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 37 of 82.
“They are more concerned with their profits.”
“We heard it last year. Dr Yeo Ning Hong: You heard it last year.”
“May I know whether the Ministry has given any thought to the fare structure, and what it is going to be? We are now half way through. May we know how much it is going to cost our commuters to travel on the MRT? To move on, Sir, may I ask the Minister whether, in the construction programme of the MRT, cost is an object or not? We know that billions of dollars have been expended and there is still more to be spent. Is the MRT in building our stations conscious of the need to keep its costs down? I understand that decisions on this are all made by foreign resident engineers and construction engineers, and not enough regard is paid to the question of cost and to promoting local industries. I was told about the supplies for a depot and the question of who should supply the wall cladding for the depot, I suppose the wall coverings. I understand that there was considerable dissatisfaction with the local architects and engineers that the supply of this wall cladding was placed with an Australian firm when the wall cladding could have been obtained locally. I am told the local manufacturer felt so upset about the whole thing that he even wrote to the Economic Development Board on this discrimination against local industries. And I understand that the Economic Development Board did take up this question and investigate whether the material could have been supplied locally. I would like to know from the Minister whether he is aware of this and why it was necessary to place an order for this material from Australia when it could have been obtained locally. And I am told the cost for the Australian material ---”
“We do not need the Government through its Ministry of Information - or perhaps a more appropriate name would be the Propaganda Section of the Ministry of Communications and Information - to decide for our citizens these questions. So I would make a plea on behalf of these elderly citizens, our senior citizens, that the Government think again on this policy decision. Finally, on that, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I pass on a request that has been made to me by some Indians. They wrote to me to ask whether I would bring up the question of more time on TV for Indian programmes. I think the people who wrote to me were mostly Tamils, and I suppose they were thinking of Tamil programmes. They feel that their community is not getting its fair share of TV time. I am passing on this request from them, and I hope the Ministry and the SBC would give this due consideration. If I may turn on to my third amendment, Sir, and that is the MRTC programme. Sir, whatever I may say about the personnel of the MRTC is not meant to detract in any way from the praise that has been given to the expatriates working with the MRTC in the rescue efforts that they displayed in rescuing the unfortunate victims of the disaster at Serangoon Road. I do not intend to diminish in any way the praise given to them. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not want to repeat what has been said by others but there is considerable misgiving among our people about the viability of the MRT. We know that in Hong Kong it is losing money every year in the region of HK$30 million or so. We have been told this morning and, as I pointed out, sometime ago that under the Act the operating costs are required to be covered by the fares collected on this transport system.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before the House rose for the lunch adjournment, I was talking about the discouragement, it would appear, by the Government, of Singaporeans from receiving programmes from the Malaysian channel TV3. Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been no definitive statement put up by the Government on this HDB's announcement, and I would like to know from the Minister what is the Government's policy. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Government decided not to show dialect films over the Singapore TV, the people who were most hit or affected were the elderly. I heard numerous complaints from my own constituency that the Government's decision not to show any films in Chinese dialects meant that they could no longer watch these films and that it was taking away from them an enjoyment which they had had. Then they found that TV3 provided this entertainment, and now the Government, it would appear, is determined that they should not have that enjoyment again. Why, may I ask, do we take it upon ourselves (when I say "ourselves", I mean the Government) to cut down on the people's enjoyment of something which they have been enjoying? What right does the Government have to dictate to our people what they should watch, what they should read, and what they should listen? I have said once before that there is far too much organization of our people, and I said this morning the Government is too much with us. We would be a much better society, a more creative society, a more vibrant society if we allowed our citizens freedom to make their own judgment as to what they should watch, what they should read and what they should hear.”
