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 35 of 82.
“But I wonder whether this would be adequate enough to cover the concern that I have for students' textbooks. I am told that not only are the students' books expensive, books that have come from other countries, but they are also not readily available in many cases. So I wonder whether the Ministry of Education or the Government would consider making special arrangements for the availability of these books to students at a price that they can afford and to be available when they want them. That is my concern under this Bill. There are other sections of the Bill which I would like to refer, if I may, and that is, the provisions which relate to Government's liability and the Government's privileges under this Bill. I see, by clause 3 of this Bill, that "this Act shall bind the Government but nothing in this Act should render the Government liable to be prosecuted for an offence." Well, I do not know how Government is going to be bound if it is not liable to be prosecuted for any infringement of copyright. Not very long ago, Mr Speaker, Sir, the public in Singapore and, of course, overseas learned of a Minister of State telling his audience that they should not worry about the Government restricting sale of foreign newspapers in Singapore because one could always make copies of them and circulate them. Sir, if that is not an infringement of copyright, I do not know what is. I wonder what the United States State Department thought of that. So may I know the reason for the provision for the Government not being liable to be prosecuted for any infringement of copyright by the Government?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I of course rise to support the Bill in principle and to assure the Government of my Party's support in its efforts to protect the intellectual property of people who contribute to the progress of society, either in literary, musical or artistic works. The Minister himself and the last Member have voiced the concern felt in countries outside Singapore about the pirating in Singapore of intellectual properties emanating from these countries. But it is not just concern felt by these other countries; there is also concern felt by our local companies and by local authors. And we should primarily protect our local people from deprivation of their economic gain from their intellectual properties. I remember the concern that was felt by our local authors some years ago at the delay in the Government's declared intention to bring in a new Bill, and I asked a question about this sometime then. So we do, of course, support this Bill. This Bill is necessary, as the Minister said, if we are to have good relations with our trading partners. But may I raise a concern for a particular class. This is the matter of textbooks for students. It has been mentioned by the last Member that copyright may perhaps unnecessarily hinder or hamper the acquisition of knowledge. Of course, these are the two competing interests - the availability of knowledge in any form and the need to protect the property rights of the authors of that knowledge. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this affluent society of ours we expect our children to buy all their textbooks, and I know that in many families the cost of these books is a burden to them. I note and I am aware that the Act has provision for fair use, making fair use not an infringement of copyright, and there is also provision for library copies.”
“I am making a plea. May we know from the Leader why is it not possible to give Members sufficient notice of sittings of Parliament because Parliament is not a club or an association. Parliament is concerned with national matters and it is important that Members should be given ample time to bring up their matters before Parliament. It is not a game of trying to catch out Members from giving notices of motions.”
“It is. Mr Speaker, I await your ruling because it concerns the interpretation and application of Standing Orders so as to give ample opportunity to Members of this House to bring up matters for debate. So I submit it is a point of order. I am aware that, under the Standing Orders, only five days is required.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I still maintain it is a point of order because it relates to notices of sittings. I am well aware that Standing Order requires that the Clerk should only give at least five days' notice. But that is the minimum period. I am making a plea to the Leader because I understood from you that it is the Leader who decides when Parliament is to -”
“I have already expressed to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, my own views about this. But I ask leave from you to raise this publicly now, and that is, to make a plea that Members should be given longer notices of the sittings of Parliament. It was made very poignant as regards this sitting because we had notice of the sitting on the 23rd April. Under Standing Orders, all questions and motions for debate in Parliament had to be sent in on the 24th April. So Members had barely 24 hours within which to prepare their questions and to table their motions. As I have told you, I missed out because I sent in my questions and motions on the 25th April, having clean forgotten that 1st May was a public holiday. I understood from you, Mr Speaker, Sir ---”
“It relates to sittings of Parliament, and notices in relation to the sittings.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, with your permission, rise on a point of order?”
