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 34 of 82.
“I agree. Let us have another Commission, a proper Commission.”
“Well, is not any Member from the Government going to speak? Is not the Prime Minister going to speak in support of this motion?”
“Well, Sir, he still has not answered my question.”
“Can you tell us whether what you read appears here? Does it not, or does it? Can you please answer that question? Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the quotations that I quoted appeared in a programme telecast in Singapore. It is public knowledge ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not a question of challenging. I hope the Minister does not get too defensive about this. The question I asked is: he read - I do not know from where - what I was supposed to have told the Commissioner that afternoon at the Commission of Inquiry. I asked him whether he has the verbatim record of the proceedings that afternoon, or was he reading from here. And if he was reading from here, would he be good enough to refer me to the passage which he read that I said in the afternoon? As for the record, I think it must be accepted by everyone that if you really want to rely on something what somebody said, or did not say, then you should produce the whole transcript. You do not just pick up one sentence and then come and say, "This is what he said", forgetting something that the man might have said earlier and afterwards.”
“The clarification I am asking the Minister for Home Affairs, the Professor of Law at the University of Singapore, is his own opinion, his own view. Does he say, standing there, that those words amount to a scurrilous attack on the Chief Justice? Let us have it without any equivocation.”
“Thank you, Mr Minister. Is the Minster saying that that passage amounts to a scurrilous attack on the Chief Justice? Does he understand the meaning of the term "scurrilous attack"? Is he also saying that the other passages amount to an attack on the Judiciary?”
“May I seek clarification? Prof. Jayakumar resumed his seat.”
“You are referring us to passages. Tell us. Did you do your homework? Obviously, you haven't.”
“I thought you are reading the Prime Minister's speech which says the CJ was astounded. That isn't scurrilous, is it?”
“--- where you said there are scurrilous comments on the Chief Justice.”
“Which one are you going to look at, 10th of January?”
“All the speeches that I made were an attack on the Judiciary?”
“Because I thought he referred to something I was supposed to have told the Commissioner in the afternoon? Was he reading from the Report of the Commissioner or was he referring to the verbatim record of the proceedings before the Commissioner? If it is from the Report, would he be good enough to refer me to it? These are the three clarifications I need from the Minister.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not rising to reply to this because I hope other Members from the Government are going to speak on this. I see the Prime Minister is here and I am sure he would not want to miss out on this. So I will give the Prime Minister particularly, and other Members of the Government a chance to speak on this Motion before I reply. But I want some clarification from the Minister for Home Affairs on what he has just told the House. First of all, he said it was an attack on the Judiciary by the Member for Anson. Would he be good enough to refer this House to the passages in my speeches made in this House on the 10th of January, and on the 19th and 21st of March this year, where such speeches amounted to an attack on the Judiciary. I hope the Minister understands "an attack on the Judiciary", not an attack on the Executive trying to interfere and District Judges carrying out their functions under fear of displeasing the Executive. So will he please be good enough to refer the House to the passages which he says "amount to an attack on the Judiciary." Secondly, would the Minister for Home Affairs also refer this House to the passages in my speeches of 10th January and the 19th and 21st of March which he says "amount to scurrilous comments on the Chief Justice"? These were his words that my speeches or parts of my speeches "amounted to scurrilous comments on the Chief Justice." Would he please refer us to them? Thirdly, may I ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether he has got with him the verbatim record of the proceedings before the Commission, everything taken down, what I said, what the Commissioner said, what Mr Glenn Knight said. Has he got that with him?”
“For the last time, will the Minister perhaps answer my questions: Is he denying that the Police have prevented some persons, accused persons, from getting in touch with their families? Is he denying that the Police have ever arrested persons for not possessing identity cards?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, now I understand what the Minister means when he says that I have misled the House. He says that I have no basis for asking the Minister to investigate. Well, I have just told him - not once but I have told him twice, Mr Speaker, Sir - that the basis for my statement in this House was the statement made to me by this man whom I trust implicitly, and he says there were two others with him when Lim Poh Huat made the statement. So that is the basis. If I have the basis, how could I mislead the House? I can understand the accusation that I have misled the House if I had no basis whatsoever, that nobody ever made a complaint to me or gave me this information and it was from a credible person and that I simply came here, snatched it out of the air, and made a statement. Well, that is not the case.”
