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 26 of 82.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, he is misquoting me completely.”
“Yes, you can ask the Member for Potong Pasir if you like.”
“What I said was that we intend to change the system, and we intend to change the way things are being run in Singapore. And I was responding --- An hon. Member: Ask the Member for Potong Pasir.”
“The Leader is misquoting what I said at this dinner.”
“Do you know what the UK practice is? Do you know?”
“I said I did not want to go into that. I said they were before the Committee of Privileges. But the Leader is now saying, unless he says he has not said it, that these allegations are unfounded.”
“I am saying it is a point of order. Is he allowed to refer to matters which are before the Committee of Privileges? Mr Speaker: But you yourself mentioned the case too. You mentioned it yourself just now.”
“It is a point of order. These allegations are now before the Committee of Privileges. And here is the Leader saying, "makes allegations which he is unable to prove." So he is pre-determining the decision of the Privileges Committee.”
“May I ask the Member who has just spoken, by way of clarification, since he seems to agree that Parliament is under scrutiny by the public, and very rightly too he has pointed that out, would he support my proposal that the matter should be referred to the public and to the constituents of Anson and Tanjong Pagar to decide? Mr Dhanabalan: Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. As I understand it, the Standing Orders on clarification are quite clear. If the Member wants to clarify what he has said, he can do so. He is constantly using points of order and clarification to make further speeches and challenges. I think this should not continue, Mr Speaker.”
“On a point of clarification. Mr Ng Kah Ting: I am not giving way, Sir.”
“You want to get on because you do not know what you are talking about.”
“"Why don't you repeat it outside"? Well, that is the threat that the Members of this House indulge in.”
“All that I said was the man was at one time during the Japanese Occupation working with the Japanese police. Why was it defamatory to mention what somebody did during the Japanese Occupation? Some hon. Members: Why don't you repeat it outside?”
“That is a threat. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not making any defamatory remarks about Mr Howe Yoon Chong, if that is what the Member is saying. I merely questioned, as you yourself pointed out, the circumstances under which somebody came to have a licence to sell drugs and medicines in the hospital. How does that amount to defamatory remarks about Mr Howe Yoon Chong? It is a complete non sequiter and an inability to understand what defamatory matter is. Secondly, what defamatory matter did I say about Mr S.R. Nathan? Mr Speaker: He was going to tell you.”
“"Why don't you repeat it outside?" "Why don't you repeat it outside?"”
“Does he, first of all, understand what defamatory matter is? Secondly, I was not making any defamatory remarks. An hon. Member: Why don't you repeat it outside?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Would the Member refer now the House to all the statements uttered by me which amount to defamation of persons outside this House? Would he please refer the House to all the statements before he makes that statement?”
“And may I say this before I sit down: that it is not a private feud between me and the Prime Minister. I am not bringing this because of any private feud or vendetta, as he seemed to imply in his letter to me and I mentioned it. I bear him no ill-will. But I am concerned, and I am sure he is concerned - I must give him credit - I am sure he is concerned with democratic institutions. He must be concerned with the democratic way of life. I hope he is still because he was when he was in the Opposition from 1955 to 1959. Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)”
“We chose this deliberately when, in 1958, it was decided that we should get our self-government. That is the system, the parliamentary democracy, that was accepted, as I said, not by me but by the Prime Minister when he was in the Opposition. He fought for it. When I mentioned about his performances in the Legislative Assembly - I hope the Prime Minister's speeches in Parliament in the Legislative Assembly between 1955 and 1959 is compulsory reading for all PAP backbenchers - I am not saying something new. He said it then, in 1955 to 1959. He was the champion of parliamentary democracy. And so he persuaded the citizens, our people, to accept parliamentary democracy. But the tragedy is that after he persuaded them to accept parliamentary democracy, he began dismantling them one by one, as I said, the trade unions, the press, and even undermining the independence of our courts. I have mentioned this because the Constitution was amended to enable the Prime Minister to appoint judges for a fixed period. He began undermining the whole system when he abolished the jury trial, because the jury trial is again part of the whole democratic institution of government. As Devlin said, "The jury is a miniature parliament." So now this is the last assault, as it were, by the Government on the remaining institution. And it is too precious for us to let go, and it is too precious for the people to let go. I think the people should be asked to decide. So I appeal to the Prime Minister. I am sorry to have to say this: he is the one man who will understand what is involved in all this, the momentous nature of this Bill and the violence it is doing to the whole idea of parliamentary democracy. I still hope we will see him and that he will accept my challenge.”
