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 3 of 82.
“Why not? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: It is being investigated. It may be the defence of the defendants in these cases that they have not assembled without a permit. So I do not think we should discuss these details in this House.”
“Is the Minister of State now telling this House that every speaker there needs a permit because there might be an assembly of persons listening to him? Is that what he is telling the House - that you need a permit before you go and get an assembly of people to listen to you? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Jeyaretnam is straying from the original question which talks about permit for a run. Now he is talking about incidents happening at Hong Lim Park which are currently under Police investigation, which I do not think we should go into details.”
“Would the Minister tell this House, is it or is it not true that his Cabinet Minister - I am again surprised that he is not here - said in this House that anybody could go to Hong Lim Park and speak freely and he or she would not be arrested, harassed or questioned at all? Did he or did he not say that? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I do not want to respond to that if Mr Jeyaretnam is referring to current investigations as to what happened at Hong Lim Park on 10th December. What we said in this House is that people can speak at Hong Lim Park. Conditions are very easy. You register, you speak on any topic, unless it is a topic that is religious in nature or a topic that will create enmity, hostility, ill-will amongst different religions and races which is prohibited. You can speak on any other topic but you are subject to the laws of the land. So you cannot assemble without a permit at Hong Lim Park.”
“Would the Minister tell us, without speaking in riddles, what were the problems that the Police were foreseeing? Were these based on concrete evidence or did they have a nightmare the night before? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the Police makes its decision professionally based on factors which are well known. Here you have an application for a run which will end in Hong Lim Park, and it was explicitly stated in the publicity materials that there would be a demonstration. When one talks about a demonstration, there will be possibility of law and order problems.”
“Am I to understand from the Minister of State that this request for 20 to 30 runners was refused simply because the Police or the Ministry did not want any calls for the abolition of the ISA or any other calls on the Government to be made at Hong Lim Park? Is that the reason for refusing this permit? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Jeyaretnam, I think, did not listen to my answer. Anybody can make a call to abolish the ISA. Mr Jeyaretnam himself has made the call many times. The fact is that Police rejected it because of law and order considerations. The website of Think Centre had publicised it as one event - marathon leading to Hong Lim Park where a demonstration would be held. So from that point of view, Police said, "Well, possibly law and order problems will arise. Hence, no permit for the run."”
“The OPEC oil production cut is therefore not expected to have a big impact on the Singapore economy. The impact on household electricity bills will depend on global fuel oil prices. If fuel oil prices remain stable, as suggested by the oil price futures market, there should be no reason for higher household utilities bills this year. OPEN SINGAPORE CENTRE (Application to mark Human Rights Day) 15. Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs what were the reasons for police objecting to an application by the Open Singapore Centre for 20-30 persons to run to mark Human Rights Day on 10th December 2000.”
“Will the Minister please answer my question? What is the objection to an independent committee monitoring increases in prices? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think there is a more independent committee than Members of this House. If what Mr Jeyaretnam is referring to is technical monitoring of the statistics, we already have statistical agencies monitoring these numbers, unless Mr Jeyaretam is casting doubt on the professionalism of these agencies. And if there are cases which have attracted Mr Jeyaretnam's attention that our data gatherers have not been acting professionally, I will be very happy to look into his complaint. OIL PRODUCTION CUT (Impact) 14. Mr Hawazi Daipi asked the Minister for Trade and Industry what will be the impact of the oil production cut by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries - indicating higher oil prices - on the economy and on household utility bills. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) cut crude oil production by 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) on 1st February this year in order to maintain oil prices at around US$22 to US$28 per barrel. Brent crude oil price has risen slightly to US$30 per barrel, due partly to colder weather in the Northern Hemisphere, but this is well below the peak of US$37 in September last year. The cut in production is likely to lead only to a short-term increase in prices amid an increasingly sluggish global economy. Producer competition is also likely to depress oil prices. Oil price futures, which is a forward indicator of oil prices, suggests that oil prices would ease in the months ahead. The 3-month and 12-month oil price futures as at 14th February this year are US$27 and US$25 per barrel respectively.”
“More importantly, the elderly flat-owners risk losing their homes at the end of the reverse mortgage term. Since the current terms of reverse mortgage proposals are not entirely favourable, we have decided not to pursue the reverse mortgage scheme for the time being.”
