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 28 of 82.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister, by way of clarification, if he will answer the other two questions which I posed to him. One, the very important question: does he or does he not have the very detailed analysis of foreign press reports over the last many years? Did he have it with him when he spoke at this function? Does he have it with him and will he produce it now? Secondly, would he answer the question that I asked him: does the Prime Minister of Singapore content himself only with the Straits Times and the Chinese press and does not read any of the foreign newspapers?”
“Singapore was never a member? An hon. Member: The PAP was.”
“Oh, my God. Would he answer, was Singapore a member of this organization or not?”
“Would the Minister point out what the deception is?”
“You do not think so? Mr Wong Kan Seng: That is another example of his deception, which I will mention again afterwards.”
“What do you mean I am not answering? I am answering it for you.”
“Singapore at one time belonged to this. Singapore was an honoured member, and now he asks me, "Where is Socialist International?" The Prime Minister went to address this organization, and so Singapore at that time was a member. Then they decided - the Dutch, the British, all the democratic countries - decided that Singapore's practice was contemptuous.”
“The Socialist International which comprise all the countries. An hon. Member: Which country?”
“Perhaps the Minister forgets that the Socialist International was ready to throw Singapore out because it held the kind of democracy practised by the Singapore Government in contempt. Don't you know that they were ready to throw you out? An hon. Member: What country is that?”
“You can have another 20 minutes after lunch.”
“Is the Opposition not aware that anyone can come to Singapore on a social visit pass, write about Singapore, and fly off the country without any restriction? Tell me the instances where every journalist who comes into Singapore has got to give the reason for coming and an undertaking not to write stories about Singapore? I think these two examples, a very simple first-hand experienced example, would illustrate --- Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification. Is the Member aware ---”
“What about the Straits Times praising you? Encik Yatiman Yusof: The whole issue at hand is for us to educate the foreign newspaper owners that they cannot reap profit out of our misery. It is well and good to talk about the ideal of freedom of expression and so on and so forth. Let me give you just two examples. One example was that when the Prime Minister went to Sri Lanka we had one newspaper, of course, belonging to the Opposition, carrying a huge banner across ten columns saying"follow this white monkey, you go to hell". That is the extent of freedom of the press in which the Opposition is championing, a limitless, a boundless, freedom of expression. What is the cost? Everyone knows what has happened to Sri Lanka now. Another point worth noting, and this is from my own experience and many of us have our own experience. When I applied for a visa to go to the United States, of course in my passport then I was described as a journalist, I was given a six-month visa compared to other ordinary citizens who are given a five-year visa to the US, when I sat foot in Hawaii, the entry point of USA. The moment they saw that I was a journalist they asked me to give a written undertaking that I should not report anything going on in America. That practice is happening and that practice is being imposed by what the Opposition considered as the model of freedom of expression, the champion of world liberty. Such denial is a clear indication that the claim is not as true as what the Opposition said. The Opposition thought that Singapore is a suppressed society and we are building a green house here, that we are shutting out from the whole world.”
“I said the Government wants a society of faceless ---.”
“Tell us now what you wanted to know. You now withdraw your questions, do you?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, by way of clarification to try to answer the Member for Whampoa's questions, could he repeat them again? I will answer them now. What is it that he wanted to know?”
“You asked questions and we try to answer. And you say, "No, no."”
“No. There was the Newsweek as well. Dr Augustine Tan: May I ask whether he and his colleague are questioning, again, the integrity of our courts? May I ask whether they agree that there was contempt of court? Mr Jeyaretnam rose -”
“That is the society the Government wants.”
“That is all for information. What others think about it.”
“May I just have one more minute, Mr Speaker, Sir?”
“Does the Minister know of the telephone conversations I have had with members of the public who say they are disgusted, sick, with what they read in the papers. And they say, "They take us to be fools, the Straits Times." Let me just give two illustrations. When was it that I forced an admission from the Prime Minister? I had to force it out of him that, as a reasonable man, he was left with the view that Mr Michael Khoo was transferred because he had made many mistakes and acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong. He says, "I agree. That's what I said." Does the Straits Times carry that forced admission of the Prime Minister? That is the most telling point in the whole debate.”
“Third, is it interference in domestic politics if they should say that the Secretary-General of the trade union movement is a Minister of the Cabinet and then go on to criticize it and to say that there cannot be any genuine labour movement in Singapore because of that? Would the Minister please answer these questions? And then he says, "The Government doesn't want to use a sledgehammer to kill a fly." What he is saying is, "Of course, we have got the laws to deal with the foreign press. But we don't want to use them." That is the clearest admission we could have from the Government that anything that has been reported by the foreign press did not come within the scope of enabling a prosecution against the press under the Sedition Act or the Internal Security Act. Of course, they can also be taken to task for contempt of court. So what the Minister is saying, "Whatever they are writing does not really come under these laws. So we have got to have something else now." In other words, suppress information from the people of Singapore. The tragedy is that it is the more serious papers that will be shut out, not the cheap sensational journals. It is papers like the Financial Times that might suffer which criticize Singapore. It is papers like the Asian Wall Street Journal. I can see the Asian Wall Street Journal is clearly on the hit list. It is those journals which will suffer. And who will suffer as a result? It is the Singaporeans. About the local press, the responsible local press, one can see how responsible they are over the reports that have appeared in the papers over the last few days. That, according to the Government, is a responsible press.”