“We are here because of the people, and we are here to serve them. So is it not right that they should decide this rather than that we should decide whether an Opposition Member of Parliament is wrong when he comes and makes statements which question the Government's sincerity, which question the Government's decisions, in a manner which seems to challenge the entire Executive functioning? As I said, my crime would appear to be that I had said that there was disquiet in the public about the transfers. So I hope my proposal will be conveyed to the Prime Minister, and that the further progress of this Bill be delayed until the Prime Minister considers my request, so that the decision of the people may be obtained on this. Of course, the best thing would be for a referendum or for general elections, but I will be told that will be too costly. But the cost should be no object because we are now trying to tinker with our democratic institution of Parliament. And the people must have their say in this. If the Prime Minister thinks that it will not be safe for him to resign his seat in Tanjong Pagar, we will understand that. Let him then nominate any other constituency. I am sure the Minister for Home Affairs will only be too anxious to fight the battle for the Government in his constituency. But let it be any constituency and let the issue be taken from this House, be taken from this House to the people where it belongs. The issue belongs to them, not just to this House. It is for them to say what matters can be raised in Parliament and should be raised in Parliament. Will the Prime Minister accept this challenge? I hope he does, and I hope he is here before we pass this Bill because, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have adopted the parliamentary system of government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, this is a very serious, momentous, Bill. Before I sit down, I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. He is not here, and I am very sorry that he is not here because, as I said, he realizes the implications of this. It is my appeal here that this matter should not just be decided in this House but should be passed for a decision by the people from whom we draw our authority. The people must be asked to decide whether it is outrageous conduct, whether it is contempt for any Member of Parliament to come here and question the Government and even to make allegations against the Government and to ask for an inquiry into these things. My proposal to the Prime Minister is this. I hope it will be conveyed to him and that he will come and try and answer this, because this is not a small matter, a trifling matter. This is a matter of great importance to parliamentary government. I am proposing to the Prime Minister that I resign from Anson and that he resigns from Tanjong Pagar, resigns his seat, and that writs be issued immediately - I must insist on that - that writs be issued immediately for a by-election in these two constituencies. Then he can offer himself for re-election in Tanjong Pagar, and I certainly will offer myself for re-election in Anson. He can send someone, he can send the whole Cabinet, to Anson to try and persuade the Anson voters that I have been a very naughty boy and that they should not send me back. Likewise, we shall send our member into Tanjong Pagar, and why not wait and see what the results of the decision of the people are on this question, because this is not something that we ourselves should decide. We are, as I have said before, an institution essentially of the people.”
“This Bill intends to allow somebody outside to intimidate a Member of Parliament from discharging his duty by threatening him with civil proceedings or criminal proceedings. That strikes immediately at the very heart of parliamentary freedom. Why is this Bill introduced? Is it because I have refused or I did not repeat what the Prime Minister said the Chief Justice wanted me to repeat outside? May I say this? When the Prime Minister mentioned that, I asked him, "Tell me what is it you want me to repeat? Tell me what statement it is that you want me to repeat?" I did not get any satisfactory answer from him. May I also say that I consider it very unfortunate that the Chief Justice has been drawn into all this. But I am sure, on sober reflection, the Chief Justice must regret that he allowed himself to be drawn into it. First of all, he sent a note to the Prime Minister. That, by the way, was a personal note and I do not know how the Prime Minister could make it public, in Parliament, when it was a personal note. The Member for Potong Pasir at the last sitting mentioned about the remark of a QC who was asked what the Chief Justice of England would have done if Mrs Thatcher had asked for a note. According to the Member for Potong Pasir, the QC said he would have told Mrs Thatcher to go and jump in the lake. So it is unfortunate that the Chief Justice allowed himself to be drawn into these proceedings. May I say this. Regardless of that, if the Chief Justice, because the Prime Minister apparently is very anxious, if the Chief Justice wants me to repeat, let him write to me and tell me exactly what is it in the parliamentary proceedings that he wants me to repeat. I will repeat them if he writes to me and tells me exactly what is it that he wants me to repeat.”