“This is why the MAS manages the S$ exchange rate with a view to maintaining low inflation and a stable Singapore dollar, as a sound basis for sustained economic growth. It has deliberately not used the exchange rate as an instrument to manage our export competitiveness. Instead the Government has focused on direct ways to reduce business costs, improve labour productivity and enhance capabilities, such as the CPF cut in 1998, which has now mostly been restored. The fact that with this approach the economy recovered quickly and strongly from the Asian crisis and grew by 9.9% last year, shows that our policy is correct. REVERSE MORTGAGES FOR HDB FLATS 9. Dr Teo Ho Pin asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will allow its lessees especially senior citizens to take up reverse mortgages for their flats so that they can have more disposable income. The Minister of State for National Development (Dr John Chen Seow Phun (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of National Development and the Housing and Development Board have explored reverse mortgage as a possible way to provide elderly HDB lessees with an additional source of income for their retirement needs. The current reverse mortgage proposals allow a property owner to receive monthly payments over a fixed term of about 10 years. At the end of a reverse mortgage term, however, the property owner has to relinquish ownership of his house unless he is able to redeem the reverse mortgage. After studying the conditions and implications of current reverse mortgage proposals carefully, we feel that the benefits are outweighed by the inherent limitations. The monthly payments are relatively meagre because of high financing costs.”
“But to bring the money into the card and then carry around a few hundred dollars and spend it bit by bit and keep track, is not something which consumers have found convenient. We may have another opportunity because we are going to have a contactless stored value card for mass transit, bus as well as train, and we are hoping to use that to make that more popular and use it for small purchases, like the Octopus Card in Hong Kong which can be used for small purchases in shops in the MTR stations. But we will have to watch and see how consumer demand develops. DEVALUATION OF SINGAPORE'S CURRENCY 8. Mr Goh Chong Chia asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government will devalue Singapore's currency to make its products more competitive. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore's exports have performed strongly over the past year. Non-oil domestic exports (NODX) increased by 11.8% in 2000. Since November 2000, the growth of NODX has moderated, as external demand weakened with the slowdown in the global electronics industry. A devaluation does not necessarily boost our exports, except in the short run. The import content of our domestic exports is very high at 60%. So a weak exchange rate would lead mainly to higher CPI inflation and higher import costs for manufacturers. In addition, with the economy operating at full capacity, a weaker Singapore dollar would cause the labour market to tighten, nominal wages to go up, and inflation to rise. This would negate the initial positive impact of a weak exchange rate. Furthermore, the inflation caused by a devaluation would erode the purchasing power of the substantial CPF savings of Singaporeans, which are denominated in Singapore dollars.”
“The Deputy Prime Minister has said about currency notes being legal tender. Would he explain why the courts refuse to accept currency notes for the payment of stamp fees for court documents? BG Lee Hsien Loong: I am not aware of this. If Mr Jeyaretnam could file a question, I am sure the Minister responsible would answer. Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he would not consider that the issue of stored value cards is really one way of promoting Singapore as an e-commerce hub because there is this perception that the banks are moving very slowly and perhaps the liberalisation of this area, just for stored value cards and not for the banking licence, would be good for Singapore as a whole? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the problem of stored value cards is not a question of the banks being reluctant but of consumers being reluctant. There is no reluctance for people to hold credit cards. There are lots and lots of them and lots of people want more credit cards. But the use of a stored value card, where they have to top up money, put the money in, pay first, then spend it, it may run out, they will have to top up further, is not something which has caught on in many jurisdictions. It is quite popular in Japan, it is not popular in Europe or in America. Many issuers have tried. We thought that we had a killer application when we had the ERP system and every car owner had to have a card in his IVU. But although hundreds of thousands of transactions take place on the ERP every day, only a few hundred transactions take place off the ERP, because nobody goes to the provision shop and to buy a newspaper or groceries using a stored value card. They do not mind NETS because that is convenient.”
“Will you give us an assurance? MAD COW DISEASE (Preventive measures) 11. Mr Goh Chong Chia asked the Minister for National Development what steps and precautions is his Ministry taking to prevent the Mad Cow Disease or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) from entering the food chain in Singapore.”
“May we have an assurance from this Government that it will not take orders from Beijing? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Surely Mr Jeyaretnam cannot expect an answer. We are a sovereign country and we act by what is in Singapore's interest.”