“I would perhaps, Sir, before time is up, just refer to what a Chinese taxi driver was asking me when he was driving me one morning. He wanted to know why was it necessary for a then Minister of State to be on TV every night. He said the people of Singapore were getting a bit tired of seeing the same face over TV every night. I would commend to this Government that the best propaganda is to be seen less and to be heard less. Finally, Sir, may I ask the Minister to explain whether it is the Government's policy to discourage Singaporeans from receiving TV3 programmes from Malaysia. Sometime ago there was an announcement that the HDB was not prepared to make any modifications to the antenna to enable the tenants to receive TV3 programmes from Malaysia. And there was also an announcement that the programmes for this channel would not be published in our local papers; and of course our Government publications, our national press, dutifully complied. The Chairman: It is 1.00 pm. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“But I cannot myself see that there would be any need to increase bus fares after two or three years if the present prices for fuel are maintained and the cost saving devices are applied by the bus companies. Before I finish on this question of public transport, on our buses, I have often wondered why this Government does not nationalize the transport services. It has gone into all kinds of businesses but it is keeping away from the area of bus services, ie, land transport. It is, as I said, one of the big expenditure items for our workers and it should be the concern of the Government to keep the cost of transport as low as possible. So I hope the Minister will spell out quite clearly without, may I say - I am sorry - beating about the bush and giving evasive answers why it is not possible for the Government to study this question now. If the committee comes out with a report that it is not possible to reduce the bus fares, well, let it be made known. Let our people be told the reasons. Give reasonable information. May I move on, Sir, to my second amendment, which is on the Information programme of this Ministry. Sir, there is a feeling amongst our citizens, and I do not think they can be blamed, that Government is too much with us. Night after night, over the TV, people are told about what Government Ministers are doing, hear their speeches and told what other members of the Government are doing. The Government publications - of course, I include in this the Straits Times and the other national papers - are full, day after day, of Ministers' speeches, reporting them verbatim in some cases and covering their pages, perhaps for want of other news, with Government propaganda.”
“In 1982, this was nearly $12 million but because some of the services were hived off to the Trans-Island Bus Services they suffered a drop in profits. But I see in 1984 the profits were again picking up and they were going up to $6.6 million in 1984. We have not got the figures for 1985 but we do know that, as a result of the debacle which has been referred to by the Member for Potong Pasir in the Ministry jacking up taxi fares, there was a huge switch by people, who were taking taxis, to buses so that Singapore Bus Services, along with other companies, had benefitted by the debacle of increased taxi fares. We do, of course, know that prices of diesel have come down considerably and on top of that we have had this 15% cut in the CPF contribution made by bus companies. So there are considerable savings and increased profitability available now for the bus companies. I see, Sir, that at the end of 1984, the SBS had almost $42 million in undistributed profits, and that all they needed was something like $2,790,000 to pay the dividend of 7(r)% which I think the Government said it would guarantee to the shareholders. It seems to me at any rate that there is a definite case for looking into the whole question of bus fares. Transport is a big item for workers and now that we call upon them to practise wage restraint and have imposed on them a wage cut, why do we not compensate that by reducing the bus fares for them? I do not understand the logic that it has got to continue for several years before we reduce any bus fares. But if the occasion warrants any reduction, it should be carried out immediately and, if need be, after two or three years, bus fares will have to be revised, so be it, if the need is shown.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three amendments on this Head - one on public transport and the other on the Information Section, and finally on the MRTC. If I may first take up the amendment on Public Transport under the Ministry of Communications. Sir, my plea is that the Ministry should immediately set up a machinery to consider a reduction in the bus fares. The Minister was asked by me in a question for written answer on the 31st October 1985 whether he would set up a committee or body to look into the whole cost of the bus operation and see whether there was a case for reducing the bus fares. His answer was that there was no need to appoint a committee and that it should be left to the bus operators who know of the need to keep costs down. I know they know of the need to keep costs down to maximize their profits. Do they also realize that the profits should be passed on to the commuters? The Minister, of course, is silent on that. He was also asked this question quite recently by the Member for Bo Wen, and his answer was that we could not chop and change bus fares. We have got to wait and see whether the bus companies were making substantial profits over a long period before we consider reducing bus fares. It would appear that his Ministry is more concerned with the profitability of the SBS than with reducing bus fares for the commuters, for our public. His Ministry is clearly giving the appearance of being reluctant to do anything on this matter. Sir, time does not permit me to go into this question at great length but I see that in 1983, the Singapore Bus Services made $6 million in profits after making provision for taxation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister realize that this was the question that I raised on the estimates for the Ministry two days ago? I am talking about people who should be permanent residents, even citizens, people who have been living there long before the cut-off date, and they are told that they are not eligible for any alternative accommodation. What does the Minister expect people in this category to do?”