“Who is destroying our institutions? Why is the trade union movement what it is today - completely emasculated, serving the Government? Why is it? Why is the press what it is today - not serving its true role in a democratic society? It is all because this Government has deliberately gone about attacking these institutions and pretending, pretending that we still have these institutions. We do not have them. What we have are sham institutions. The trade unions are a sham. The press is a complete sham. And now since 1981, because one Member of Parliament has tried to assert the authority of Parliament, Parliament itself must now be attacked. That is the tragedy of this Bill, of a Government that has paid lip service to parliamentary democracy. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may go through some of these amendments. As I said, clause 2 of the Bill alters the position drastically and takes it away from the current UK practice. May I refer to the provision in this Bill which seeks to remove the immunity from a Member of Parliament for anything said in Parliament, and this is the new subsection (2) of section 20 in clause 5. I have said this several times and this is something that has been fought for and won by Parliaments of all free peoples that there must be absolute freedom of speech in Parliament and that there should be no questioning of it outside Parliament. Parliament itself can discipline but there can be no questioning of it outside Parliament. If one reads British parliamentary history, one will find the struggle Parliament has had with the courts in trying to keep the courts out of questioning any parliamentary proceedings.”
“Because Government enjoys this tyrannical majority, it is able now through this Bill to cut at the very foundation, to strike down the very foundation of Parliament, through its own institution. The institution is used against its own foundation. Parliament, of all the democratic institutions, the Courts, the trade union movement, the press and Parliament itself, is the one institution that is calculated or is designed to safeguard the liberties of the people. And this Government soon after it came to power in 1959 went for all these institutions. It went for the trade unions. It did what Hitler did, turned the trade unions upside down, made them stand on their heads. It went for the press. It took over the press completely. But it left Parliament alone because, as I said, there wasn't any need; Parliament was serving the purpose of the Government, an emasculated Parliament. And they were quite happy to let it be, as it was, because it was all Members of the PAP family. But now things have changed for the PAP and they have decided, it would appear, that Parliament itself should be attacked; the foremost of the free institutions, of free people everywhere, should be attacked. I see in today's papers an article in Petir about me wanting to attack the institutions. I suppose the PAP and the Government, like Goebbels, the German Minister for Propaganda, think that if you repeat something, times without number, some people may come to believe it. Who is destroying our institutions? Some hon. Members: You!”
“If you are going to label everything - the Leader of the House says "he makes defamatory statements about the Government". He forgets that the Opposition are there, if necessary at times, to make defamatory statements about the Government, to challenge any Government action and to ridicule it. What is the Opposition in Parliament for? Simply to say "Aye, Aye" to whatever the Government says? Is the Opposition here in Parliament simply to accept whatever the Government says? It shows a complete ignorance of what parliamentary government is all about. So I think it is a fallacy to say that we are bringing it into line with the practice in the British Parliament. This is a retrograde step, and while other Parliaments are moving forward we intend to go back and pitch our camp way back in 1962 and say, "That is going to be our position although this happens to be 1986." Opinions have changed, and people have moved on in their thinking about Parliament and what it should do and should not do. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is an attack, a deliberate attack by this Government at the very foundation of parliamentary democracy. We said, in a press statement that we issued the day after the Bill was published in the papers - and this was not published by the gutter press - we said that the irony is that Parliament itself is made to put the axe to this foundation. We said that this was possible because the PAP has an overwhelming tyrannical majority in Parliament. Because the Government enjoys this tyrannical majority, democracy can, Members, become, if one is not careful, the tyranny of the majority. That can be a sort of sham democracy.”
“The statement that it brings us into line with British practice and with other Commonwealth countries - I have already said that it does not, not with the current UK practice, because after this we shall not be able to look at anything of the changes that have taken place in the UK Parliament after 1962. Of course, the UK Parliament has powers to imprison. Of course, the UK Parliament has powers to expel, but they are not contained in an Act. These powers have been won by Parliament in its struggle with the Executive over 200 years, 300 years. And Parliament was asserting itself as the supreme body. Parliament was denying to the Courts, to everybody else, any power to question Parliament and of it being the only judge of what was said in Parliament, and therefore, Parliament had to have these powers in those days. But, if one looks at Erskine May, one will find that these powers were exercised in the last century and the century before that. I wonder whether the Leader of the House has made any study of the powers of punishment by the UK Parliament now, whether it has sent anyone to prison and whether it has expelled anybody over the last so many years. Parliament is not a static body. Parliament has to move along with the times. The other thing is, has this Government made a study of the nature of the abuses of privilege that the UK Parliament has sought to punish? Is it an abuse of privilege - I know this is coming up before the Committee of Privileges, but is it an abuse of privilege to question the Government, to question the independence of the Subordinate Court Judiciary? These are the basic questions that we have got to answer. What amounts to an abuse of privilege? What amounts to contempt? What amounts to dishonourable conduct?”
