investigation is necessary. And then by section 91 when the matter is referred to the Disciplinary Committee, the members who sit on the Disciplinary Committee are all appointed by the Chief Justice. The Council has no choice. It does not select any member to sit on the Disciplinary Committee. The Chief Justice does it. It is his decision and his decision alone. Then if we look at section 94 of the Act, you find that the Disciplinary Committee decides whether the member should be made to show cause. It makes a recommendation to that effect. But the important thing is this: that the report of the Disciplinary Committee does not go only to the Council, it also goes to the Chief Justice because it reports to him.”
“Has there been any public disquiet that members of the Law Society, the lawyers, are getting away unpunished, or is it just merely in the mind of the Government and its Ministers? Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I propose to show what control now exists over the members of the legal profession. As I said a little while ago, the disciplinary control is not exercised by the Council. It is exercised by Judges of the Supreme Court, and what better protection than that can the members of the public have? By section 85 of the Act, Mr Speaker, Sir, the members of the Inquiry Committee are appointed not by the Council, and this is why I think the Minister was not altogether truthful when he said that the Council shared the responsibility. He was omitting this - that the members of the Inquiry Committee are all appointed by the Chief Justice. He selects them. The Council has no hand in the appointment of Inquiry Committee members. Then, by section 86 of the Act, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Council is required to refer all complaints to the Inquiry Committee from any member of the public or any public application. The Council has no discretion. It must go to the Inquiry Committee. And by section 87, the Inquiry Committee is required, it is mandatory, to report within two months. They cannot drag their feet over any complaint and I thought there were some vague allusions or insinuations that things were being covered up. I shall show that there is no possibility of any cover-up, and I do regret that the Minister should have chosen in this House to smear the whole of the legal profession in the manner he did.”
“If I may mention by way of contrast, Mr Speaker, Sir, there was another Bill, not concerning lawyers, but concerning the gentlemen in the stockbroking industry. We were told this year in March, I think, that as early as the middle of last year or the beginning of last year, the Government had proposed to introduce a new Securities Industry Bill to give the MAS more powers over the stockbroking industry. We were told that the draft of that Bill was sent to the Committee of the Stock Exchange sometime at the beginning of last year or the middle of last year. And we were told by the Minister that the gentlemen in the Committee of the Stock Exchange were not very happy about the Bill, and so nothing was done. It was not introduced in Parliament until, of course, these gentlemen in the Stock Exchange Committee and others had brought ruin to thousands of Singaporeans by the Pan-El crisis, leading to the closure of the Stock Exchange for three days. After they had wrought the damage, simply out of pure greed, then the Government decided that it could not wait any more for their views. It decided to rush through the Securities Industry Act, with or without their views. But there you have it, by way of contrast. The Government sought the views of the Committee of the Stock Exchange in 1985, but not the Council of the Law Society on this Bill. Why, may I ask, was a distinction made? Why were the members of the Committee of the Stock Exhange treated in a preferential manner? What clout did they have? Would the Minister try and explain? I ask again the Minister to be honest and tell us what is the reason for the Government introducing the Bill. Has there been any public outcry?”
“And so I ask the question that I asked then: why does this Government take it upon itself to ridicule and humiliate our people? What right does the Government have? Not long ago, we had the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office making a completely unwarranted attack on the professions. I have been accused here of having made a scurrilous comment on the Chief Justice. I have asked, what is my scurrilous comment? What about the comments made by the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office? If mine was scurrilous, what were these comments? Pure abuse of the profession and at a time when we need the people outside Singapore to repose confidence in Singapore and Singaporeans. But here is the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office branding all professionals in Singapore as crooks, swindlers, and what have you. So what will an investor think before he decides to come to Singapore? A man with money to invest, what will he think? He will say, "I have got to think twice. Here is the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office giving me plain warning that Singapore is full of crooks." I hope the Government realizes the damage that has been done by this Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office. The humiliation is that before this Bill was introduced in Parliament, the Council of the Law Society was never consulted. No views of the Council were sought on this Bill and yet this Government speaks time and time again of consultation, of feedback. After the 1984 elections, it was recognized that there was a need for consultation and they set up the Feedback Unit. What happened to the Feedback Unit when this Bill was thought of? Why were the lawyers not consulted? Why were their views not sought?”