“May I know from the Minister in what respect have I misled the House when I told him that I had information about a man who has been arrested? I agree and I now accept the Police findings that there was no such arrest. But how does that amount to misleading? May I, before I sit down, ask the Minister whether he denies that the Police have on several occasions - I knew at least two or three myself - prevented accused persons, arrested persons, from getting in touch with members of the family? That is what I was complaining about if the Minister will remember in the debate on the Estimates for his Ministry.”
“I do not know in what way I have misled the House when I asked whether the Minister would investigate this particular case.”
“But a very important question arises, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is it or is it not permitted for Members of this House to come here and ask questions arising on information received by them? Or are they first expected to do a thorough investiga- tion themselves and establish the veracity of that information before they raise it in Parliament? Secondly, I have told the Minister that if he wishes, and he has only got to say yes, he can interview the person who gave me this information. He can interview the other two who he says were present when Lim Poh Huat told them. I will tell the Minister how these persons came to know about this man's arrest. They had an appointment to meet Lim Poh Huat that Sunday morning for a job, and he did not turn up for the appointment. He turned up after 3.00 pm. And when they questioned him, he told them that the reason for his not keeping the appointment was simply what I had told the Police. They knew him. They knew the family and they had no reason at all to doubt the veracity of his story.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would not waste any time. In this particular instance, if the Minister says that the Police investigations show that no one by the name of Lim Poh Huat was arrested, then of course I withdraw that allegation about this particular instance. An hon. Member: Apologize.”
“The Minister keeps asking, "What steps did you take?" The step I took was to question the man who gave me that information. I asked him whether he was satisfied, whether he knew Lim Poh Huat personally, whether the other members who listened to him knew Lim Poh Huat personally? Now, I have asked the Minister to investigate. I have not got the powers to investigate. All that I need to do is to ask in Parliament, bring to the notice of Parliament, any abuse of Police powers that comes to my information and ask the Minister concerned to investigate. What is so very wrong about that?”
“If the Minister wishes to interview this person who gave me the signed statement, he is most welcome. I will send him to the Minister. The Minister keeps saying it was not a casual statement that I made. Of course, it was not a casual statement. I was talking about Police brutality and about Police abuse of their powers. And so I brought up this incident of which I had been told by this man. And so if the Minister wishes to interview this man and the two others who were present when Lim Poh Huat told them the story, I will arrange for them to see the Minister.”
“It is not from a member of Lim Poh Huat's family, but a man who has known Lim Poh Huat all his life, he says. He says Lim Poh Huat had been known to him and his family for many, many years.”
“And also if the Minister states that it is never the practice of the Singapore Police Force to arrest anyone not in possession of an identity card. As regards my statement here that I made a report at Joo Chiat Police Station, I know it does appear in the Official Report but, as I explained in the letter to the Minister of State, if I said it - and I suppose I must accept that I said it because it is in the verbatim report - it was a slip of the tongue. What I meant to say is that I am aware from my experience as an advocate and solicitor from my practice that there should be a report at every police station of every person arrested and brought to the police station. That is what I meant to say - that there should be a report at Joo Chiat Police Station, because I do know that whenever any person is arrested and brought, a report will be entered in the Charge book. Unfortunately it came out that I made a report. I explained that to the Minister of State. Perhaps Members forget that even Ministers make slips and they have had pointed out to them that they have made a slip. So what is very wrong about that? That is all that it amounts to and he wants to know whether I can produce Mr Lim Poh Huat. I have asked this man who gave me this information and from whom I have a signed statement to try and get Mr Lim Poh Huat to come and see me. And if Mr Lim Poh Huat does come, and this man brings him, the Minister can certainly interview him. I have nothing to hide. I have the signed statement from this man who gave me this information, and it is not just him but there were two others to whom Lim Poh Huat is supposed to have related this story.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not raise this by way of a question. The Minister should be aware of this. I raised this in the debate on the Budget for the Ministry of Home Affairs, particularly on the Budget for the Police. I started my speech by asking: Is Singapore a Police state? Perhaps the Minister may recall that. And I said there were several instances of which I had personal knowledge or of which I had gathered - perhaps I should say I act for accused persons, Mr Speaker, Sir - where the Police had prevented accused persons from getting in touch with their families for 24 hours or even more than 24 hours. Does the Minister say that that practice never obtains in the Singapore Police Force? Then in the course of my debate I mentioned that I had information or heard about the man who was arrested after midnight on the 1st March. And I said, "You could inquire about this from Joo Chiat Police station and tell us whether this is true or not true." How did I get that information? I have a signed statement given to me by a person whose integrity I respect, who says in his signed statement that he had an appointment with this man and this man never turned up that Sunday morning and, in front of him and two others, told this man that he had been arrested by Joo Chiat Police Station after midnight. So I have a signed statement from a man, as I said, whose integrity I respect. He says it was not just him but there were two others. So I asked that question whether the Minister would like to investigate that. What is wrong about that? Unless the Minister now says it is never the case in the Singapore Police Force to prevent accused persons, arrested persons, from contacting their families as soon as they are arrested.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise on a point of order.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I assure the Minister of State that I am not suggesting that the family should be put under third degree treatment. But is the Minister saying that the Police are averse to interviewing the family and averse to keeping watch on any correspondence received by this family from abroad because I know that is done in other cases?”