“May I ask the Minister of State was there a direction sent by the Chairman of the People's Association to these community centres to withdraw these facilities? May we have a direct answer? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Not that I know of, Sir.”
“Will the Minister of State confirm that these facilities were withdrawn after the People's Republic of China started the crackdown on their members in China? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as I have said, it is up to the community clubs to decide whether or when to hold whatever activities.”
“Were they not given facilities in community centres to conduct their classes? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, if Mr Jeyaretnam knows what happens on the ground, Falungong practitioners gather to do their qigong exercises in many locations in Singapore, in parks and other places. As to what individual community clubs conduct, it is up to the community clubs. If they feel that there is no necessity to conduct an activity, it is up to the community club to decide. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Sir, may I ask the Minister of State whether the Falungong society has ever applied any permit to conduct public demonstrations or the like? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: The society has applied for various permits before. Over the last few years, they have conducted some activities which have been approved. For example, they have applied for permits to give lectures and talks on qigong exercises, and these have been approved.”
“Will the Minister of State tell us why were the facilities of rooms that were offered to this society to conduct classes suddenly withdrawn? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: What facilities is Mr Jeyaretnam talking about?”
“Sir, I do not intend to go into the facts of what took place at MacRitchie Reservoir. Again, I regret it is the Minister of State who is answering these questions on policy. Will the Minister of State tell us, in the first place, what is wrong for members of any society, be it cultural or athletic society, to gather together somewhere and sing songs or put up messages promoting arts, sports or whatever it is? And why was it necessary for the Police to declare this illegal? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I am not sure whether the question is related to the Question before the House, because Mr Jeyaretnam surely cannot be saying that the assembly that took place at MacRitchie Reservoir was an innocuous assembly where they gathered just to sing songs and it is a cultural event. If any group wants to meet and assemble, they can apply for a permit under the Miscellaneous Act (Public Order and Nuisance) (Assemblies and Processions) Rules, and indeed these have been given. On the ground, the Police has to assess what is the objective and whether or not there will be potential law and order and breach of peace problems. But the key point really is that in this event that took place, no application was made for a permit. And when the Police went there, they clarified that with the group and therefore they have breached the law. I think that is the basic point. They have breached the law. Police had to act and the matter is now before the court. Let us see what the court says. Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Sir, I would like to ask the Minister ---”
“Does the Ministry realise that this may put specialist care out of reach to about 40% of our people?”
“Do I understand, when the Minister talks about private patients, he is referring to patients referred by private medical practitioners?”
“Is the Minister then saying that this 3/4-tank rule was introduced simply to get in more revenue for the Singapore Government at the expense of Singaporeans? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, the 3/4-tank rule was introduced to ensure the effectiveness of a policy designed as part of an overall programme to control the use of cars and roads in Singapore.”
“The Minister speaks about introducing more competition. Does his Ministry accept that if the Ministry reduced this 3/4-tank rule that forbids Singaporeans getting cheaper petrol, there would be much more competition and there would be greater incentive for the petrol companies to bring down their prices? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, the 3/4-tank rule addresses a completely different problem. Any petrol retailer in Singapore is free to import crude oil or refined oil from any source outside Singapore. There is a 3/4-tank rule because we in Singapore tax petrol at different rates from those in Malaysia. In fact, until recently, there was a subsidy of petrol prices in Malaysia. If we allow motorcars to bring in full tanks from Malaysia, this, in fact, gives consumers a chance to evade the taxes which are imposed in Singapore and this would have a negative effect on our road usage policy.”
“You cannot use it for any other purpose.”