“That is the fallacy. I have said, if the Government says quite seriously that any member of the public can voice his criticism, then that right must be given or recognized, whether the person says it individually or whether he says it with 10 others. Freedom of assembly is an integral part of the freedom of speech, and that I am afraid this Government fails to grasp or recognize. It would appear, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Government has no faith, no trust. I said, in speaking on the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill, that the Government would appear to have no trust or faith in the judgment of its citizens and it was necessary to regulate and con- trol their reading. Now it would appear that the Government has no faith or trust in the members of the legal profession. That, this Government has made quite plain from its inception in 1959. It had no trust, no faith in its own citizens, and I say, Sir, in all sincerity and with all force, that a government which has no faith, which has no trust in its citizens, and particularly in its professionals, has no moral right to govern. If you do not have any faith in the citizens, then you have lost your right to govern the citizens because government can only proceed upon mutual trust and confidence, ie, mutual trust of the citizens in the government and mutual trust of the government in the citizens, and particularly of the professions. But if that is lacking, then you have lost your right to govern. Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill is intended to humiliate the members of the Law Society. Again, as the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill was intended to humiliate our citizens, this is intended to humiliate the members of the Law Society.”
“If it had any recommendations or any communications to make, it made it direct to the Government. So that was all right. The public were not told. But sometime this year when the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill was introduced, the Law Society took upon itself to fulfil one of its roles, and I say that it is one of the roles of the Law Society. It is a role that the Society should discharge to members of the public. It is a role that any professional society should discharge to members of the public, and that is, to voice their criticism or fears of any impending legislation, or indeed of any issue that might concern and affect the citizens generally. And that is what the Law Society did. But that was unforgivable. The Government took umbrage when a government in any other democratic country, a government which respected its citizens, a government which trusted its citizens, would have welcomed the criticism of the Society or the group. But not in Singapore. In Singapore, no one, I repeat, no one can stand up and voice his criticism and especially so if that criticism carries some weight, as indeed the criticism by the Law Society did, because it was voicing the criticism of the members of the legal profession. And we had, immediately following the criticism by the Law Society, statements by the Ministers that the Law Society was entering into the political arena, that the President of the Law Society was politically motivated - all quite uncalled for. A society which voices criticism is not necessarily thereby entering into the political arena. The fallacy which I have said outside is that this Government says that it is open to any individual member of the society to voice any criticism. But it says he cannot do it with 10 others together.”
“It is not only just lawyers, but doctors, accountants, architects. It is necessary that the public should be protected from errant members of these professions who service the public. So no one questions that need. I do not think the lawyers have ever questioned that need. But it is not as though there has been no protection for the public against errant members of the legal profession, and I shall, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the time allotted to me, show that there is ample protection at the moment. Let it not be forgotten that the legal profession is the one profession where its members are controlled and disciplined not by the members but by a body completely outside. The control and discipline of the members of the Law Society lie with the Judges of the Supreme Court. I shall show that the Minister is wrong when he says that the Council shares this responsibility. The Council does not share the responsibility. At the moment there is ample protection for the public in the measures outlined in the Act relating to complaints against members of the Law Society, against the members of the legal profession. So what has prompted this Bill? I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is quite plain to anyone that this Bill has been prompted purely for one reason, and one reason only. Just as I said about the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) (Amendment) Bill, that it was prompted only for one reason and that it had nothing to do with the decorum and dignity of the House. This Bill has been prompted simply because the Law Society has done the unforgivable thing in Singapore. In the past, the Law Society had somehow carried out its functions in a manner that the Government approved or accepted.