“There was a stranger in the House who was not a Member of the PAP family, and he was being a bit troublesome, forgetting quite deliberately that Parliament is not a family tea party of one political party but that Parliament is the chamber in which the government is taken to account, that Parliament is the Chamber in which searching questions are asked of the government, of the executive. And so we saw attempts, even before the 1984 Elections, to try and shut me up. Then came the 1984 Elections and the Government got a jolt, a setback, because the public had decided to reduce the percentage of votes that the Government had had enjoyed; and for good measure they sent another Opposition Member into Parliament. Government became more and more embarrassed. This Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir - I am sorry to have to say this because we will have to strip the hypocrisy that surrounds it - is introduced solely and only for one reason, and that is, because I had come to this House and said that there was public disquiet about transfers of the Subordinate Court Judiciary after they had given decisions unacceptable to the Government. I ask the Government, the Ministers, to be honest about this and say what other reason is there? I will not go into the question about my allegations because they are before the Committee of Privileges. But there we have it, the Government unable to accept the charge. A government that is committed to parliamentary democracy will not do this, introduce a Bill to shut the Member up. It will lay open the whole machinery to satisfy Parliament and the public that there can be no room for disquiet. But not this Government.”
“But if Papa said, "No, it is not good for you, children" everybody said, "Yes, Papa, we agree. We will go out and tell the people." So that was what Parliament was - dominated in its entirety by one party without any place for criticism on behalf of those who dared to disagree with what the Government planned. So there was no need for any change. But in 1981, something happened. The people of Singapore decided that Parliament should no longer be just the PAP family tea parties but that Parliament should begin to serve its true function and purpose that is expected in a parliamentary democracy. So they elected a Member from outside the People's Action Party into Parliament. Then, of course, we immediately saw what our Prime Minister and our leading Ministers thought about all this. They, who had been paying lip service to the idea of parliamentary democracy, immediately decried the presence of an Opposition Member in Parliament. That is the hypocrisy that we have got in this place, and I see the Leader of the House uses the same words as the Prime Minister used, "that Parliament is not a place for theatrics. Parliament is not a place for drama." So the Government, for the first time after 15 years, came up with having to face criticism in Parliament. Of course, they could not take it. Of course, during those 23 years there was perfect decorum in the House, as I said, because everybody bowed and walked out. After 1981 it no longer was a family tea party.”
“That was introduced by the PAP Government and that Bill sought to apply in Singapore the privileges, immunities and powers of the Commons House of the United Kingdom Parliament "for the time being"; in other words, this Parliament, Members, were to enjoy the same privileges and powers and immunities that are enjoyed by the British Commons House of Parliament at the relevant time. So I think it was to continue the same powers, privileges and immunities that were enjoyed by the UK Parliament. The operative words were "shall be the same as those for the time being held." So there was a continuous investing in this Parliament of the same privileges and immunities and powers as the British Parliament enjoyed. Why did the Prime Minister then agree to that? Because that brought it into line with the current British practice. But I shall again show very shortly that it is a myth, a fallacy to say that we are now bringing it into line with current British practice. We have not been told why, having introduced that in 1962, it now becomes necessary to drastically change all that, and to limit our powers, privileges and immunities to those enjoyed by the British House of Commons in 1962. As I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is quite plain why after 27 years the Government has decided that they must change. For 27 years they were quite content to follow the UK Parliament. As I said, between 1963 (certainly after 1963) and until 1981, meetings of the Legislative Assembly and Parliament after that (from 1965 onwards) were sedate. They were the PAP family tea parties. And Parliament served the purpose of the Government admirably. Of course, there were Members who questioned Papa about one or two little things.”