“And the court's permission is sought before the moneys are actually put to any other use, because this is a trust created and agreed to by those who subscribed that the moneys would only be used for one purpose and, that is, to the relief of distress. If it is to be used for anything that goes beyond that, then clearly the court's permission should be sought. The court would have to decide whether these purposes accord with the wishes of those who set up the fund because that is the whole essence of the trust - that those who subscribed gave it for a specific purpose, and you have got to honour that trust, and not use it for anything other than for what it was agreed. So to just say, as it says in this Bill, that the moneys in the account shall be paid into such fund as the Minister may direct is too wide, and there is no guarantee that the trust placed by the subscribers and those who paid into this fund will be honoured in the disposal of the funds. Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank you for allowing me to say a few words. Sir, as usual, the NCMP wants to make a mountain out of a molehill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I decided to speak on this Bill because it seems to me that the Bill did not clearly set out to what purpose or to what use the monies in the Silver Jubilee Fund would be put to. Incidentally, we have not been told how much there is in this Fund. I do not know why we have not been told that. But this is a charity, and I think the Minister recognises that this is a charity fund. And if one looks at the preamble to the main Act, you will find "And Whereas the subscribers to the said Fund agreed that it should be devoted to the relief of distress in the Settlement of Singapore:". So there was an agreement that it would be devoted to the relief of distress in the Settlement of Singapore. And again, if you look at section 18 of the Act, one finds that the Committee would inquire into cases or classes of distress brought to its cognizance and may at its discretion grant relief or assistance out of moneys at its disposal. So in form and in nature it is a charity. The Minister speaks in general terms about the fund being merged with the other fund in existence, the 25th Anniversary Endowment Fund, and used to help lower-income families and to promote schemes to help them. I think the purpose and the use to which the moneys are going to be put should be spelt out more clearly in this Bill. It cannot be left in a vague phraseology that it shall be used to help lower-income families. The fund says it is for the relief of distress - distressed families who are in need of help - and that is why this fund was set up. I am sure whoever advised the Government on this Bill have no doubt of the doctrine of cypres that where a charity fund is to be wound up, an application has to be made to the court specifying the purposes to which the moneys are to be used.”
“Why was MUIS not told that they were at liberty, if they thought there were wrong interpretations of the Koran or anything else, that they could come out publicly with their statement and so let us have the debate open, instead of all being decided by the "Commissar"? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, it is up to MUIS if it wants to disclose the reasons, but in so far as the process is concerned, PELU has the powers and the discretion, and it has exercised it objectively and correctly. I think that is the important point - taking all views into consideration.”
“Would the Minister of State or his Ministry make public the objections by MUIS setting out how it offends the Muslim religion or the Koran? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: That is part of the decision-making process. I do not think it is up to PELU to disclose all these grounds. In fact, 11 specific grounds were given, on which the view was formed that there were references to Quranic verses and also religious connotations which would give a wrong impression of Islam. Here, because the performances were in Malay and English - unlike the earlier performances which were in Tamil where probably the audience would be a more limited one - there will be larger audiences. So this will lead possibly to people of other races having the wrong impression of Islam, having perhaps an erroneous and lower impression of Islam than what it actually is, and this may lead to misunderstanding amongst the races.”
“Were there any complaints from any women's organisations? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Not that I know of. I do not think there were complaints from women's organisations.”
“By whom? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: By two groups - SIJU and the Federation of Indian Muslims. These were not just individuals but complaints from the members of these two groups.”
“May I, first of all, say I see that the overworked Minister of State is again asked to answer all these questions whilst the Minister is here. But that is a matter for them. But may I ask the poor overworked Minister of State, do I understand that the objections were first raised by some Indian Muslim men or an association representing them? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I do not know whether the Member heard my answer, but there were earlier performances in 1998 and 1999 in Tamil, and objections were raised.”
“Is the Minister saying that I should send to him every letter that I have received three or four days after its posting? If he wants me to do that, I will flood him with them.”
“Is the Minister aware that, despite the high rates that Singapore charges, in this age today, it sometimes takes four or five days for letters to reach the addressee in Singapore itself?”