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I speak on this Bill, may I say that I have no direct personal pecuniary interest. But I certainly have an interest because I am a member of the Society and I am an advocate and solicitor. Secondly, may I also make it quite clear that I am not speaking on behalf of the Law Society or any group. I am speaking here as a Member of Parliament and expressing my own views on this Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not that the Bill is devoid of any merit. I can find one particular amendment which commends itself to me and I think it should commend itself to the public at large, and that is, that there should be somebody outside the legal profession sitting on the Disciplinary Committee when it makes a formal investigation into a complaint against a member of the Law Society. I think it may be perhaps judicious that we should apply this generally now to all professions, and I would like to commend to the Minister and to the Government that perhaps they should set up a professional tribunal panel consisting of memebers who would be called upon from time to time to sit on Disciplinary Committees or other committees inquiring into the conduct of professionals. And at least one member should come from a profession outside the profession of the member who is inquired into. So it is completely not without merit, Mr Speaker, Sir. But nevertheless I oppose this Bill and I do so, Mr Speaker, Sir, vehemently. My opposition to this Bill springs largely from the motives for the introduction of this Bill. I question the motives and I think it is necessary that the Minister should explain the real motives for this Bill and not hide behind platitudes. Nobody, Mr Speaker, Sir, questions the need for the public to repose the utmost confidence in any professional grouping.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is really by way of clarification. I am afraid the Minister has completely missed the import of my objection. The Minister spends all his time, in replying, in referring to clause (4) of Article 9 where it requires the person arrested to be produced before a magistrate. I was not pleading for that. I was confining my speech to the protection in clause (3) that he shall be allowed to consult a legal practitioner of his choice. That is my question: why cannot he be allowed to consult? He may be in prison, I am not saying that he should be released, but why cannot he ask for the services of a lawyer to consult the matter of his expulsion? I think the Minister has completely missed the point of my objection and refers to production before a magistrate. That is not my point. Secondly, he talked about the UK rule. May I, first of all say, I do not know why it is necessary for us to follow the UK rule even if there is such a rule. But is there a legislative enactment in the United Kingdom that any Member expelled by the House of Commons will not be allowed to consult a legal practitioner of his choice? Is there a legal enactment?”
“I can understand that perhaps he may not be able to challenge the expulsion in court. He may, in some cases, be able to challenge it if he is able to show that the expulsion is procedurally wrong. He may not be able to challenge it on the grounds of the merits or the reasons for the expulsion. But even if he is unable to challenge it, why should he be denied the right to consult with a legal practitioner? He may wish to present a petition to Parliament upon his expulsion and he may need a legal practitioner to help him with that petition. What is the great objection to him being allowed to consult a legal practitioner? As I said, it violates this basic right which is recognized in all countries which observe the rule of law that a man should not be denied his right to legal advice. Perhaps the Minister might explain why we have sought to deny the expelled Member this basic right.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister, in moving this Bill, says that it is consequential upon the passing of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) (Amendment) Act. I can understand that it is so when one looks at clause 3 of the proposed Bill which seeks to amend Article 46(2) of the Constitution to provide that a Member of Parliament shall vacate his seat when he is expelled from Parliament in the exercise of its power of expulsion. What I do not understand is how clause 2 of the Bill is consequential on the passing of the earlier Act. Clause 2 seeks to deprive a Member of Parliament who has been expelled of a constitutional right which is accorded to every citizen in this country. It is spelt out in Article 9 (3) of the Constitution, and it reads: 'Where a person is arrested he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.' It may be that he need not be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest because he should know the ground if he is arrested on the orders of the Speaker or Parliament for contempt of Parliament. But it is the second limb of that sub-article providing that he "shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice" that I am concerned with. As I said, it is an Article in the Constitution. But it is more than that. It is something which is now recognized universally in all countries which apply the rule of law - that anyone who is arrested shall have the right to consult a legal practitioner. Why is a Member of Parliament, albeit an expelled Member of Parliament, be denied this right which is accorded to every citizen?”