“Later, when the CID put the case to the Ministry, my officials in the Ministry and the Legal Officer in the Ministry, who have to screen all criminal law submissions before they are sent to the Attorney-General and myself, advised that they should hold it in abeyance because a court case of assault was going on. However, in May 1985, the CID had further evidence of continuing involvement of the subject in secret society activities.”
“On 8th July, even before the father wrote to me, when I saw a copy of a letter that the father had written to the Prime Minister dated 5th July, I personally ordered an investigation. And in my instruction to the officials, I said that this was a serious allegation in that criminal law detention was alleged to be a reprisal for assault against the subject. I asked for a detailed report showing the choronology of events. The investigation was done by the Special Investigation Section, a separate Section from the Secret Society Branch, which then put up a report to me which I studied. The report established that there was no connection between the detention and the assault. However, on 23rd August 1985, I asked personally for a second investigation. Why? To make doubly sure and to satisfy myself that the criminal law detention was not connected with the assault complaint. This second investigation at my request was done by a senior officer of the Police Staff Inspectorate, a separate unit. On the basis of both these investigations ordered by me, I was satisfied that the criminal law detention had no connection with the assault complaint and the officers involved were from two separate teams. I was also satisfied that there were ample grounds for the detention. All these allegations were also put to the Advisory Committee which, I understand, comprises three private practising lawyers. The second allegation is that he was arrested on 17th June outside the Subordinate Courts. Is this true? It is true. Was there wrongdoing? There was no wrongdoing. Let me explain. In early 1985, the CID had information and evidence to detain him under the criminal law. Initially, they delayed putting up the case to the Ministry because of the court action on assault.”
“On 3rd December 1980, when the subject, David Tan, was 12 years and nine months, a school student, he was arrested and convicted for rioting with dangerous weapons. Under Section 148, Chapter 103, he was convicted and presumably because of his age and it being his first offence, he was placed on two years' probation on 13th January 1981. Next, on 24th June 1982, he was questioned by the Secret Society Branch of the CID for secret society activities. But instead of detention, he was recommended to be placed on record with the Registrar of Societies, and he was so placed. In other words, it is not a case of a person not having had any record at all before the complaint of assault was lodged on 22nd November 1984. Now, we come to 21st November 1984 which was his next brush with the law. He and others were arrested, not under criminal law, but under the Societies Act and were questioned for secret society involvement. They were released. Next day, 22nd November, a report was made against two detectives for assault at the Tanglin Police Station. Unlike what the Member for Anson presumes and assumes that nothing was done, the Internal Investigations Section investigated. But on 28th November, his parents decided, I guess, to lodge a complaint in the Subordinate Courts. The Police action then was in abeyance because of the court action. In May 1985, the CID had further evidence of the subject's continued involvement in secret society activities. On 17th June 1985, he was arrested under the provisions of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. He was represented by counsel and he continues to be so represented. On the first allegation that it was a reprisal, Sir.”
“But he is being specious. Prof. Jayakumar: He has never written to us. Therefore, he has come here on nothing more than just, to use his word, "allegations". He wants to know whether I have personally studied the case, which he could have found out if he had written to us. Therefore, I think it is not only a smear on the Police, but it is really an irresponsible action. And in order for me to meet it, I would have to go to the extent of revealing what I know about the record of this particular person, and the responsibility must lie on the Member for Anson for my having to do that, however much it may embarrass the family and the subject. He is really alleging wrongful detention. Of course, Parliament is not the forum for that, although I would nevertheless proceed to answer his point. The points that he has made here have already been put by counsel to the relevant authorities and to the Advisory Committee. Perhaps he is trying to prove he is better than the other counsel. Basically, Sir, the Member for Anson's point is that this detention really had no grounds because the allegation is that this criminal law detention was motivated by the Police and nothing more than a retaliation against the complaint of assault brought against the Police by the subject. Secondly, he seems to say that this is borne out by the fact that he was arrested outside the courts when he went to the courts concerning his summons case, with the innuendo that probably the detention was intended to frustrate the court action. Sir, let me first clarify the impression of the Member for Anson. The first time this subject was involved with the law was on 21st November 1984.”