“That would lend credibility to the Government's claim that the Speakers' Corner is proof of democracy in this country, where there is no such thing. The Speakers' Corner was intended to be a showpiece, like the wayang kulit and to proclaim to people that, there you are, we have got democracy, we have got freedom of expression, when this Bill and the Act completely take away that freedom of expression of the citizens. So I do seriously urge the Government to do one of two things. Withdraw this Bill and refer the Act to the Constitutional Court for a pronouncement on whether the ban on talks and lectures violates Article 14(1) of the Constitution and if the Government is not willing to do that, as I have said, to reconsider whether the whole scheme of licensing should now be revised in relation to public meetings, talks or lectures, particularly those organised by political associations and that would include not only political parties registered under the Societies Act, but NGOs and civic groups, groups like my organisation, the Open Singapore Centre. Then, as I have said, it would speak volumes for this Government's sincerity to promote discussion and debate in Singapore. If it does not do that, may I say it is all empty words, all hocus-pocus, that Singapore enjoys freedom of speech, freedom of expression. 5.00 pm”
“May I ask what is the objection, and I do want a serious answer to this. What is your objection to a public meeting in a private closed place like a hotel or somebody's house or building? One can understand some objection if it is to be on a public street or in a public area, but what is the objection to a meeting in a closed room where the public is invited to attend? The OSC, of which I am Chairman, has held two forums. True, we got licences, but after having to satisfy the licensing officer that we were not going to be talking about subversion, and we were only given the licence almost at the last minute. I say, Sir, that if this Government wishes to show itself as law-abiding and respects the Constitution, it should take away this requirement for the licence and bring in provisions to require the police to lodge any objections with a Magistrate to any proposed meeting of which the applicant should give three weeks' notice before the meeting and then the Magistrate or some officer, hearing both sides, decides whether the meeting should be allowed or not. That would accord with the Constitution and would prove to the world that this Government is serious when it says that it wishes to promote public debate and discussion by its citizens. Mr Simon Tay says that the Speakers' Corner has been a success. I do not know on what grounds he says that. It was only yesterday that I read in the Straits Times which asks, "Is the Speakers' Corner dying a natural death?" There are very few speakers and very few people listening to them. I, for one, may I say, am glad that it has been completely ignored by responsible Singapore citizens because I have said it right from the beginning that I was not going to show myself up there.”
“I would seriously urge the Ministry to refer the whole Act, not just the Bill, to the Constitutional Court for an opinion whether the Act and the scheme of licensing provided under the Act violate Article 14(1) of the Constitution. I see that the Minister for Home Affairs laughs at my suggestion that it should be referred to the Constitutional Court. That is what I always have had when I suggest that it be referred to the court. It shows very little respect for the court. And please do not tell me in reply that I can always take it up to the court. If the Government is accountable to the people, as it says it is an accountable Government and it is transparent in its decision-making, it would immediately, upon a complaint that any legislation violates the Constitution, refer it to the Constitutional Court. So please act responsibly as the Government is accountable to the people and not laugh away at any suggestion that we should refer the matter to the court. May I commend to the Ministry that if they do not wish to refer the Bill, along with the Act, to the Constitutional Court, it should now withdraw this Bill and reconsider whether it should proceed with the Bill as at present before the House. I would ask the Ministry to consider taking out completely from the Bill sub-paragraph (m) in the Schedule which defines "public entertainment". Sub-paragraph (m), of course, relates to play-reading, recital, lecture, talk, address debate or discussion. And introduce in this Bill, other provisions that require not the applicant to get a licence but require the police to object for grounds stated to any intention on the part of any political party or any party or association to hold a public meeting or talk.”
“I say this because, if you look at section 14(1)(d), you will find the words "If it is contrary to the public interest." So this official is given the authority to decide what is the public interest. But the Constitution says clearly, in no uncertain terms, that it is in the public interest that every citizen should have the right of freedom of expression without any restriction put upon it, except in the very limited areas specified under the Constitution. And what is more, the Act did not provide an appeal to the courts against any decision and this is continued in the Bill that is now before us. On a matter so important as the right of citizens to speak up, should not the decision be left to the court rather than to the official, and from him to the Minister? I mentioned not very long ago that the licensing officer, in a case where we were charged with violating the Public Entertainments Act, said on oath in the witness stand that applications from political parties are automatically referred to the Minister. The decision is taken out of his hands and the Minister decides whether it should be granted or not. If that is the case, what on earth will be served by allowing the political party to appeal to the Minister? He is asked to review his own decision, not the decision of the licensing officer? If the Government is sincere in its oft-stated desire to invite our citizens to speak up, there should have been an opportunity for the citizen to take his case to the court so that the court may decide whether the right under the Constitution is being violated by the decision of the Minister.”