“Have the Police interviewed members of the family recently? Have they seen or censored any post coming to the family from abroad?”
“Will the Minister tell us whether the Police are aware if the man is in contact with members of his family or have they lost all contact with him?”
“Will the Minister of State tell us whether the family of this man, Mr Phey Yew Kok, is still living in Singapore?”
“Is the Minister of State aware of the answer that was given, I think, in the last Parliament by the then Minister for Home Affairs that this man was somewhere in a neighbouring country and I asked for this country to be named and that was not divulged? Is he also aware that this House was then told that the Police were anxiously keeping surveillance to see whether he was moving out of that country to anywhere else? Would the Minister of State tell us something more? Is that man still hiding in one of the neighbouring countries?”
“May I ask the Minister of State that in view of the great speed and efficiency in which the Singapore Police have been able to track others who have left Singapore, there are doubts now being raised in the public mind of the efficiency of the Singapore Police when they seem unable to track down Mr Phey Yew Kok. Is he aware of that?”
“Would the Minister like to do a survey in my constituency of children living in the 1-room and 2-room blocks and find out from them what they have to say about this?”
“] This table, Sir, shows that for primary 1 boys in the year 1976, the percentage of obesity occurred in 1.57% of the cohort. In 1985, it rose to 7.77%. This is an increase of five times between the years 1976 and 1985. Similarly, you can see an increasing trend among the primary 1, primary 6 and secondary 4 students.”
“Is the Minister or the Prime Minister not aware that there have been reports of surveys done in Singapore which show that quite a number of our children go to school hungry and that a good proportion of them suffer from malnutrition? Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, if the Member for Anson would like to tell me where these reports were made, I would like to have them looked into. Again, let me show some statistics to the Member for Anson since he is so imperceptive compared to our tailor friend. Here is a study made by the Health Ministry on the average height and weight of school children between the years 1970-73 and 1983. May I request the Clerk to distribute these tables (Cols. 211 - 212) to hon. Members. tables - AVERAGE HEIGHT/WEIGHT OF SCHOOL CHILDREN 1970-73 and 1983 (Cols. 211 - 212) [Copies of tables distributed to hon. Members.] This survey of school children showed that for children of the ages of 7, 12 and 16 - these are the ages of primary 1, primary 6 and secondary 4 students - the average increase in height ranged from 2.2% to 5.7%. And the average increase in weight ranged from 3.6% to 21.3%. I think these tables are very clear. They are objectively done. They are measured among this cohort of students who were in schools in the years 1973 and 1983. A further point, Mr Speaker, Sir. There is another table (Cols. 213 - 214) which I would like the Clerk to distribute. It shows the percentage prevalence of obesity among Singapore school children from 1976 to 1985 and of primary 1, primary 6 and secondary 4 students. table - PERCENTAGE PREVALENCE OF OBESITY AMONG SINGAPORE SCHOOL CHILDREN OF YEAR, SEX AND LEVEL OF EDUCATION 1976 TO 1985 (Cols. 213 - 214) [Copies of table distributed to hon. Members.”
“I regret that the Prime Minister is not here to answer the Question. Does the Minister not concede that this is a complete distortion of the truth about Singapore's children?”