“The Prime Minister who was then standing where I am now standing and heading the Opposition in Singapore, took the government to task at every turn and corner. And proceedings in the Legislative Assembly then were characterized by sharp criticisms from the present Prime Minister speaking from the Opposition. They were by no means sedate tea party gatherings of the Members of the Legislative Assembly. He needled them, he probed them, he challenged them. And quite rightly, because he knew what was expected of an Opposition Member in Parliament. And he did his work very well with the result that in 1959 he was able to bring his Party to power. So let us not forget that period, 1955 to 1959, what the Prime Minister was doing when he was in the Opposition. But did the colonial government then consider bringing in a Bill to expel him, to send him to prison or to fine him? Whatever one might say about the British, they have a sense of fair play, and they decided that he must be allowed to have his full say. Because they were all brought up on the whole question of parliamentary tradition. And we were learning in those days the British parliamentary tradition, and so he was allowed full rein in the 1955 to 1959 Legislative Assembly. And then, of course, after the PAP took over the government of this country, except for a short period when Members of the Barisan Sosialis occupied the Opposition Benches, the House was dominated by the People's Action Party. And for 15 years, was it, the House consisted entirely of Members of one political party. In 1962, the Government introduced a new Bill, which we are now seeking to amend.”
“And therefore they do not need any more representations by the Government media or the Government-controlled press and the Government TV as to the need. Mr Speaker, Sir, I only have about 60 minutes. But it is necessary that I, within the time limited to me, strip the Bill of the hypocrisy that surrounds it. And I say it is sheer hypocrisy to say that this Bill is brought in to maintain the dignity and the decorum of the House. It is brought in, as I shall try and show, for one purpose and one purpose alone. It is brought in and rushed through on a Certificate of Urgency to silence the criticism of the Government because the criticism is beginning to hurt. It is beginning to hurt and it must be silenced somehow at whatever cost it may be to the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, it was not in 1962 that we first had a law enacting the privileges and powers of the Legislature. Of course, the PAP thinks that the history of Singapore only began in 1959. Well, they may think that. One has to sympathize with their delusion. But there was in 1955, Mr Speaker, Sir, Ordinance No. 30 of 1955 which dealt with the powers, privileges and immunities of the then Legislative Assembly of Singapore. And from 1955 to 1959, Mr Speaker, Sir, our Prime Minister was then in the Opposition Benches. It was the Labour Front government, first under Mr David Marshall and then under Mr Lim Yew Hock, which held the reins of government. And our Prime Minister was then in the Opposition Bench. And may I assure Members who may not have read the reports of what took place in the Legislative Assembly from 1955 to 1959 that they were by no means tame proceedings. They were not, as I shall say, family tea parties.”
“Is that the sole intention so that I may not be allowed to make my full defence and to state what I wish to state? But that I should be hedged in by these powers and threatened with expulsion or imprisonment or fined if I dared say anything. Is that the intention? Is that why this Bill is being rushed through on a Certificate of Urgency through all stages? May we have an answer to that question? Because one would have thought, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we could have waited until the Committee of Privileges had reported on these various complaints and then considered whether there was any justification or not. And then to bring in, if necessary, a Bill to remedy the state of affairs where a Member brings in unjustified allegations. That is not to be the case. It would appear that it is taken without question that all allegations were unsubstantiated, that all statements made were defamatory, that there can be no question about that they are and we have got to bring in this Bill now. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister in his press briefing and in his speech this afternoon tried to give the impression that the whole purpose of this Bill is to maintain and uphold the decorum of the House. That is what the Government would like to convey through their Government media to the public so that the public may be lulled, may be led into thinking that all that the Government is concerned with is decorum of the House. But may I assure the Leader of the House that the public do not need any more representations. They already know what the purpose of the Bill is. Ever since it came out in the Straits Times or the press on Friday, people in coffee shops, in market places, have stated quite clearly what they thought was the whole purpose of the Bill.”