“And this Act should have been amended, once the Constitution was brought into force, to take out of the Public Entertainments Act the provisions relating to meetings, lectures, talks of a serious nature, and, particularly, meetings organised by registered political parties. That should have been done, but was not done. May I remind the Minister and the Government that the Constitution itself enjoins, requires the Government to modify the law so as to accord with the right given by the Constitution. But nothing was done to modify the law, and the total ban on public expression in the form of meetings and talks was continued. So, I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, the whole thing is a mockery of the Constitution. If you look at section 13 of the parent Act, what do you find, Mr Speaker, Sir? It reads: "The licensing officer may, in his discretion, refuse any application for a licence." There you have it. The Act says, forget about the Constitution. We can refuse any application for a licence to speak and we can stop anyone speaking out in public. One would have thought that, in the Amendment Bill, perhaps an attempt would have been made to spell out clearly the grounds on which the licensing officer may refuse the application. Instead of that, this carte blanche freedom is continued. I suggest that perhaps we should consider now changing the designation of the officer as "Licensing Officer" to "Licensing Czar" under the Government. That perhaps will explain clearly that the Government continues to hold unrestricted control over the right of anyone to speak in public. If you look at section 14 of the parent Act, it again gives this "licensing czar" grounds to cancel or suspend any licence without again tying him down.”
“The Government, in spite of all its avowed statements that there was freedom of speech, freedom of expression in Singapore, the Deputy Prime Minister telling the BBC that anyone is free to debate in Singapore, they still see fit to introduce a Bill tightening further, if I may say, the restrictions on meetings of a serious nature. I say it makes a mockery of our Constitution. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Public Entertainments Act violates Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution. If you look at Article 14(1)(a), Mr Speaker, Sir, what do you find? "Every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression." May I repeat: "Every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression." However, it continues, by Article 14(2)(a), to give Parliament the right to impose "such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof." I do not wish to read the rest of it, but the operative part of this is, to impose "such restrictions as it considers necessary". It does not say that you can abrogate the right of the citizen. The right of the citizen must remain. By requiring the citizen to first go and obtain a licence from a police officer is to take away his right under the Constitution. If one has to obtain a licence, then one cannot truthfully say that one has the right. His right is made dependent on the whim of the officer to whom he has to make the application. It is no longer a right. It becomes a licence granted by the Government, and not a right of the citizen. So, I say, Sir, that the Act itself is a complete negation of Article 14(1)(a) of our Constitution.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to express my distaste for this Bill. But may I make it clear that my objections do not flow from the requirement for proper licensing and regulation of animal circuses and those who operate pin tables and games of chance. My objections to this Bill and, indeed, to the main Act itself, stem from the fact that the main Act and this Bill make a mockery of our Constitution in that, as Mr Simon Tay has pointed out, it seeks to include public meetings and to lump them together with circuses and exhibitions of animals and operations of games of chance, and what else. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked several times by foreign correspondents and visitors whether I did not think that the Government was liberalising its restrictions on the freedom of speech, and my answer has always been "No", and they then wonder why I take this view. This Bill confirms my view. One would have thought that the Government might have considered that the time has now come to remove the restrictions on public meetings, talks and lectures. But no, it seeks to include public meetings, lectures and talks in this total control over any form of public expression in this country. It makes, as I have said, a mockery of the constitutional right expressed by Article 14 of our Constitution. Mr Simon Tay would appear to suggest that there should be a separate scheme for meetings and talks. I do not agree with that. I am saying the time has now come to lift completely, and, I repeat, to lift completely any restrictions on public meetings and talks or lectures of a serious nature and allow complete freedom of speech, as is required by the Constitution. That is why I felt very unhappy when I saw this Public Entertainments (Amendment) Bill.”
“Were there passers-by? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Yes. There was a driver of a motor lorry behind him who testified that he feared for his life if the man was not stopped. Mr Jeyaretnam well knows that a coroner's enquiry is part of the traditional process. It is a coroner's court, well established, and the system has worked well. In fact, the coroner will not have the last say because it is the Attorney-General's Chambers who will ultimately decide whether or not there are grounds for prosecution. In this case, he decided that, based on the coroner's inquiry and also his own assessment of the facts, there were no grounds for prosecuting the police officer.”
“I have, Sir. Does the Minister of State not think that in spite of the coroner's findings, the policeman should have been charged in court for him to persuade the court that it was not murder but manslaughter, culpable homicide not amounting to murder? Because if you look at sections 100 and 101, the right of private defence does not extend to killing another man unless there are reasonable grounds to suspect that his life is in imminent danger. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as I have said just now in my answer, it is not the police's intention to kill. In those circumstances, he has to shoot to stop the man. If the bullets kill him, that is the result of the action. But in those split seconds, he has to act. He has to act reasonably, not only in defence of himself, but also passers-by and members of the public.”