“He is giving vacant possession. RESETTLEMENT POLICY 14. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for National Development what his Ministry proposes that persons allegedly "not eligible for resettlement under the resettlement policy" should do when the premises they are living in are acquired and they are required to leave the premises.”
“Does the Minister then realize that what his Ministry is doing is to deduct $12,000 in the case of this man, simply to give him priority in the allocation of an HDB flat? Is that why you are actually deducting $12,000?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister realize that if the owner who is in occupation of the premises gives up the flat or premises, then he is giving vacant possession. He is not giving up the flat on an encumbered basis. What is the reason behind the abatement of the award made to him under the Land Acquisition Act, where he says he wishes to purchase a Housing Board flat and has got the money to purchase it and will move out as soon as the flat is made available to him? Is he not giving vacant possession? Are there any tenants left behind for whom compensation will have to be made by the Resettlement Department? I thought that was the encumbered basis.”
“Sir, would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary outline to this House - he says I am ignorant - what steps the Registry of Vehicles has taken to ensure the safety of school children travelling on buses? Does he not realize that it is overloading the driver with responsibilities, and that it is sometimes almost impossible to ensure the safety of his passengers if the bus is overcrowded, as it often is, during peak hours?”
“May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary three supplementary questions, Mr Speaker, Sir? Did I hear the Senior Parliamentary Secretary say glibly that even with conductors, one would still have accidents resulting to passengers on the buses? Has the Ministry or the Registry any figures on accidents to passengers before conductors were done away with and after conductors were done away with? We must have figures. Does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary realize that we must have figures to support this before he can make any statement on this? Secondly, does he not accept that the safety of passengers, particularly school children, on buses must be placed fairly with the staff operating the buses, the driver and the conductor? Does he not think that it is unreasonable to place the responsibility on school children? Thirdly, will the Ministry propose to have perhaps special buses for school children manned by a conductor during the peak hours when children go to school and when they return from school? That might at least ensure the safety of children travelling on SBS buses.”
“Why is the Registry not in favour of issuing licences to individuals? Why should they be driven into the arms of the NTUC and to this Ministry of Defence's company, or to the SBS company? What is so wrong about individuals operating their own taxis?”
“Does the Parliamentary Secretary realize that it is not a question of over-supply? This is a question of transferability, an owner transferring his taxi to somebody else, I have brought up cases of a father wishing to transfer the taxi licence to his son. And this has been refused. Have their views been sought at all or not?”
“Is the Senior Parliamentary Secretary saying that this policy of non-transferability for the yellow top taxi licences is not causing any hardship or is not unfair to anybody? May I ask whether the Registrar of Vehicles has consulted the owners of these yellow top taxis for their views and whether they are very happy at the moment with this inflexible rule against transfers? Has there been any survey carried out among these taxi owners and drivers?”
“May I ask whether consideration will be given to the transferability of these licences because I hear complaints from drivers of yellow top taxis about the rigidity of this rule, which is adversely affecting their livelihood and their interests?”
“May I ask a supplementary question, Sir, of the Senior Parliamentary Secretary: whether there is any change in the policy of the Government as regards the transferability of licences for the yellow top taxis.”
“Finally, Sir, may I ask about the policy of the Ministry about foreign students studying in private schools, students who cannot get into Government schools or Government-aided schools but who wish to pursue their education in Singapore in private schools. Is this encouraged by the Government or not? There are a number of private schools which are prepared to cater for them, but I understand that students from other countries find it difficult to get Immigration students passes to study in this country in private schools.”