“I see there was another letter written by somebody to the Minister where it talked about somebody else being released because they had entertained the Police officers concerned at a dinner. This is the letter of the 14th February from one Tan Peow Soon. I am sure the Minister must have this letter. These are very serious allegations and they must be investigated. I would like to know from the Minister what investigations did he carry out into these allegations. So I am not just trying to smear the Police Force. It is in the interest of all of us, the society as a whole, that if these acts are perpetrated by any members of the Police Force, they should be immediately rooted out and stopped. I am sure the Minister will agree with that. Whilst I am talking about this, may I ask whether some attempt will be made or some latitude will be given by his Ministry to supply further details to persons who are detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary) Provisions Act? There is no other way of ensuring justice except by giving them details and giving them adequate opportunities to be heard, and to produce witnesses to be cross-examined by any counsel appointed by these persons. Otherwise, you will run the risk, and I say there is a grave risk, of innocent persons being detained by Police officers who sometimes may want to settle private quarrels or scores. And you, of course, open the way to corruption.”
“You are charged with something of which you do not know and you are asked to defend yourself. The Minister keeps repeating the danger, if the boy is tried in court, of witnesses who would be intimidated or that the accused would intimidate the witnesses; and they would not come forward. May I tell the Minister that that would appear to be a specious reason in the case of this boy who is only 17 years of age. And should not details of these two counts of rioting, five cases of settlement talks, a case of extortion, a case of unlawful assembly, a case of assault, a case of attempted assault begiven to the father? What is the danger in giving the details to the father? Who are these persons who have given evidence to the Police of this boy's involvement? As I said, the mother of another boy has written about how her son was forced. I think the only thing that can be done in this case is for the Minister to immediately direct an inquiry. If he does not want to direct an inquiry in public, he can direct an inquiry in camera, and it should be handed over to an independent person outside the Police Force. We have got people outside the Government who will be prepared to discharge their duties responsibly. And evidence should be called and presented before this Commissioner or tribunal so that he may come to a just and right finding. It is a complete travesty of justice, I say to the Minister, just to dismiss all these allegations that the father had written to him, with a curt reply, "We can assure you that it has got nothing to do with your report against the Police officers." It only smacks of it.”
“I would also like to ask the Minister whether he has personally studied this case because there are a number of disquieting features about this case. I am a bit upset by the fact that the letter from the Ministry of Home Affairs, replied by the Permanent Secretary, gives no indication whether the Minister had seen the letters from the father to the Minister. I have had occasion to refer to this previously. I would like to know from the Minister whether he had personally looked into this case, or whether he had left it to Police officers to advise him on what the reply should be. I have a copy of the letter from the mother of this other boy, who wrote to the Minister on 19th November 1985, saying that her son was forced to make accusations against David, that is, David Tan Leng Huat. She said that her son was told that if he did not make these fabrications and submit to their demands, those officers would assault him again. These are very serious allegations against the Police Force. But they must be met and answered. How has the Ministry answered these allegations of the father? The reply, as I read it, was that, "Your case has been referred to the Criminal Law Advisory Committee and you can make your representations there." Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not once, but two or three times, complained about the futility of making any representations before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee because the evidence is not given to you. You are simply not given the evidence. You are just told, "You are a headman of this secret society. You did this, you did that. Now tell us that you did not do any of these things." How can anyone defend himself in those circumstances? It is, as I said before, a Kafka situation.”