“Sir, will the Minister of State, speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, be able to tell this House which children was the Prime Minister speaking of when he said, "our children are so well-dressed, so well shod, well-combed hair, watches. Worse of all, over-fed. Such good food and masses of it"? Was the Prime Minister speaking of his own children? Was he speaking of the children of the wealthy, or was he speaking of the children of our citizens who live mainly in 1-room, 2-room and 3-room HDB flats? Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I think it is quite clear from the Prime Minister's interview that he was referring to the children of Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I really rise to seek clarification from the Minister of State. As has been pointed out, there were voluntary organizations which were involved in promoting family planning in Singapore and, if my memory serves me right, I think it was first started by the Singapore Family Planning Association. I think the international organization was also involved. This brings me to the point about the premises that are at present occupied by the Board in Dunearn Road. Again, I stand corrected - was the premises not built or put up by these voluntary organizations and which was eventually transferred to the Board for its functions which were taken over from the voluntary organizations? Now it is proposed to dissolve this Board itself and transfer all the functions to the Ministry of Health. But what is to come of the land and the premises in Dunearn Road? Or will the Ministry of Health be conducting its activities in the field of family planning from that building? The other question is this. If the property was donated by voluntary organizations and the Government is taking it over, will any compensation be paid to the people who gave that building for this particular purpose?”
“And the Auditor General himself has referred to certain omissions in the HDB's accounts. But they remain simply at that because the Companies Act does not extend to the statutory boards. So we have the HDB concealing its profits and not showing them in the accounts so that the public are not aware that the HDB has got something like $100 million or $150 million tucked away somewhere else. So I would make a plea that it is time sections relating to the keeping of accounts, if not the whole of the Companies Act, be made applicable to statutory boards, that they be brought within the purview and control of the Companies Act.”
“What we need is an assurance that his Ministry will exercise its judgment more carefully in the affairs of companies or corporations. I have two other matters, Mr Speaker, Sir. The first is the proposed amendment to section 50. I have raised this point before but that is no reason for not raising it again and, that is, the provision in the section for an appeal from the decision of the Registrar of Companies where he refuses to register a prospectus of a company. Under the proposed amendment, any person who is aggrieved may appeal to the Minister and the Minister's decision is stated to be final, not to be called in question in any court. This is a very familiar thing and we get it time and time again in Government legislation, and I have drawn attention every time to the danger of investing powers without any questioning by an independent tribunal, from any review of the Minister's powers or of any executive authority. I cannot see why in this case an appeal could not have been provided to the courts. I am sure it is not going to be argued or stated that it would be against the national interest or detrimental to the safety or security of the country if the matter were brought before the courts and is debated. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask when will some of these provisions of the Companies Act, particularly in its requirements in the preparation of accounts be made applicable to statutory boards. Under the Companies Act, statutory boards, because they are an agency of the Government, are exempt. Is there any real reason, any valid reason, why statutory boards should be made exempt? I have referred to the accounts of the HDB that they do not bring in the accounts of the subsidiary companies. They do not consolidate those accounts into their accounts.”
“It simply says that if the Minister is satisfied that there is good reason for so doing, he may act under the section. No attempt is made to spell out what would be a good reason for the Minister to exercise this power. I have several times complained about the powers given to Ministers without restraint or without subject to limits imposed by Parliament. The other undesirable thing about this section is that it does not spell out who the authorized person may be under the proposed section 8A. Under section 230 it is an auditor who can be appointed to investigate the affairs of the company. There seems to be a view, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Government that it is necessary for the Government to amass itself with power after power in order to control or to regulate the affairs of its citizens, and that of course includes companies and businesses. What is needed, if I may say, is not just amassing of powers to itself by the Government but the exercise of proper judgment. You may have any amount of powers but if you are not prepared to exercise your judgment, then no amount of powers is going to help you. I cited a case in point, the Pan-El affair. The power was there all along. It was there in the Securities Industry Act. It was there in the Companies Act, under section 230. But whoever made the decision did not exercise his judgment properly. He assumed quite wrongly, in my view, that the MAS did not have the powers. And so we had the debacle of Pan-El and the debacle of the Stock Exchange suspending its activities for three days. So there you have it. It is a failure to exercise judgment. I would therefore ask the Minister whether he would try and justify the necessity for further powers to be given to the Minister.”