“I understand that the tendency is that if a student is in a weak school, then he is discouraged from applying for a place in one of the good secondary schools. He is told, "Don't waste your time putting your name down for these good schools. It is better that you try and select some of the other weaker schools." This does not recognize the performance of the student because a student coming from a weak school might do considerably well in his PSLE examination. So I am told that there is unhappiness about the way children are now guided into secondary schools after they complete the PSLE examination. My plea is that children who are prepared to work and who wish to do better should be given all the motivation and not discouraged. They should not be labelled. There is far too much labelling of students in our education system. Can we move away from labelling, and try and motivate the students? Now, Sir, I would like to know from the Ministry about the position of foreign students in our secondary schools and junior colleges. I know quite a lot of them are from ASEAN countries. I understand that there is only a quota for Singapore students in secondary schools. I would like to know whether that is true and whether the presence of a large number of students from ASEAN countries and other countries is putting our students at a disadvantage. I am aware that students from other countries pay a contribution to the Government for their education. Are they being given preference at the expense of our own students because they are making a contribution to the revenue of this country? I would urge the Minister and the Ministry not to place our own students at a disadvantage when compared with students from ASEAN countries or other foreign countries.”
“But students should not be discouraged from taking the 'O' level examinations, and this is what the 'N' level is doing for the Normal stream. It has been suggested, and I myself have said it here, that it was probably introduced so as to get students on to vocational training, into the workforce. I think we should not allow that suggestion or impression to prevail, and we should do all we can to help students, who wish to complete the whole of the secondary education terminating at 'O' level, to do so. I am told it does not even provide guidance on the choice of subjects which was one of the reasons given. I am told that the Normal stream students who take these examinations are doing only five subjects, which are the minimum subjects for the 'O' level. So there is really no guidance. I ask whether the Ministry will do away with this examination now. For an added reason, Sir, I understand that the British education system is now doing away with the Certificate of Secon- dary Education examination and the 'O' levels. They are merging both into one examination. I believe the 'N' level examination was introduced after the pattern of the Certificate of Secondary Education in British schools. Now that they are doing away with it, perhaps we should consider again whether the 'N' level examination is really necessary. May I speak briefly on the other amendment, and that is, about the primary education schools. First of all, Sir, I would like to know from the Minister how is the admission into secondary schools determined for those who pass the PSLE examination. Is it strictly determined on the performance of the student, or is it determined according to the school in which the student sits for his PSLE examinations?”
“I assure you that I am not going to take 20 minutes. In view of the limited time, I will try and keep it to 10 minutes for both. Sir, my first query is on the need for the 'N' level examinations which were introduced some two or three years ago. I see from Dr Goh Keng Swee's Report that the reasons were three-fold: (1) To provide students, who could not succeed at 'O' level with a lower qualification, with a lower certificate; (2) To provide guidance on the number and choice of subjects for 'O' level examinations; and (3) To reduce examination fever or tension amongst students preparing for the 'O' levels by putting them through first the 'N' level. Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that the introduction of the 'N' level examination has caused quite a bit of unhappiness among students and parents. First of all, I understand that the 'N' level certificate is not accepted outside except, I suppose, for courses in the VITB. Whatever the reasons for the introduction of this 'N' level examinations, I would ask the Ministry to consider this on two grounds, ie, first of all, the motivation of the students. Students who are admitted into secondary school should be motivated to finish the whole secondary education, terminating at the 'O' levels. An introduction of another examination will not help in this motivation. I understand it acts psychologically to prevent students from going on to the 'O' levels. I think students should be encouraged as far as is possible to have a go at the 'O' levels. If it is felt that there should be another certificate, somewhat lower than the 'O'- level certificate, then I am sure it should be possible to provide for two grades of 'O' level certificate.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two amendments under this Ministry. May I speak on both of them now?”
“What statement? Please tell me what statement do you wish me to make? All these veiled threats!”
“What statement does the Prime Minister wish me to make?”
“Yes, what did I say? That I accept the Chief Justice's note to the Prime Minister, that after consultation with the Attorney-General, he directed or ordered or brought about the transfers. That I accept.”