“This is a very momentous Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, and it shows the sort of understanding that has been given to what is involved in this Bill by this Government, that the Minister spends only 20 minutes introducing the Bill and half of it is taken up with pedantically pointing out to the Members of the House the changes in the Bill. May I say - and I hope the Minister does not think this an insult and move a motion for committal of me to the Committee of Privileges again - may I say that the Minister shows a complete inability to comprehend what is involved in this Bill. May I say this, again without insulting the other Members of the House. There is one man who does understand what is involved in this Bill, the one man who knows all about parliamentary government, because he was involved in the setting up of parliamentary government way back in 1959. And I see he is not here. Should he not be here? Should he not move this Bill? Or may I ask: is he a trifle ashamed of this Bill that he has decided that it would be better if he stayed away from any discussion on this Bill? My first question is: what is the great urgency in this Bill without giving Members an opportunity to ponder over its consequences, over its implications. And for the public at large - let us not forget the public at large - to consider and to state their views. It would appear from what has fallen from the lips of the Leader of the House that the great urgency is that it should be made to apply to the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges when it considers the complaints against me. Am I to understand then that the intention is that I should be severely limited when I appear before the Committee of Privileges?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was waiting for Government Ministers to speak. Obviously, they do not propose to speak in support of the Bill. Mr Speaker, Sir, when I got the notice of Parliament sitting on the 18th of this month, giving the exact number of days required for the notice that Parliament would sit on the 25th of this month, I wondered what was afoot because it had been my experience that there was always an interval of two months or even more after every sitting of Parliament. But here, Parliament was summoned within three weeks of the previous sitting. So I wondered and, of course, the mystery came to light when I received at my office the Bill that the Government proposes to take through all stages on a Certificate of Urgency. So that was why Parliament was being summoned. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that I shall not be accused of trying to impugn the President or trying to bring down the President when I question the Certificate of Urgency. It is signed by the President, of course. But the President acts on the advice of the Cabinet. As was mentioned in the report in the Straits Times, a Certificate of Urgency is usually given for money Bills where Government is in need to immediately raise a tax or for some other fiscal measure. It is also, of course, given in cases of a national crisis or emergency, quite apart from money Bills. But here we have the Government coming to this Parliament with a Certificate of Urgency on a Bill which proposes simply to discipline, it says, Members of Parliament. May I ask: what is the crisis? What is the urgency that requires that this Bill be debated and taken through all stages? May I say that the Minister spent about 20 minutes on this Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just seek clarification from the Minister following his reply to my questions. I am afraid he does not quite understand the problem I posed to him about the persons who have reached 55 and who have left behind a sum with the CPF and then find themselves out of employment. The Minister says the answer is to encourage everyone to stay on working till the age of 60. Does he realize that it is virtually impossible now for a person to find employment in Singapore after the age of 50 or 55? Does he know that employers are terminating the employment of people when they reach the age of 50 or 55? I know of this myself in many cases. So it is their situation to which my question was directed and I do not think it can simply be answered by saying the Government wants to encourage everyone to work till the age of 60. The other thing is about the accounts. Of course, I am aware that CPF lends the money to the Government or purchases Government bonds. But what we are not told is what the GIC or the Government does with these moneys and how much is earned on them? I think it is only fair that if contributors have left their moneys to be invested for the interest to be paid out to them, then they should be told fully how much is earned by the Government by way of interest upon the moneys left behind by the CPF contributors. Finally, the Minister perhaps skirted my last request, ie, whether the Ministry would consider appointing a committee to inquire into the whole problem now and invite views from the contributors? Because it is a serious departure, I still maintain that.”
“In view of the complete change in the Government's stand, which was that the contributor would be able to withdraw all his savings at the age of 55 and now that he is not allowed to withdraw all his savings, would the Ministry consider appointing a committee to seek the views of the contributors on this plan or scheme announced by the Minister? I think it is only right that they should be heard, what they think about it, and whether they can come up with something better than the Ministry.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a few questions for the Minister. First of all, may I ask whether the Government has considered the situation of persons who, being obliged to leave the greater part of their savings behind with the CPF Board at the age of 55, may probably find themselves out of employment before they reach the age of 60 because the sum to be paid only begins at the age of 60, as I understand it? Has the Government considered the situation of these people who may be out of a job and not be in receipt of any income until they reach the age of 60? The second question is: will the CPF publish - as it is we are not getting proper accounts from the CPF about their investments - will the CPF publish full accounts of where the moneys are invested when they are left with the CPF Board? What interest is earned on these moneys that are left behind, and what proportion of it is paid to the contributors, the persons who left their moneys. The third question is this. I see the intention is to try and make the CPF Scheme partially a pension scheme. Would the Ministry consider now, quite seriously, converting the whole of it into a pension or annuity scheme for our residents so that they start contributing towards this pension from the time they commence employment, and which will then afford them security in their old age? It will not then be necessary for them to put away a quarter of their earnings every month. The final question is this.”