“Then the father was informed by a letter from the Ministry of Home Affairs on 21st October 1985 that his son was detained on three counts which were set out in this letter of the Ministry of Home Affairs. They are: 'He was the headman of the Sio An Koon Secret Society of the 24 group operating at Block 129 Bukit Merah View. Recruitment of 12 members into the gang and involvement in two counts of rioting, five cases of settlement talks, a case of extortion, a case of unlawful assembly, a case of assault and a case of attempted assault.' The Ministry of Home Affairs went on to assure the father that the detention was in no way connected with his complaint against one of the detectives. Incidentally, the detective is one Mr Tan Peng Koon. The father was not satisfied and he wrote again, this time to the Minister for Home Affairs, by his letter of 16th November 1985 setting out what I have said, that the son's detention would appear to have come about because he had taken action against the police detective who had arrested him. The Ministry of Home Affairs, somebody signing for the Permanent Secretary, wrote by letter of 16th January 1986, again repeating what they said in the letter of 21st October 1985. The father was not satisfied and he wrote again on 14th February 1986, again to the Minister, referring the Minister to a letter which had been written by the mother of another boy and this letter dated 19th November 1985 said that her son had been forced by the police officers to fabricate evidence against this boy David Tan Leng Huat. At the time the father saw me, I was not told whether any reply had been received to his letter of 14th February 1986 to the Minister. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether he did reply.”
“He found clinical evidence of injuries consistent with assault. He lodged a police report at Tanglin Police Station the same afternoon at about 2.24 pm, and then I suspect he was told by the Police at Tanglin Police Station that "This is a matter on which we cannot take action. It is section 323. You had better go and complain before the Magistrate." I assume he was told that, because on 28th November he lodged a complaint before a Magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate referred the complaint to the Police for investigations and ultimately sometime in May a notice was directed from the court to be served on the detective against whom he had made the allegation. On 16th May, 1985, he went to serve this notice on the detective against whom he had lodged this complaint. He said that he was told by another detective that he was asking for trouble by serving the notice on the detective. Nevertheless, it would seem that the notice was served and process was issued. Then we come to 17th June, 1985. He was in court with his solicitors to take a date, I understand, for the hearing of the case against the detective. As they were leaving the court, he was arrested by an inspector from the Secret Societies Branch and was taken to the CID. The father was told that his son was being detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, and the father then began his quest to get justice for his son. The order was eventually made, I assume by the Minister, to detain this boy under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and he is still under detention. The father saw the MP of his constituency, Henderson. I do not know what became of that visit to the MP, and he even wrote to the Prime Minister.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, only a little while ago I was accused of casting a smear on our Police Force. I am not casting any smear. I have quite a high respect for our Singapore Police Force but I want to draw attention to the need for our Police Force, every member of it, to uphold the law themselves, and that it goes without saying, is a sine qua non of an ordered democratic society. I wish to raise on this Adjournment Motion the detention of one David Tan Leng Huat. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not acting for this boy and I am raising it because the father has come to see me in my capacity as a Member of Parliament. In fact, he first saw me in 1985. On 21st November 1984, Mr Speaker, Sir, this boy - he was then about 17 years of age or below 17 - was at the Kim Seng shopping centre at the Golden Star Nite Club having a drink with some of his friends. He said that whilst he was there, detectives from the Secret Societies Branch of the CID rushed in and they were ordered out. Whilst they were outside, he asked to be excused because he wished to relieve himself. He was escorted then to the toilet rooms of this building by two policemen or detectives and he said that whilst he was there he was brutally assaulted for wanting to be cheeky with the Police. He was then taken to the Secret Societies Branch of the CID and he was released after a statement was taken without any charge preferred against him. He was lucky that he was not kept for 15 hours as the other man was who I mentioned a little while ago. He proceeded to the Accidents & Emergency Department of the General Hospital on the morning of the 22nd to complain of injuries he had sustained in the assault. He was seen there and the injuries were confirmed by the doctor who saw him.”
“You will hear more of this when I move the Adjournment Motion.”
“If you would like me to send it to you, yes.”
“You go and ask Joo Chiat Police Station. You check up their records, 1st March.”
“I am bringing it up here. You investigate. Tell me.”
“I made a report in the Joo Chiat Police Station on the lst of March. You could ask them.”
“So I am not putting it on the level of whether they will be economically productive to Singapore or not. The thing that I find most distressing is that the persons who are not allowed to keep their wives or their husbands are the lower-paid. I have yet to know of a professional man or woman who is not being allowed to bring his wife or her husband into Singapore. But these people who have a little business, who are workers, they are told, "You cannot support your wife" or "Your husband is unable to support you." That, as I have said again and again, is thoroughly discriminatory against the less well-off people in our community, and I am thoroughly ashamed of all the discriminatory practices that go on in this country.”