“That constitutional provision actually envisages situations of arrest by Police of offenders. It is, therefore, not appropriate that both these requirements should apply to a person who is arrested for contempt of Parliament. In the United Kingdom, persons accused of contempts of Parliament are not, as a rule, allowed to be defended by counsel and leave from the House must be obtained for counsel to be heard. Parliament can, of course, give such leave in appropriate cases, as indeed we in this House did in the recent hearings of the Committee of Privileges. However, it is proposed that the strict legal requirement and position in the United Kingdom with regard to representation by counsel should also be made applicable here. As regards the production of a person arrested for contempt of Parliament before a magistrate, clearly this would not be apt. A magistrate would not be in a position to determine whether such a person is to be detained or released. Accordingly, clause 2 of this Bill will amend Article 9(5) of the Constitution so as to exclude the application of clauses (3) and (4) of that Article to any person arrested for contempt of Parliament pursuant to a warrant issued under the hand of the Speaker. Sir, as I said, this Bill is consequential and straightforward, and I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“I am asking for it. CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 11.12 am. The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill is a straightforward Bill which is exclusively consequential in nature for it makes amendments to the Constitution which are consequential to the recent amendments to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) (Amendment) Act, 1986. Members will recall that that Act, inter alia, confers on this House the power of expelling a Member in line with similar powers which are to be found in the UK House of Commons and other independent Commonwealth Parliaments. In view of this new power of expulsion, it is necessary to amend Article 46(2) of the Constitution to make it clear that the effect of an expulsion would be to create a vacancy in the seat of the Member who is expelled. Article 46(2) specifies the various circumstances whereby the seat of a Member will become vacant. Clause 3 of this Bill adds a new paragraph (f) in Article 46(2) to provide that the seat of a Member will become vacant if he is expelled from Parliament. The other amendment, which is also consequential, relates to Article 9 of the Constitution. The Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) (Amendment) Act, 1986, which we recently enacted, now empowers the House to commit to prison a person who has committed contempt of Parliament. Under Article 9(3) and (4) of the Constitution, a person who is arrested is given the right to be represented by a legal practitioner of his choice and has the right to be produced before a magistrate within 48 hours.”
“May I ask the Acting Minister whether he will consider allocating one or two rooms in my constituency or ask the HDB to allocate one or two rooms for the use of the senior citizens because I have asked this and the HDB has said, "We can only do it if it is recommended by the Ministry of Community Development."”
“Perhaps one room, two rooms. Mr Wong Kan Seng: The senior citizens' clubs are either housed together with the Residents' Committees' facilities, or they are in the community centres. If not, they are in the void decks. So places are available for them to gather.”
“May I ask the Acting Minister, by way of a supplementary question again, Sir. What I would like to know from the Acting Minister is whether any rooms have been made available for the use of the senior citizens alone? And does his Ministry see that there is a need for a room or rooms to be set apart for the use of the senior citizens alone?”
“Supplementary question for the Acting Minister, Sir. Will the Minister enlighten us as to whether in the various constituencies facilities are provided for the senior citizens to meet among themselves and to have some recreation among themselves, apart from mixing with the rest of the citizens in the constituency?”
“May I ask the Minister again, by way of supplementary question. Is it the practice then to over-estimate the land required for the new towns, and to hold some of it in reserve for years to come? Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not the policy for HDB to over-estimate the requirement of land. As I have explained earlier, the HDB sold the flats for the duration of 99 years and the new town will be there for 99 years. During the next 99 years there would be a demand for development such as schools, hospital facilities, community buildings, religious buildings, and other institutions. So HDB must have a large number of reserved sites to meet this demand. HDB FLATS (Applicants and waiting period) 2. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong asked the Minister for National Development (i) the number of applicants for Housing and Development Board flats as at the latest convenient date; and (ii) the current waiting period for 3-room, 4-room and 5-room flats.”
“May I ask the Minister, if he says he has no project at the moment, then for what purpose was this land acquired, if it was acquired by the Government?”