“Is the Minister of State aware that the finding of the coroner was not that the policeman was in imminent danger of being killed but there was imminent danger that he feared for his safety? Will the Minister of State look up the coroner's findings again? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the coroner held that his safety was immediately threatened which encompasses his life because when his safety was threatened, in those circumstances, with the man charging at him with a 1.62-metre iron rod, nobody knows what would happen. The coroner also held that he had no reasonable alternative to shooting the deceased. And he also held that Sergeant Chan in this case had acted reasonably and professionally.”
“May I ask the Minister of State: is he aware that under exception (c) to section 300, the murder is reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder? It does not result in an acquittal or justification for the killing. Is he aware of that? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Surely it is up to the coroner or the court to decide on a particular case whether any legal provision kicks in. In this case, the coroner, with all the facts on hand, had looked into the case and decided that the officer had acted reasonably. There was imminent danger and, therefore, the coroner decided that what had happened was justifiable homicide.”
“Have you made a study of all those sections? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: In determining the position to take, we work within the laws. So definitely, these conditions are within the framework of the law. It must be so.”
“May I ask the Minister of State whether he has made a close study of sections 100 and 101 of the Penal Code and the exception to section 300 of the Penal Code, exception (c), before I ask further questions? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: These are exceptions to committing a murder, are they not? Can you read them out? I do not have the Penal Code with me.”
“One final question for the Minister of State. Will he assure the House that the public prosecutor will not adopt double standards when it comes to making a decision to prosecute or not? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: This question does not require a response. The public prosecutor always acts judiciously in the public interest and with fairness to all parties. In deciding whether or not to prosecute cases, he looks at all the evidence and facts and see whether a case can be made out, and he prosecutes in the public interest. I think that is very clear. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND TAX BENEFITS (Extension to self-employed) 12. Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Minister for Manpower, in view of the Government's encouragement to Singaporeans to adopt a more risk-taking entrepreneurial spirit, whether his Ministry intends to extend the Central Provident Fund tax benefits for the self-employed to take into account a "notional employer's contribution" so as to bring them in line with the CPF contribution level of employees and thereby overcome the less attractive features of the proposed Supplementary Retirement Scheme.”
“May I tell the Minister of State that I find it difficult to understand his answer. I take it that some of the cases or the majority of the cases against escort riders have been completed. So the evidence must be in the possession of the public prosecutor. Please tell us what is the delay. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As I have said, these are not separate cases. They may involve different officers. But the transactions are linked because they involve the same companies and, in some cases, several companies gave bribes to different officers, so the charges are also related. So for the sake of fairness, it is better to wait till all the cases have been completed before deciding whether or not to charge any of the givers. Let me assure Mr Jeyaretnam that this consideration will be made. Sir, it is a matter of time.”
“May I ask the Minister of State why is it necessary to wait until all the cases against the escort riders have been completed? Is there or is there not enough evidence now to charge the companies for offering the bribes? Why do we have to wait? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: All the transactions are related because we are talking about 23 companies and about 30 CISCO officers involved. So in order to be fair to all parties concerned, it is prudent to wait till all the cases are concluded before deciding whether or not to charge any giver. In fact, some will still be giving evidence in the remaining cases. In order not to prejudice the remaining cases and, for the sake of justice and fairness, this decision should only be made when all the cases have been concluded.”
“Thank you. Is it suggested that the workload, responsibilities and duties of Members of Parliament, the Backbenchers, approximate even anywhere near those drawing the salaries which are being used as the benchmark?”
“I hope whoever replies will give us an assessment of how the allowances were arrived at. Unless the public is satisfied that politicians do not just go into Parliament because of salaries or the benefits, but there are heavy responsibilities carried by them, they will begin to lose their interest or trust in politicians and that will be a sad thing for Singapore. And as I have said, many Members of Parliament have their own jobs or professions to follow or practise. Are they required to absent themselves from their other jobs to attend sittings of Parliament? Let us have a sense of proportion about the payments. Let us try and justify to the taxpayers because it is their money, they are our pay masters, to justify to them that Members of Parliament in Singapore do need and justify the payments that are being made to them in the form of allowances.”