“You may speak after this, please. I have had several Singapore men who have come to me to complain about their wives being asked to leave the country. There is a man who is married to a Thai citizen and then there is another one who is married to a Filipino, and of course I have a Singapore woman who is married to a Malaysian man. The important thing is they are not work permit holders, these spouses who have been asked to leave. They are genuine marriages contracted at the Singapore Registry of Marriages. I hope the Minister will not ask me, as the Minister of State did in a letter to the Straits Times, to point out the Article in the Constitution which says that the husband and wife could stay together. I am sorry the Minister of State thought that my reply was very violent. But I was, if I may say so, appalled that the Minister of State should be posing that question to me. I say that this interference of the right of families to live together is a gross violation of the natural order of things. It interferes with a basic fundamental right, and it of course conflicts with all the international covenants on civil liberties and rights of individuals. The Minister three days ago said that most countries do not allow entry of foreign spouses into their country, and I asked him if he would list all the countries which do not allow the wives of citizens permanent residence in their country. I hope he has got the list for me this afternoon. Except for countries which do not accept the civilized code of behaviour, all countries recognize this basic family right. It has been even declared in a Court of Appeal decision in England that there is this fundamental right which the law must recognize.”
“The Member for Changkat is wrong if she thinks that Singapore men will be given permanent stay for their foreign wives whereas Singaore women will not be given permanent stay for their foreign husbands. I have had several Singapore men come to me ---”
“He said one could get that quite easily. He said he applied six times to our own airlines, Singapore Airlines, for the post of pilot. He has not been successful for several years. He said he was called up once and was told that there would be a series of interviews. But after having been seen once, he got a reply to his letter, "Thank you for your interest in SIA. We regret your application is not successful." He is a Singaporean, and he said he can pilot the planes that the Singapore Airlines flies; perhaps with some training even the Boeing 747. He said Singapore Airlines is employing too many expatriates when there are Singaporeans who could be doing the job. And he mentioned two or three of his colleagues who are also ex-Air Force pilots. He said they were all unable to get into the Singapore Airlines to fly the planes. There was a letter in the Straits Times sometime ago complaining about the ease with which foreigners could get jobs in Singapore while Singaporeans were without jobs. So may I ask the Minister whether there will be any change in the policy of the Immigration Department as regards employment passes. May I turn to the other question about the right of families to stay together, the right of a husband and wife to stay together, the right of children to stay with their parents. The Member for Changkat, I am glad, has raised this. But I see that she puts it on the level of economic productivity for Singapore, or on balance of convenience. I put it on a much higher footing, and I say that to send out the wife or the husband is to interfere with a fundamental basic right of the human being. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have with me six cases, I have got several but I only picked up six cases.”
“It may be necessary, Mr Speaker, Sir, for us to consider whether we should not introduce the practice in the United Kingdom of having Watch Committees in the various constituencies, or constituencies grouped together with the MPs on the Watch Committee amongst others, to guard against police abuse of powers and police violence. I just throw that suggestion to the Minister and ask whether we should not consider setting up Police Watch Committees. The second half of my amendment concerns the immigration policies. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to deal with this in two parts, one concerning spouses, of which something has been said by the Member for Changkat. But, first of all, may I deal with the second part of the question, ie, of people in Singapore working on employment passes. Now we have a recession and I have been talking about workers not having enough employment. But there is also the very serious question of our graduates, our professional people, who are being disadvantaged by people from other countries. I want to know whether the Immigration Department is still very liberal in the granting of employment passes. Or will the Immigration Department take steps now to review all employment passes granted and to restrict the liberal grant of employment passes. Only last night, Sir, somebody came to see me in my meet-the-people session. He is an ex-Republic of Singapore Air Force pilot trainee. He was in the 19th batch, he told me. He failed the advanced phase. He said, "Unfortunately I was not able to get through the advanced phase." So he left the Republic of Singapore Air Force. But he went on to get his commercial licence from the Singapore General Aviation Service. So he has a commercial licence for a pilot, but he said it was not one with an instrument rating.”