“By section 230 of the Companies Act, the Minister may declare a company a declared company, which would have the effect of applying the provisions of Part IX to that company and, having declared it, to appoint one or more inspectors to investigate the affairs of that company and to report his opinion thereon to the Minister. That is to be found in section 231. But section 230, unlike the proposed section 8A, spells out quite clearly the situations in which the Minister may exercise the power given to him under the Act. They are all spelt out in section 230 in paragraphs (a) to (d), and they are quite wide enough. Paragraph (a) for example, allows the Minister to declare a company a declared company for the purposes of the Act where a prima facie case has been established that, for the protection of the public or the shareholders or the creditors of the company, it is desirable that the affairs of the company should be investigated. In paragraph (b) you find that the Minister can also do that where there are allegations of fraud, misfeasance or other misconduct by persons who are or have been concerned with the formation or management of the company. Then you have got a much wider one under paragraph (c): that for any other reason it is in the public interest that the affairs of the company should be investigated under this Part. Finally, in the case of a foreign company, that the appropriate authority of another country has requested for such a declaration to be made. So there you have it. The very same powers that are now proposed to be given under the proposed sections 8A to 8H, but the advantage and the saving grace, if I may say, of section 230 is that it spells out the situations under which the Minister may exercise the power. Section 8A does not do that.”
“Sir, these proposed sections 8A to 8H give the Minister, as it were, absolute powers to require a corporation to produce books relating to the affairs of the corporation not only to him or to his Ministry but to any person authorized by him. As I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, a little while ago, it would seem to be an absolute power vested in the Minister without any qualification. I would like to hear from the Minister the reason why his Ministry thinks the Minister should be invested with this power. One suspects it is because the Ministry perhaps takes the view that it does not have the power to call for books of a company and to inspect the books. Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recall that when I tabled my motion on the Pan-El crisis, I then attributed the events that eventually occurred to the neglect of the MAS. The Minister was vehement in his answer that the Ministry or the MAS did not have the powers to call for the books or to ask for explanations of the affairs of the corporation. They referred the complaints to the Stock Exchange Committee and the Stock Exchange Committee came back with a reply, "We do not have the powers", and so everybody was content to leave things as they were. But as I pointed out, there was power under the Securities Industry Act for the MAS to have referred the complaints to the Securities Industry Council, and then for the Council to require all the books to be produced to it for inspection, to investigate the affairs of the company. So there is power there under the Securities Industry Act, and the new Act of course takes the powers much further. But it is not just that. There is already sufficient power under the Companies Act at present. I am, of course, referring to Part IX of the Act which deals with investigations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, even without the Minister referring to the events towards the end of last year, it was quite apparent to everyone that this Bill was prompted by those events. We certainly welcome some of the amendments that are proposed to the Companies Act. But I have questions, particularly on one amendment. But before I come to that, may I say that we welcome the amendment to section 328 of the Act. It is long overdue. The amendment would make it possible now for workers to get retrenchment benefits in companies that face winding-up or liquidation in priority over other unsecured debts. That is certainly a step for the protection of our workers, and we welcome it and we are grateful to the Minister for bringing in that amendment. Then there is the amendment to section 149. As the Minister has said, there has been considerable criticism over the existing section 149. May I say I am glad that an attempt has been made to mitigate the rigours of section 149. But in my view these amendments do not go far enough. I do not think the amendments deal with the criticisms that have been levelled at section 149 of the Act. I do hope that the Select Committee will pay greater attention to the objections raised by people who should know, to section 149. The gravamen of the charge is that it penalizes directors who may be completely innocent, and that is something which we should not encourage. It departs, as has been mentioned by a Member speaking on this Bill, from the principle that unless somebody is proven guilty he should be presumed to be innocent of any guilt or offence or default. Now may I turn, Sir, to clause 5 which introduces new sections 8A to 8H.”
“I hope, Sir, the book distributors will make very strong representations to the Select Committee and that the Minister will give his due consideration. Sir, with the introduction of this Bill, I believe there will be difficulties in the short run for some people. Adjustments will have to be made and I would appeal to the Minister to look into these short-run problems so as to minimize the difficulties that would be encountered by some sectors in the economy. However, in the long run, this Bill can only do Singapore good.”