“All I said was that perhaps the minutes of the actual meeting at which this transfer was made could have been produced. But that is not to impute anything to the Chief Justice on his note to the Prime Minister. So I do not know what all the fuss is about. The other thing is about this note from the Legal Service Commission. I have already pointed out: it was not the minutes of the Legal Service Commission. What the Prime Minister read out and what he asked me to look at was a memorandum from this Tan Eng Siong, Personnel Coordinator, to the Secretary, Legal Service Comission, setting out something that has already been decided. So they are again not the minutes. It is a report on some- thing that has been decided and asking the Secretary to take action. So what are we quibbling about? I do not know if there is anything else for me to respond. If the Prime Minister wishes to appoint a High Court Judge, as I said, so be it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought this morning the Prime Minister had given me the honour, and as I said perhaps unprecedented honour, of naming the committee. And he wanted me to name the Committee before the House rose at 1 o'clock. Now it would appear that the Prime Minister had thought better of it. Now he proposes that a High Court Judge be appointed. Well, so be it. Let the Prime Minister appoint a High Court Judge to inquire into the terms of reference that I have suggested this morning. It is for the Prime Minister to recommend to the President to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. It does not lie in my province to recommend to the President to appoint a Commission. So it is for the Prime Minister, and if he thinks that is what it should be, well, fine. I will, if invited, certainly make my representations to whoever is appointed. All I wanted to point out is that now we have a departure from the proposals that were made this morning. We seem to have gone a long way from where we started. The Prime Minister asked me whether I accepted the letter from the Chief Justice. I thought I made it clear. Of course I accept this letter. His letter is a personal one to the Prime Minister, and I have read it. And it says, "after consultation with the Attorney-General, I arranged or directed the transfer" or words to that effect. I accept that the Chief Justice directed it or arranged it in consultation. All I said simply was that I think perhaps we should know the circumstances. That is all. There is no suggestion in what I said that the Chief Justice is lying when he said he directed it or he ordered it, whatever the words he used. I am not suggesting for a minute that the Chief Justice was lying in his note to the Prime Minister. Let that be clearly understood.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was speaking when you said it was interruption time for the adjournment. First of all, I wish to assure you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I have not spent the lunch adjournment telephoning people of my own persuasion nor spoken to anybody. I met, of course, the Chairman of my Party and we discussed Party matters. I did not tell him (I hear a snigger from somebody) I did not tell him what we were debating this morning, except that I was again engaged in debate with the Prime Minister. I stand by what I said, and I am very glad that the Prime Minister is responding to my desire to safeguard the independence of the Subordinate Court Bench. The Prime Minister, of course, is aware. He must be aware that it is not a question of whether they are independent or not. The paramount question is whether they appear to the public to be independent or not. So I am very glad that he is responding to it. And he has asked me to name the committee who will go into this very important question. I cannot think of anything more important for the society and I will give him the names of this committee, and he can have my assurance that I shall not speak to anybody on this, let alone to the persons whom I shall propose for the committee. I hope the Prime Minister will accept that and we can then, in earnestness, appoint this committee to look into it. I have given him what I thought should be the terms of reference but, if necessary, I can draft it again in proper language and send it to his office by Monday or Tuesday.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has asked me to suggest somebody entirely outside this House now, and that departs from the previous committee. It was when I was thinking of a committee of Members of this Parliament that I brought these two people in. Now it is an entirely different committee. So I need a bit of time to consider. I may not even suggest these two persons on to this committee because they are two different committees now. The original committee was supposed to consist of partly Members of this House.”
“I have answered, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am not going to keep repeating what I have said.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going to go on repeating. The thing must be brought to a close. If the Prime Minister thinks it should not be a Parliamentary committee and it should be from somebody outside and he wants me to name them, I said I would. I will name them but I am not prepared to do it now. No, I am not prepared. This is not a matter for me just to throw names without thinking carefully about them. This is my last word. If the Prime Minister is serious and he is in earnest about this, I will give him the terms of reference. I will suggest to him who I think should go on this committee next week. Today is Friday. We have got the weekend. By Monday or Tuesday I should be able to let him have them. I give him my word that I will not talk to anybody whom I wish to put on that committee. He laughs. But I value highly everything I say. I have told him. He has got a choice. The ISD men are at his command. He can put somebody on my tail between now and the time I come back to this House to give him the names and the terms of reference.”
“If the Prime Minister wishes, he can get some of his ISD men to follow me all around. They already do, sometimes. The Prime Minister must accept that I am in earnest. If he thinks I am going to go around and find people who will be of my persuasion to name them, then may I tell him that he is doing me wrong. I do not intend to do that. All I want to do is to think about it, and without any communication with them I will give the Prime Minister the names. Get your ISD men to follow me all round.”