“These are all manifestations of police violence; an excessive, zealous use of powers by the police. I hear time and time again of people who are taken into police stations and then assaulted violently. The police are getting very good at this. They are able to commit acts of battery without leaving any evidence of it. I cannot emphasise too strongly, Sir, that in a democracy the police must be kept within the bounds of law. The question is, who will protect the people from the guardians if the guardians themselves do not uphold the law? The police are intended in their role to be the guardians of the people and of the law. May I know what steps the Ministry proposes to take to see that the police uphold the law first and foremost, and that the police will not resort to violence against our citizens on the simplest pretext. I have a definite case which I shall bring up on the Adjournment Motion. I will leave the details till then. But it clearly illustrates more than anything else what I say when I asked the question whether Singapore is a police state. The Minister glibly answered three days ago, "Oh, we don't do this. We inform the parents as soon as possible." Time and time again I get complaints that they are not given permission to telephone. I make a plea that the Ministry should direct all police officers that they should not treat all our citizens as criminals. Law-abiding citizens should not be made to feel that they are criminals. They should be made to feel that the police are on their side and that they do not have to battle with the police for their rights.”
“For what offence? Because he did not have his identity card. I have looked through the National Registration Act - I stand corrected by the Minister if he can tell me where it is - I cannot find that it is an offence for a person not to have on him his identity card when he is stopped by the police. There is an obligation on him to produce it to the police sometime or other. But this man was taken off to the police station and, as I said then, he was put into a cell and was there for 15 hours or so, till 3.00 pm. Then he was released without any charge preferred against him. During that time he was not allowed to telephone members of his family, because a telephone call to his family would have brought his identity card to the station. No charges were preferred and he was released. That is one instance. The second instance concerns a shopkeeper in my own constituency, and I see that he wrote a letter to the Public Relations Department of the Police on the 16th February this year. His shop had been raided several times by the police on suspicion that he was carrying on bookmaking activities. No evidence was found and they went off. He says the latest incident was when they turned up at 4 o'clock in the afternoon when he had customers in his shop. Without so much as by or with your leave, they went in, ransacked the whole place, and when they could not find any evidence they then went away, without even a word of apology to the man. He says this is going on far too long and too often. So he has written to the Director of Public Relations Department. I do not know whether he had an answer to this. Then I hear increasing stories of police violence. We have seen reports, even in the papers, of police resorting to violence upon arrest of persons in the streets.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two amendments. I suppose, before I begin, you would rather that I declare whether I have any pecuniary personal interest in these matters. The answer is no, Mr Speaker, Sir. Although, of course, I have acted for victims of police violence and for people who have been denied stay in this country as a result of the Immigration laws. I had in the past acted, yes. The question that I propose to ask for the first half of my speech is: is Singapore a police state? I ask this notwithstanding what the Member for Clementi said about the police organizing disco nights for the youths and the setting up of neighbourhood police posts. The definition of a "police state", if I may attempt one, is a state where the police would appear to be exercising powers regardless of the question whether the powers are within the law, and exercising them with impunity to oppress the citizens, and the citizens feel helpless against the exercise of such powers. Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir mentioned the case of Chia Thye Poh whose detention I had raised several times last year. Let me say categorically that if you detain persons on police allegations without bringing them to trial, then you have a police state. It is not just Mr Chia Thye Poh who is nearing 20 years of detention. We have more than a thousand of our people detained without trial on police allegations. So if you take that as a criterion, then you have a police state in Singapore. But it is not just that. Let me give the Members of the House three cases, one of which I mentioned a few days ago. This is the case of a worker returning home at midnight after he had finished his work. Unfortunately, he did not have on him his identity card. He was stopped by the police and was hauled off to the police station.”