“That is one point. The second point is this. I was talking about cutting off information from our own citizens and about releasing their minds and not locking them up. May I ask a question and may we have an answer to this? Would the Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister of Singapore contents himself for his daily information only on the Straits Times and the local press? May we have the information? Does he just read that, or does he also read the Inter- national Herald Tribune and the Asian Wall Street Journal? I should be very surprised to hear that he only contents himself with the Straits Times and the Chinese press. If the Prime Minister should have this for his education, his enlightenment, why should the citizens be denied it? On domestic politics, the Minister was delightfully vague when he touched on domestic politics. May I ask specific questions of the Minister? And will he reply to these specific questions when he replies at the end of the debate on this Bill? Is it domestic politics or is it interference with domestic politics if a foreign journal were to criticize the lack of caring in Singapore for the unfortunate midst in our community? Is that interference in domestic politics? Second question. I hope the Minister is taking note. Is it interference in domestic politics if the foreign newspaper should say that the society in Singapore is being engineered, that there is engineering going on at the behest of the Prime Minister and the Government, that people are being made to fit into moulds prepared by the Prime Minister? Is that interference in domestic politics?”
“I said if you cannot produce, it must mean that. So would he produce it, please?”
“I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir, if it displeases you that I spoke for 50 minutes. But I need to speak on this. If I have 10 minutes, I must go quite fast on this. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was referring yesterday, to the speech made by the Minister at this function and I said he had made a press release and at that speech the Minister said that the decision had been taken after a very careful analysis of foreign press reporting on Singapore over many years. We made a press release asking whether the Minister had this very careful analysis and would he present it to Parliament when the Bill was debated. The Minister spoke for about 20 minutes yesterday and he has not presented this very careful analysis of foreign press reporting on Singapore over many years. Will he tell us whether such a very careful analysis does exist? And if it does exist, will he table it now before he sits down, after he speaks? Because we cannot have Ministers making statements outside and in this House which amount to misleading. We had the Minister for Home Affairs misleading the House when he read the Bill on the amendment to the Adoption Act. It was a complete misleading of the House. I know the House rejected my motion on it. But anyone could see that he misled the House completely. So was the Minister misleading his audience when he said the Government had made a very careful analysis over many years? If he was not I am saying, "Will you produce it now?" I am calling for it. And if you cannot produce it, it must mean that you do not have it and that you were lying.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would you be good enough to tell me how much more time I have?”
“Thank you. Let the Committee decide. 11.29 am NEWSPAPER AND PRINTING PRESSES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [31st July, 1986], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." - [Acting Minister for Community Development and Minister of State, Ministry of Communications and Information]. Question again proposed.”
“Either he withdraws and stops making these allegations here, or I want your ruling on this as to whether he is permitted or not, in view of the fact, I have said this before several times, that the matter is now before the Committee of Privileges. So how can he go on saying the man stands condemned, the man stands this, he is a fabricator, he is everything, even before the Committee of Privileges has inquired into it and makes its report. Can we not have a ruling from you, Sir, on this?”
“Either he stops making these allegations here or --- [Interruptions]. Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, carry on, please.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we must put an end to this.”
“Whose pitiful standards are you talking about?”
“Well, again, may I object to this? The matter has been referred to the Committee of Privileges. Is the Minister to go on making these monstrous statements in this House committing, as it were, in the references of them, abuses of privilege? Now he is trying to look at me. Now you have the courage, do you, in the seat of your chair? Or you are still not able to look at me? Sly man.”
“These snide remarks of the Minister that I did not inform the House, that I had a signed statement or that I told the House that I had a signed statement before I raised it, arises simply out of his twisted interpretation of what I told Parliament. I said I had raised this on information given to me by this man and I said I had a signed statement from him. And it did not mean that I was saying I had a signed statement - don't smile with your smirk - it did not mean that I had a signed statement before I said it. The information came from him before I raised it. Does he deny that? The information came from him before I raised it and the signed statement was after that, confirming everything that he had told me.”
“May I answer this slanderous allegation again.”
“Refer it to the Committee of Privileges.”
“I mean, all these silly statements about me.”
“He can't look at me straight in the face.”
“He can't even look at me straight in the face.”
“I thought he said I was a party to the fabrication.”
“I want an answer to this question: is the Minister saying in this House that I fabricated the whole thing, that is, I got Lim Poh Huat to make a false statement to Percy Seneviratne, then I got Percy to come and see me knowing that it is a false statement and then I raised it in this House? Is he saying that or not? Mr Speaker: I did not hear it.”
“But if you did not say it, have the courage, my man. Have the courage to say whether you said it or you did not say it. I am asking you for the last time: are you saying that I was a party to all this fabrication?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I am going to insist on your ruling. Let it be on record. If you are making a motion, a complaint, that I suppressed the truth on the 30th July in not presenting that signed statement to this House, well, do so. Do so, and refer it to the Committee of Privileges and I will answer it. But now you are saying (or I thought you were saying) --- An hon. Member: "Thought"? Another hon. Member: Out of order.”
“Will you look at me and answer the question?”
“Because you are frightened. I say, "Look at me and answer the question." Prof. Jayakumar: If he was a person of truth, he need not fear.”
“Will you please answer my question? Will you please answer my question? Are you saying ---”
“Does he have the courage? Were you saying that I fabricated all this?”
“He says "parties concerned in the fabrication". Were you referring to me or not? Have the courage. Were you referring to me or not? Will you have the courage?”
“And that is, that I was a party to this fabrication, that I got the man to come and make a statement to Percy Seneviratne, that I fabricated all this. Will he withdraw it?”
“All right, I withdraw it for you, Mr Speaker, Sir, about you allowing it. But I am saying that they are making statements. May I finish on my point of order?”
“I insist, Mr Speaker, Sir. As I said, you are allowing Government Ministers to get away with murder in this House. Some hon. Members: No!”