“Then moved away from it and suggested somebody outside.”
“If you think that is not good enough, yes, you forget about it. This morning, the Prime Minister comes here, we have another resiling. The Prime Minister came, I thought in earnestness, exhibiting, manifesting his desire to have the whole subject examined. Now it would appear he wants me to name this very minute the person or persons that should sit on this committee. When I tell him that I need a bit of time, he says, "I am not going to accept that." Then I am afraid, Mr Speaker, Sir, one is left very much in doubt about the sincerity of the Prime Minister.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going to commit myself now. I have got to think about it. And if the Prime Minister thinks that is not good enough, then let him do whatever he likes.”
“All right, Mr Speaker, Sir. If the Prime Minister is going to leave it to me, he is going to give me this great honour of appointing this committee, well, I will consider it and let him have the names. But it is not just a matter of naming persons. It is not a matter to be taken lightly. If the Prime Minister really wants me to name the persons, I will do that. I will send it to him next week, with the terms of reference.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Prime Minister wishes to take it out of this House and have it completely decided outside, then I suppose that is another way. But we have to consider how many should go into it and who should go into it. I have suggested a committee from here, but now you are suggesting somebody from outside. You should then come up with all these names.”
“What the Prime Minister is proposing is that, instead of having a committee, leave it to a High Court Judge just to determine it. Is that not what you are proposing?”
“I would ask the Prime Minister not to put the cart before the horse. Let us proceed first. Let us not worry too much. If he is really anxious that there should be this inquiry, let us get on with the job.”
“Yes, if you like, let us have a referendum on it. [Laughter.] Yes, that is another way of finding out if you are really anxious. I am, for the third time, glad to see that the Prime Minister is anxious. Then I suppose you can have a referendum on whether the public thinks the present safeguard is adequate or not.”
“Quite simple, Mr Prime Minister. Once the committee publishes its report, then you can invite any members of the public to write in, or - An hon. Member: Have a referendum.”
“Does it matter so much to the Prime Minister that I accept or not accept? I am indeed flattered, again. The Prime Minister knows - I give him credit, he must know all about committees and especially Committees of Parliament - that the report must come back to the whole House and that the House should debate that report and say whether the House will accept it, and that it should be open to anyone to argue against the committee's report. And even if he is a member of the committee, provided he had made his reservations known. So what is all this, "Will you accept it, or will you not accept it?" It is for the public to decide. When the committee presents its report and the Committee says, "We are more than satisfied", the public says, "We are more than satisfied". The fact that I am not satisfied is irrelevant. I have to accept what the public will accept.”
“Whether I accept the findings of that committee or not should be irrelevant because there can be, as the Prime Minister is aware, even dissenting reports from committees or commissions. I should not now be told that I must accept whatever the rest of the committee says on it. I cannot be forced to do that. But, of course, if the committee reports to Parliament, then there will be again debate in this House. The Prime Minister should not overlook that. That committee will have to report to Parliament and there will be a further debate, and I will then again be at liberty to express my own views.”
“I would ask the Prime Minister to allow me to consider this. I can see some merit in including these persons on to the committee. But, on the other hand, as I have just said, perhaps the same thing can be achieved by their appearing before the committee, or for that matter any body appearing before the committee, and giving their views to the committee. I suppose it does not really matter. I keep saying, let us get on with the job.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I suggested a Parliamentary committee and I suppose if the term "Parliamentary committee" is to be followed, then it must consist of Members of Parliament only. But suddenly on reflection, I thought perhaps it would help if it had one or two other people from outside - the Dean of the Law Faculty and the incumbent of the post of President of the Law Society - to help in the deliberations of the committee. But I can see a way out. I suppose they can appear and give their views to the Parliamentary Committee. It does not really matter whether it is a Parliamentary committee or a committee appointed by Parliament, including people from outside. Let us not quibble over these little details. If the Prime Minister is anxious that this should be looked into, well, I welcome it. Thank you very much.”
“I do not quite understand the question from the Prime Minister. Could he try and explain what he is trying to say?”
“All right, then do not call it a Parliamentary committee. I can check this up for him in Erskine. Do not call it a Parliamentary committee. Call it a committee appointed by Parliament.”