“However, in some cases, delays in payment may be unavoidable when the claimant's solicitors find difficulty in providing relevant documents or when long and protracted negotiations take place between the solicitors for the claimants and the insurers after the Public Trustee has found the quantum of compensation agreed upon by both parties out of court inadequate. In such exceptional cases of delay, an interim payment can be made to the claimant from the compensation in the hands of the Public Trustee. The hon. Member for Anson may rest assured that the Public Trustee and his officers make every effort to ensure that the monies are paid to the victims or their beneficiaries expeditiously. SINGAPORE RIVER PROJECT (Public participation) 4. Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee asked the Minister for National Development whether he is aware that the Urban Redevelopment Authority's call for public participation in the Singapore River project has not met with favourable response as the guidelines and time constraint imposed on the owners of properties in the area are difficult to meet and whether it is necessary to have these guidelines and time constraint.”
“I ask you now. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I await the Question. COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS (Speedy payment by Public Trustee) 3. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Law whether he will ask the office of the Public Trustee to speed up payment of compensation received by his office for victims of traffic accidents. The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act, all compensation monies for victims of traffic accidents have to be paid to the Public Trustee in the first instance if the quantum of compensation exceeds $500. Where the quantum of compensation paid has been agreed between the insurers and the victim through an out of court settlement, the Public Trustee's duty under the Act is to satisfy himself that the quantum is adequate in the circumstances. For this reason, as soon as he receives the compensation monies from the solicitors acting for the insurers, the Public Trustee has to write to the solicitors acting for the claimant requesting their opinion on the percentage of liability on the part of the victim, copies of the Police report of the accident, medical and specialist reports on the victim, the solicitors' bill of costs for taxation and other relevant documents. Where the quantum of compensation has been determined by an Order of Court and there is no necessity for the Public Trustee to satisfy himself on the adequacy of the compensation, payment is made as soon as the certificate of the taxed bill of costs is received from the Registrar of the Supreme Court. It normally takes a few months from the date the compensation monies are received by the Public Trustee for the compensation to be paid to the victims.”
“My question is: will the Minister find out whether there was a case of a serviceman who was compelled to do push-ups who was then injured as a result of it - he suffered very serious injuries and was discharged - and report to the House? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, if a Question is tabled, I shall answer it. Particulars will, of course, be given.”
“Would the Minister of State confirm that, at the beginning of this year, there was a serviceman who sustained severe injuries because he was compelled to carry on doing push-ups after he had complained that he was unable to continue? Would he look into that and let us have a report? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no names and no dates available from the Member for Anson. Should he supply me with the particulars, I shall look into them. And should he table a Question before the House, I shall answer it.”
“Would the Minister of State say whether any of the injuries to any of these men were sustained because they were compelled to continue with training, for example, doing push-ups, when they had complained that they were unable to continue with whatever training they had been asked to do? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have details of each incident. But if the Member for Anson is aware of any such cases and if he will present me with the facts, I will investigate the matter.”
“The Minister of State said there were 102 servicemen who suffered injuries. Would he say whether there were any suicides last year in the Army? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the 102 servicemen suffered injuries in training. None of these were suicides. There were suicides in the Army. But these were not related to training.”
“On this Question No. 2, Sir, in view of your observations this morning and before anybody on the Government Bench gets very excited, may I say that I have acted in the past for soldiers who have been injured. I have also acted for victims of traffic accident cases where monies have been sent to the Public Trustee. But may I say this: that there is no personal pecuniary interest whatsoever in these Questions or in the Questions that I raised yesterday, and that is why I did not say anything. I cannot see any personal pecuniary interest in the Questions. SERVICEMEN INJURED IN TRAINING 2. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence if he will say how many persons were injured whilst undergoing army training in 1985. The Minister of State for Defence (BG Lee Hsien Loong) (for the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence): Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1985, a total of 102 servicemen suffered injuries in training which led to varying degrees of permanent disablement. A further 58 servicemen suffered such injuries in work mishaps.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Prime Minister now tell us about the entourage that is going to Australia? He has told us about New Zealand and Fiji, the first segment. Finally, what is the projected cost to the taxpayer of this sweep over the Southern hemisphere?”