“Sir, is the Minister aware of the assurance given by the Leader after he moved his motion, and when I sought clarification. I thought he said that these witnesses would be made available. And now I see that the Minister for Law seeks to say that it may be qualified and the question is completely left open. I think it is important because I have sought an assurance in this House that all these witnesses will be available to me for cross-examination, and we must have an answer to that.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, again I am seeking clarification from the Minister for Law. I see that this motion purely relates to counsel, enabling counsel to appear before the Committee of Privileges. It is silent on the question of witnesses. I had during the proceedings in Parliament when the matters were referred to the Committee of Privileges sought an assurance that all the witnesses that I wanted called would be made available to me for cross-examination. I would like to know whether the Committee of Privileges has taken note of that and has made a resolution to make available all these witnesses for cross-examination by me. I pointed out five persons which I had mentioned before the Commissioner of the Inquiry and then I said there was Mr Glenn Knight and then there were, of course, also the two Magistrates or District Judges whose names I have mentioned. May I ask the Minister for Law if these witnesses and any others that I may ask will be made available to me for cross-examination?”
“Lastly, in the present Act, the power of JTC to grant loans to companies in which JTC holds shares is implicit. It is implied by the express authority the Act gives JTC to invest in shares of subsidiary companies. It is desirable to make this authority to grant loans explicit. This the Bill seeks to do. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [BG Lee Hsien Loong.] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (COUNSEL)”
“But as a good employer, you should hear their views. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. JURONG TOWN CORPORATION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 7.15 pm The Acting Minister for Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the Jurong Town Corporation Act to enable JTC to operate more flexibly in three main ways. Firstly, the existing Act limits JTC's functions to within Singapore. JTC has developed valuable expertise in the planning and development of industrial estates, the management of marine bases and industrial ports for bulk cargo, and the construction of specialized facilities, such as clean rooms. It has therefore much to offer local entrepreneurs and professionals in their efforts to seek and secure jobs overseas. The Bill seeks to remove this restriction on JTC and enable it to do so. Secondly, the present JTC Act does not contain any provision regarding the appointment and duties of its Chief Executive Officer. This is unlike the Acts incorporating the other Statutory Boards. This came about because when the Act was first enacted, the intention was to vest the administrative control of JTC in a full-time Chairman. With the appointment of a non-executive Chairman, the day-to-day administration and management of the affairs of the Corporation falls upon its general manager, who should now be the Chief Executive Officer.”
“Do I then understand from the Minister that there was no consultation whatsoever with the officers about bringing in a rule that from 1st April 1986 there would be no more pensionable service with the Government?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise really by way of seeking clarification from the Minister on this Bill. As he has pointed out, the major change that is brought about by this Bill is that all officers appointed on or after the 1st April 1986 to the public service shall not be pensionable, except such schemes of service as may be designated by the President. And the Minister has said that this pension scheme would apply, or intended to apply, to key Services and key officers, and the intention is that they should be encouraged to make the public service their life-long career. I hope I have understood the Minister correctly. By implication, the Minister is saying that the pension scheme must be more advantageous to the public service officer than if he were put onto the CPF scheme. What I would like to know from the Minister is: since we are now making a drastic change from pensionable public service to non-pensionable public service for the majority of our civil servants, has there been any consultation with the public service? When I say "consultation with the public service", I mean the associations representing the public service and the unions. Have their views been sought at all as to what they feel about the change and whether it will have any detrimental effect on the public service making this conversion?”
“Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, purely out of deference to you, and for no other reason, I will agree.”
“Because of the majority they have, they are prepared to rush this Bill through. I think we, in the Opposition, should be allowed to maintain our right.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I know you will say that. But they are abusing the privilege of this House.”
“May I just reply to the Minister for Home Affairs an his clarification? He relies on the words in the new subsection (2) in clause 5, that it says "conferred by sections 3, 4 and 5". Of course, it must refer to the immunity conferred by section 5, by section 4 and by section 3. But where does section 4 say that the immunity is subject to Parliament waiving, or that section 4 shall not apply where Parliament has waived the immunity? Where does section 4 say that.”
“The new proposed subsection (2) expressly refers to section 4 of the existing Act. So there is no conflict. There might be an argument for conflict if the proposed amendment showed a lapse, shall we say, in terms of drafting. But there is no lapse. It is covered. There is express reference to section 4.”