“Would the Minister outline to this House whether ASEAN as a body, or Singapore on its own, has taken up this readiness, whether it is genuine or not, on the part of the Vietnamese to negotiate, whether any initiative has been taken either by ASEAN or by the Singapore Government?”
“Is the Minister aware that there have been complaints by residents who hold season parking tickets that when they come back at night, at 1 am or 2 am, after their work, they find all the parking lots taken up, maybe not by the season parking ticket holders but by others who park there without holding any season parking tickets?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, supplementary question for the Minister, and that is: will he tell us whether adequate parking places for motorcyclists are provided in every housing estate, adjacent to the blocks where the residents are living? Is he aware that a number of residents, who hold season parking tickets for motorcycles, return at night to find all the parking spaces taken up and they are then forced to park outside the parking lots?”
“The man refuses to accept the challenge. He refuses to accept the challenge and then he digs up things from the past and says, "Hey, what about that? Why don't you bring it in now?" For goodness sake.”
“Since the Minister has clarified, may I ask him to reply to my challenge? Will he accept my challenge and arrange a debate before his own University students on the question of the terms and about section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, whether I could have raised them, whatever the terms? Would he like a debate at the University? Will he accept my challenge?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is this clarification?”
“In fact, one of them came and left a note for me, "You should seriously consider whether you should continue with this Commission. You have every right to withdraw." But I did not withdraw. I went there and I said, "Just give me an assurance that you will produce these witnesses for cross -examination and I will then testify and supply the evidence." So I ask you, Members of the House, to examine your conscience, because I shall be calling for a Division on this, to examine your conscience and to vote according to your conscience. Do you agree or not agree that the terms of reference as announced are a complete departure from the terms of reference that were agreed and accepted in this House by the Prime Minister. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“So let me conclude by saying that the reply by the Minister fails abysmally to answer the motion because he has not grasped what is in the motion. The motion is that the object, I repeat again, the motion is that the object and purpose of the Commission which was agreed to in this House by the Prime Minister was all swept aside, was lost sight of, in the terms of reference which were announced for the Commission on the 16th April this year. That is the motion before the House. And I am prepared to defend that anywhere. I am prepared to defend it before University students, before lecturers, before anyone else, and ask them whether they agree that the terms of reference depart from the object and purpose of the Commission which was agreed in this House. And may I say, Members of the House, I have no doubt at all what any audience will say. I have no doubt that if this question is put to academic staff or to a gathering of lawyers, or to a gathering of any other people, professionals, they will agree that there has been a significant departure. May I say this, when these new terms of reference were announced and lawyers came to read them, a number of them told me, "Don't take part. They have completely changed. They have switched the whole terms of reference. This is not what you agreed to." But I said, "No, it does not matter." I said that, and there were lawyers who are telling me not to take part. I said, "It does not matter. I will still take part, even if they have switched the terms of reference." But this is what the lawyers told me. I did not have to ring them up and ask them, "Do you think the terms of reference had been changed?" They rang me up.”
“Yes, that I said, please. But that does not mean that I agree with the appointment of the Judge, please, Mr Minister. I said, "It's your province. So be it. Go ahead and appoint. You appoint a Judge or you appoint anybody from the public, I will appear and give my evidence before the Commission." But I should have thought that, if there was any doubt about whether I agreed or not, it would have been resolved by my letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister after the weekend, when I expressly told him about my misgivings about a Judge being on the Commission. So even if I had agreed or seemed to have agreed in this House, two days later I was telling him, "Please". If I had seemed to agree or if the Prime Minister thought I had agreed, two days later I was telling him, "I don't think really a High Court Judge should be the man." And as I pointed out the Prime Minister quite candidly in his letters never says, "You agreed to the appointment of a High Court Judge." In none of his letters he says that directly to the point, "You agreed to the appointment." All he says was, "You agreed that there was no question about the independence of the High Court Bench." And what I said then was that for the High Court Bench, there were provisions guaranteeing their appointment and their removal and I wanted inquiry into the Subordinate Judiciary. So you have the Prime Minister in his letters never making this allegation that I had specifically agreed to a High Court Judge. So please do not try and make so much out of that. It is like trying to make bricks without any straw, Mr Minister. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think I have very many more minutes left.”