“Do I understand the Prime Minister to say that our relations with Australia are in need of nurturing? To come to my other questions ---”
“Is the Prime Minister not aware that the second part of my question asks quite clearly and specifically what he proposes to discuss with the Prime Minister of Australia? My question is: will he enlighten us a little bit about what are these matters that he proposes to discuss with the Prime Minister of Australia? Is he also aware that the Australian Foreign Ministry in a statement said that there were no major issues between Singapore and Australia?”
“Would the Prime Minister enlighten this House a little bit more about what is taking him to Australia? What are the matters that he proposes to discuss with the Australian Prime Minister? Secondly, is he going to take a huge entourage with him - Ministers, Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries? And how much will this cost the taxpayers in the end?”
“Is not the Prime Minister aware that it cannot be my suggestion? Of course, he can travel to Australia. Nobody stops him from going anywhere he pleases. My question is whether the travel will be paid out of public funds? I presume it is. And how does he reconcile his proposed trip, when there are no compelling reasons, with the declared aim of the Government to cut down on overseas travel?”
“Would the Prime Minister say how he proposes to reconcile his trip, if there are no pressing reasons, with the statement of the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement that the aim of the Government is to reduce significantly overseas travel?”
“You say no, all right. Thank you. ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS”
“Well, you have made some remarks. I would like to make a personal statement. If you say no, I will sit down.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I make a personal statement on that?”
“May I ask the Acting Minister whether he would exert some energy on behalf of these people so that they are again accepted and integrated into the society and not made to feel bitter against society when they have paid their debt. The only thing that would result if we continue to shun them and not help them is that they will return to crime. Sir, with that, I will sit down.”
“Is enough care being taken about their education? I have written to the Acting Minister, as requested, about the case of this child in the Katong Children's Home who is anxious to get into a school. Apparently nothing has been done to help put the child into a school. Coming specifically to the items that I have raised, may I say just one thing about the Registry of Marriages, and that is this. The Registrar of Marriages is there to perform marriages between people who wish to get married and who wish to give notice. He has no discretion to refuse to marry two persons if they satisfy the requirements of the law for marriage. But I have had complaints from persons that the Registrar has refused to marry them. I have asked this once before and I have never got a satisfactory answer. Will the Minister tell us under what law, under what provision of the statute, the Registrar of Marriages refuses to perform the marriage? Talk about the Government not flouting the law, this Government continuously flouts the law. One other group that I wish to speak about is persons who have been discharged from prison after paying their debt to society for having hurt society by their actions. I have had several people who have come to me saying they are unable to find any jobs, all because they have in the years past been sent to prison for some crime or other that they committed against society. They have asked me time and time again to bring this up because, they say, they are getting no help at all from the Ministry or the Government to try and place them in jobs. I see there is a Prison Welfare Service that the Ministry is responsible for.”
“I hope you will. I hope you will when I have finished. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is the Community Chest. Is it the Government's intention that all funding of welfare services should be done through the Community Chest? Do we have no responsibility. While talking about the Community Chest, I noticed sometime ago that there was a complaint from some staff in a Government department about some form of compulsion being brought to bear on donations to the Community Chest. That is all wrong, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say. It is a double tax on our citizens. We are paying taxes to the Government, not only for the provision of hospitals and other amenities, roads, but also for the care and maintenance of the unfortunate members of our society. They should not be compelled to contribute towards the cost of something for which they have already contributed in the form of taxes. Somebody asked me to ask whether the Government propose to match the donations to the Community Chest, if it is the Government's intention that the Community Chest should fund all welfare services in this country. I would pass that question on. Does the Government propose to do anything about giving any grants to these victims of the Serangoon Road disaster? Or is it merely going to send its Ministers to receive cheques from the citizens? My plea today is that we try and change our attitude. There are not enough homes. We have heard of this year in and year out: Not enough homes for the chronic sick. Not enough homes for the aged. Has the Government any plans to provide homes for the chronic sick? Or is it going to be left purely to private institutions? What about the children in the homes? I brought up last week the question of children in Government homes being provided with education.”