“May I just reply to that briefly, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am afraid the Leader of the House has misconstrued section 30 of the present Act completely. Section 30 does not refer to anything said in Parliament. It talks about a number of other things, "wilfully failing or refusing to obey any rule or order of Parliament" and "failing to comply with any summons". And so it goes on. Whereas section 4 talks about statements made in Parliament, in the House or in any Committee of the House. So section 30 does not concern itself with statements made by a Member in Parliament, ie, "wilfully make a false answer to any question material to the subject of inquiry". That is something quite different from making a statement in Parliament on a Bill or in a debate on any matter. It is quite different, in my view. You cannot try and bring it within that. The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, just to supplement the point made by the Leader of the House. First of all, the Leader is quite correct in pointing out that section 30, paragraph (q) already envisages that certain proceedings in Parliament or a Committee thereof may be subject to proceedings in a court. And I quote the whole of paragraph (q): 'whether or not he has been sworn or has made an affirmation, [it is an offence] wilfully to make a false answer to any question material to the subject of inquiry put during examination before Parliament or a committee.' The other point, Mr Speaker, Sir, to make in response to the Member for Anson when he says there is a possible conflict between section 4 and the proposed clause 2 of section 20, is that there is no conflict. There is no conflict because section 4 of the Act is expressly referred to in the new subsection (2).”
“Because if you look at section 4 of the present Act, it says: 'There shall be freedom of speech and debate and proceedings in Parliament, and such freedom of speech and debate and proceedings shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any court, commission of inquiry, tribunal or any other place whatsoever out of Parliament.' So there you have a section, very clear in its terms, that anything said in Parliament "shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any court, commission of inquiry, tribunal or any other place whatsoever out of Parliament." And this Bill now proposes to provide that it shall be questioned where Parliament itself proposes to remove the immunity. But section 4 does not talk about the removal of such immunity by Parliament, by a resolution. So it is clearly, in my view, contrary to section 4 of the Act and is in conflict. And for this reason, I ask that the Minister consider now whether the proposed clause is in conflict; and secondly, for the more important reason, whether he thinks it necessary that we should subject proceedings in Parliament to an institution which, as I said, should be subordinate to Parliament. It derogates from the whole idea of the supremacy of Parliament and proceedings in Parliament. I beg to move, Sir.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 36 to line 9 in page 3, to leave out subsection (2). There is a consequential amendment. The figure "(2)" should be substituted for the "(3)" in subsection (3), so that the whole of subsection (2) is deleted and subsection (3) becomes subsection (2). Mr Speaker, Sir, my reasons for moving the amendment are that, as has been explained or pointed out by the Leader of the House, this is something completely new and is a departure from the law in the United Kingdom. As I said, there the United Kingdom Parliament has jealously fought to prevent any other tribunal outside it from inquiring into anything said in its Houses of Parliament. It has arrogated to itself the sole authority to decide on any matter said within it. And there was a good reason for it and the reason is that Members of Parliament may speak without any worry, without any fear, that they may be made subject to civil proceedings or criminal proceedings outside Parliament in respect of anything said by them in Parliament. This is fundamental and it is vital to the whole question of parliamentary government that Parliament alone is the supreme body, and every other institution in the land is subject to Parliament. Parliament is the supreme institution and no other tribunal may question anything said in Parliament. May I also point out, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the proposed subsection (2) will run counter to section 4 of the present Act. The Bill does not propose to make any amendment to section 4. I should perhaps not be pointing this out but raising it later outside if necessary. But I would be failing in my duty if I do not point out that the draftsman seemed to have overlooked completely section 4 of this Act.”
“May I ask for a Division on this? An hon. Member: You are wasting time.”