“Well, I do not want to go back all over it again. I made it clear, "If you want to appoint a High Court Judge, well, go ahead. It's your province. So be it." That, the Minister and the Prime Minister perhaps want to construe as, "Yes, I agree with you. I think a High Court Judge would be fine." I do not think that is what a literal interpretation of what those words mean. But ---”
“But I thought that was what the Prime Minister was saying, "to look specifically into the two [terms] ... I am glad that he has accepted ... that he does not impugn that the High Court Judge is free [it should have been "is not free"] from any executive pressure." Anyway, that is the thing. So there you have it again. In the afternoon, the Prime Minister comes back. He does not say, "I don't want your two terms of reference which you suggested in the morning. Forget about them. Just leave them aside. Push them aside. I will have new terms and these are my new terms." He does not say that, and he is a lawyer. He says, "Yes, I am going to appoint a Judge now and he will look into your two terms, and he will also look into the basis of all your statements." That is what the Prime Minister said, the Commission will inquire into the two terms that he had accepted in the morning. I cannot put any other interpretation to that statement made in the afternoon. But the Minister would have us believe that the Prime Minister was saying, "Forget all about your terms. I will have my own new terms." Because if that was what he was saying, he did not make it clear enough. And he should have made it clear. This is why I say - I am sorry to have to repeat this - I wish the Prime Minister were here to answer to all this because he is the man who spoke these words. And it is for him to answer why he departed from these words that he spoke. So there was not anything in the afternoon which suggested that the Prime Minister was telling the House that he rejected my two terms of reference. Nothing of that sort, Members of the House. Then the Minister again, which he had tried earlier, talked about my wriggling out because of my agreeing to the High Court Judge.”
“And now the Minister comes here to this House in this debate and says, "Member pleaded he could not draft." What a dis- tortion, what a distortion of what actually took place. And he has got the whole thing before him. I just read it out. And then he comes to col. 914 and he says, "Whatever might have been said in the morning, you can forget about it because in the afternoon the Prime Minister was proposing something else." Let us examine what the Prime Minister proposed in the afternoon. Col. 914 which is what the Minister read: 'I therefore propose to have this Commission of Inquiry of one Judge to inquire into all the statements that have been made in this House which are privileged, and to find the basis upon which they have been made, including the two terms of reference which he has suggested in this Chamber.' So maybe he was saying, "I will have your two terms of reference but I also want to add another term to inquire into your statements." As I said, "That's perfectly all right. First of all, have those two terms." And if you find that there is nothing wrong about them, then you can start inquiring into the third term. So there is nothing wrong. But that is what the Prime Minister said: 'including the two terms of reference which I had suggested in this Chamber. So, in fact, there will be three terms of reference, - first, the basis for all the allegations made, all the statements made by the Member in this Chamber concerning the Judiciary and the administration of the law, and to look specifically into the two items he has made.' I took it to mean to look into the two terms which he has asked. Now, of course, I see we are going to have a debate on "items".”
“It is not possible. All right, then. It will come back. Do not worry. What I was trying to say is that the Minister failed to grasp that I could not have raised privilege at all, not that I raised it and avoided giving evidence before the Commissioner on account of that privilege. I never raised it and avoided giving evidence. But the Minister fails to grasp that if the terms of reference had been as agreed, all this would never have arisen. I am surprised that the Minister should pick on this. He says, "The Member pleaded in this House that he could not draft the Commission's terms of reference." Nothing is further from the truth, Members of the House. Nothing is further from the truth. All I told the Prime Minister simply was, "Why did we have to go through this like a bullet train? I will draft the terms, send them to you and then you can consider them." But no, he wanted them and I suppose he wanted to settle them. That is the important thing which the Minister does not grasp, that the Prime Minister wanted to settle the terms in this House. That is a very significant point, Members, that the Prime Minister did not want to wait till after the sitting was over for me to suggest the terms and for the terms to be settled. He wanted the terms to be settled. He says, "Don't worry about the legal wording, the draftsmanship. Just tell me what is it you want and we will settle it once and for all in this House." That's why I said I thought the Prime Minister was being deadly serious and earnest. So, because he was insistent, I then told him what the terms should be. They are in there, in cols. 901-2, I think. I read them out, all spelt out, not in legal language but spelt out and which the Prime Minister accepted as being clear enough to him.”