“Sir, one question often asked is whether the introduction of new laws on copyright will result in higher priced products. It would be reasonable to assume that originals will be more expensive than pirated copies. Therefore, it is important that prices of original products should come down and this in a way would discourage piracy further. One way to reduce prices of original products in Singapore would be to encourage Singapore companies to arrange for licensing arrangements with the rights holders to reproduce their products in Singapore for sale in the domestic market as well as for exports to agreed markets at competitive prices. The existing arrangements with major book publishers and printers in the US and the United Kingdom to reprint and publish books in Singapore for domestic sale and export is a good example for other sectors of the economy to follow. Sir, since this Bill is going to Select Committee, I do not intend to touch on specific provisions except to say that book distributors in Singapore have voiced some reservations as regards clauses 31 and 32 of the new Bill. They claim that this provision is very restrictive and it is not in our interest. Currently, Singapore book distributors enjoy the privilege of securing titles from the UK and the US markets freely, thus keeping prices reasonable and our selection of books wide. Apparently, with the provision in clauses 31 and 32, this practice cannot be continued because of agreements between the UK and US publishers. We can only import from the UK even if the US editions are much cheaper. I believe this is a price we pay for following the Australian model. In fact, some people go on to say that we pirated the Australian model!”
“Secondly, Sir, Singapore is now subject to abuse and allegations that it is the centre or, in fact, the world capital for piracy. UK and US firms report losses of millions of dollars because of pirated products like cassette tapes and computer software exported out of Singapore. The Member for Bukit Timah has already read out the various articles. I have copies of a number of articles here from the Financial Times, Straits Times, The Australian and the Canberra Times, all stating that Singapore is the number one piracy centre. Sir, the third reason is that the US Government even went as far as to caution the danger of Singapore losing out its GSP status if piracy is not checked or strong legislation introduced by the Government. Amidst the above, I believe that the introduction of a comprehensive copyright bill is indeed very timely. This move would also further go on to protect and promote our overall trade. Sir, it is the declared policy of the Government to promote Singapore as the brain services centre. I believe this piece of legislation will go a long way in correcting our reputation as a centre of piracy. Unchecked piracy, especially in computer software, would destroy Singapore's dream of becoming a leading computer centre by the turn of the century. Apart from computer software industry, Sir, the printing and publishing industries have also been identified as a growth sector of the economy and it is expected to sustain a growth of about 11% per annum. Again, the introduction of this new Bill would not only benefit local publishers and printers in securing new titles but would also enhance Singapore's position as an international printing and publishing centre.”
“But we have a situation here where from time to time the Ministry of Information invites people to participate in contests, competitions, essay writing, dramatic competitions. Under this clause the copyright in entries submitted for these competitions would automatically vest with the Government and not with the author of the work. Why should that be? Then the Government is free to make use of that person's work without paying any royalty to that person. As I said, I can understand this if the work is produced by somebody who is under a contract of employment with the Government. But in my view, Mr Speaker, Sir, the copyright in works submitted to the Government by persons who are invited to take part in competitions or festivals organized by the Government should continue to subsist with the author and there should be penalties for infringement of the copyright, either by the Government or by anybody else for that matter. Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Copyright Bill and welcome the decision of the Minister to commit it to a Parliamentary Select Committee. Sir, our present copyright legislation in Singapore is based on the Imperial Copyright Act of 1911 of the United Kingdom. Hence, I believe that there is an urgent need to review this, especially in the light of technological and social changes, both in Singapore and overseas. There are several factors which make it necessary for Singapore to review the present set of laws on copyright. Firstly, as has been mentioned earlier, there is considerable pressure from the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom on Singapore to introduce tougher legislation to protect intellectual properties in Singapore.”
“Then if you move on to clause 6, Mr Speaker, Sir, I see that the Government shall be at perfect liberty "to sell, use or otherwise deal with articles forfeited under any written law, including any article so forfeited by virtue of this Act or of any written law repealed by this Act." That gives the Government carte blanche, as it were, to seize any articles which infringe the copyright of the authors and then to sell or to deal with them in any way the Government thinks fit. It seems to me a complete contradiction of the Government's intention to stamp out infringements of copyright. Then under clause 7, Mr Speaker, Sir, I see that private educational institutions are excluded. This is because the definition of an "educational institution" under this Bill in which reproduction is permitted without being an infringement "does not include an institution that is conducted for the profit, direct or indirect, of an individual or individuals." This would appear to exclude a number of private organizations in Singapore that do provide education in one form or other. I do not know why the need to exclude them if they are already registered with the Ministry of Education and they are genuine educational institutions. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may turn to clause 187 in the Bill. This provides for copyright in the Government of any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work made by or under the direction or control of a Government department. I see that in the United States, the US Government does not have any copyright. I can understand copyright vesting in the Government where anything is made by any person in the employment of the Government.”