“' So it is the practice that is relevant at the time that we are seeking to interpret any orders in our Standing Orders. So my amendment will bring this clause into line with the Standing Order 104(1). Otherwise there is a conflict between Standing Order 104(1) and the amendment proposed in the Bill. I say this, Mr Speaker, Sir, without referring to matters before the Privileges Committee now. I have, in a submission, referred to a change that has come about in the United Kingdom Parliament and the Privileges Committee has got that in front of them. It is that sort of situations on which we should be guided. And I ask the Minister to consider accepting my amendment because it does not do any violence to the question of punishment which is what the Leader of the House and the Government are mostly concerned with - anyone who abuses privilege should be adequately punished. This does not. This amendment simply seeks to give guidance to everyone as to what constitutes abuse of privilege. The Leader himself told my colleague, the Member for Potong Pasir, "You can look it up in Erskine May." Well, Erskine May does not stop in 1962. Erskine May continues up to the present. And so we should know what the present usage of Parliament is. So I ask that the amendment be accepted.”
“Yes. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words "at the establishment of the Republic of Singapore" Sir, the purpose of the amendment will become clear if I explain that this clause tries to define what the powers, privileges and immunities of Parliament will be. It does not attempt to interfere with the punishment for any abuse of privilege. This clause merely tries to define what the powers, privileges and immunities of the House shall be. And the Leader in moving the Bill said, (I hope I have got him correctly) that we are still at the elementary stage of democracy and it would useful for us to have regard to the usages of the UK Parliament, just as in our judicial system we have recourse to how the law is applied in England. And although they are not binding on us, they are, as the Judges will tell you, of great persuasive authority. So my plea is that we are not going to suffer anything if we take guidance on the question of what amounts to an abuse of privilege, what amounts to contempt, from the usages, conventions and customs of the UK Parliament. If, after taking such guidance, we find that the Member has committed an abuse of privilege, then the punishments are there and the punishment may be more drastic than the UK Parliament because in the UK Parliament there is no punishment of a fine. But it is important that we should have some guidance as to what amounts to an abuse of privilege. May I refer, Mr Speaker, to Article 104 of the Standing Orders by which we are guided. It says, 'In cases of doubt the Standing Orders of Parliament shall be interpreted in the light of the relevant practice of the Commons House of Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”
“I give notice that I will be moving amendments to clause 2 and clause 5.”
“Mr Chairman, may I seek a direction from you first, and that is this. I understood from the Leader of the House that, since this Bill is being taken through a Certificate of Urgency, the question of giving notice of amendments will be dispensed with and that any Member may move any amendment at the Committee stage without giving notice. If that is so, I propose to move a number of amendments.”
“This concerns the proceedings before the Committee of Privileges. I asked the Leader whether the whole purpose, as I said it would appear to be, was to try and seal my mouth before the Committee of Privileges and he said, "No. That is not the intention. But if he makes further statements about other things, then of course this will apply." Does he or does he not accept that that would amount to limiting my defence, putting limitations on my defence? It is like telling an accused person in court, "You may not say anything else. You cannot speak except on this very charge. You cannot bring in anything else." Does he or does he not accept that, and is that the intention so that I can be sealed? Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no intention to seal the Member's lips in any way. Unless he claims that the only way he can defend himself is by making more smears and more insinuations and more defamatory statements. He can say what he likes in the Committee of Privileges but if he makes new statements which are defamatory he should be very clear in his own mind that he has evidence to substantiate those statements. That is all that is required.”
“You are going to follow British practice, are you?”
“That is not my challenge. An hon. Member: Chicken out!”
“Are you saying that the Prime Minister is not prepared to accept that challenge? Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, do sit down. He is not giving way.”
“My proposal was that the Prime Minister will also resign his seat.”
“The Leader forgets that it is the person aggrieved by the defamatory statement. If the Chief Justice, according to the Prime Minister, wants me to repeat it, let him write to me, I said, and I will then repeat the statement if he points exactly to the statement that I made.”
“Point of clarification. I think what the Leader of the House omits is that I said if the Chief Justice will write to me, because I do not know what is it that he wants me to repeat, and point out exactly what he wants me to repeat outside, I will repeat it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is all before the Committee of Privileges.”
“Does the Leader have the whole of my speech with him? Does he have it? Because I was responding, Mr Speaker, Sir, to a letter that appeared in the Straits Times that day. I said that "we are determined to change the way things are being run". If that is to be interpreted as bringing down the system, so be it.”
“Yes, get the newspaper. Because what I was doing was responding to a letter in the Straits Times.”