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 38 of 82.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand corrected, of course, but I think it is within the province of Parliament to appoint a committee consisting of people from even outside Parliament. I stand corrected.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Prime Minister is serious, I am glad, may I assure him, that he is taking it seriously. If the Prime Minister is serious about the independence of the Subordinate Judiciary, and I have suggested that that should be the main task of this Committee, I cannot see any objections to including the two Members of the Opposition on this committee because we happen to come from different parties. If the Prime Minister feels that I should not be on the committee which is looking into the circumstances of the transfer, then perhaps I could stay out of the deliberations of that committee on that point.”
“Not on the spot. Next week I will send it to you.”
“Why do you not give me a bit of time for me to think who should go on to this committee? It is not that I am shirking away from it. But, you know, it needs a little bit more thought. I just cannot say "that man, that man" or "that Member, that Member". I think you should give us a little bit more time.”
“I do not think we want this to be too unwieldy. We do not want 17, 19 members of the Committee. I should suggest about seven, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“Do you want me to name them now? I think we have to think about it. You are not going to leave it to me, are you? I am being flattered, extremely. I do not know why I have been suddenly given this honour this morning of naming the committee to be set up by the Government or by Parliament. But I would also commend that perhaps we should include on to this committee one or two people perhaps from outside of Parliament, people like the Dean of the Law Faculty, and perhaps the President of the Law Society, and three or four Members from Parliament; and certainly it should be an all-Party Committee from Parliament.”
“I welcome that. I have no intention that it should be anything than above board. I said a Parliamentary committee.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think there is anything else. I think it adequately covers it. I think the main part of it is the one which I first spelt out, the safeguarding of the independence of the District Judges and the Magistrates. That is the main one. But as I told the Prime Minister that if he still wants my help, I will send him the terms of reference spelling out in detail what the committee should investigate.”
“No. I was going to say for goodness sake but I suppose I should avoid saying for goodness sake. Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought I made it clear on Wednesday that I was not saying that the man should have been promoted. I know enough about the workings of the Legal Service Commission. And I would not be so rash and imprudent to come here and say, "The man should have been promoted." I never said that. What I did say was that the man was not promoted but he was transferred to a post on the same grade but less in prestige and status. So I do not want a committee to look into why he was not promoted. No.”
“All right, we will include the Magistrates. I think for good measure let us include the Magistrates as well. I think perhaps they should be included, yes. Whilst we are on this exercise, we might as well include them. And to see whether the present system provides adequate safeguards for their independence. And whether a better system should be now created to ensure that judicial officers in the Subordinate Courts are freed from any fear of Executive displeasure that would affect their promotions or career advancement. And to look into all the circumstances leading to the transfer of the then Senior District Judge in April 1985 to whatever post he was transferred to in the AG's Chambers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister wants me to suggest what should be the terms of reference for this committee. All right, I will tell you now. One, to look into the independence - this is as he said is not the legal form of words but just what they should look into and if you like, I will draft it in legal form and send it to you. To examine or investigate the independence - I do not like the word investigate - to examine the independence and impartiality of the District Judges in the Subordinate Courts.”
“The Prime Minister has not answered my question that I put to him earlier this morning. I realize, of course, that he may not be in a position to answer it this morning. I asked him how many instances have there been, prior to the removal of this man, of the holder of the post of Senior District Judge and before that, District Judge and First Magistrate, being transferred to the AG's Chambers, horizontally, not being promoted. That is why I said there was disquiet. One can understand if the man was promoted, but he was not. This is why I said there was disquiet. And I said if the Prime Minister is anxious to assure the public, then he should appoint a committee to look into it.”
“The High Court Judges do not come under the Legal Service Commission. I am concerned with the District Judges. So it is they who have to look over their shoulders at the Attorney-General. That is why I think the District Judges' position should be safeguarded.”
“But we should now look into the question of the independence and the impartiality or fear from any Executive pressure on the District Judges who, because of the passing of the two Bills, will now be hearing criminal cases of some magnitude, cases which were previously heard only by the High Court. So I certainly would welcome a committee to look into this question and I shall be very happy to make my recommendations and my views known to this committee.”
“May I assure the Prime Minister that I have no fears for myself. I know what I am doing. He need not worry on my account. Again, may I repeat - it would appear that I keep repeating, it should not be necessary, but obviously it is necessary for the Prime Minister. I said to him that since he has taken the trouble to come this morning and he is anxious that, before the public scrutiny, the transfer should appear to be completely free from any impropriety, then if he is anxious on that score, the only thing for him to do and the proper thing to do would be to appoint a Parliamentary committee, so that the parliamentary committee will then look into it and issue its report and the public will know. I did not suggest the Parliamentary committee of inquiry. The Prime Minister comes this morning and says, "perfectly above board." I said, if he is that anxious, then the only way to get the satisfaction would be to appoint a Parliamentary committee to inquire into it, and not just a committee from the 75 Members of this House who belong to his Party. May I also tell the Prime Minister that he has only got 75 Members of his Party in this Chamber in support of the Government. Because there is not only his Party in this House the Committee should also consist of the Opposition Members to look into this whole question. But I am more concerned, as I was last year, with preserving the independence and the impartiality of the District Judges. I certainly would commend to the Prime Minister that there should be a committee set up to look into the whole question of the independence of the District Judges. The independence of the Judiciary on the High Court Bench is safeguarded.”
“I do not know how many inquiries the Prime Minister is proposing.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, for the last time, may I say that what has been presented this morning are not the minutes. The Prime Minister keeps saying, "I produced the minutes." They are not the minutes. It is a letter from one Mr Tan Eng Siong, the Personnel Coordinator, who says that certain things have been arranged. They are not the minutes.”
“I do not think we should be too hasty about it. I will send it to you. Hold your patience for a little while, Mr Prime Minister. You know, terms of reference have to be carefully drafted out. You do not expect me, this very second, to scribble out something and hand it to you.”
“You mean you want me to draft it now, right immediately, Mr Prime Minister? The Prime Minister: Say it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought I told the Prime Minister that if -”
“May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is now proposing that there should be a Parliamentary committee to consider proposals to safeguard the independence of the District Judges? Is that what he is proposing? Because if that is what he is proposing, I shall be very happy to make my views known before this committee and to give my recommendations. I shall be only too happy to do that. And if he wants the terms of reference, I shall be delighted to send him the terms of reference.”
“I stand by everything I say, Mr Prime Minister. I never resile from anything I say in this House or outside. But we had the spectacle of the Prime Minister on - was it Wednesday? - we had the spectacle of the Prime Minister resiling, shamelessly, from his word. There he was challenging the Member for Potong Pasir to suggest a percentage for the reduction in Members' allowances. The Member for Potong Pasir did not respond. But I stood up, and I said, "25% cut". I reminded him that last year I had proposed in a motion a 25% cut. But did the Prime Minister move his motion? I had to ask him three times. Did he move his motion? So who is resiling, may I ask? Not me. I still stand by what I said, when speaking in this House on the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill, that I think, in my view, the District Judges should be taken out of the Legal Service Commission; leave the Magistrates alone. But perhaps even they should be removed. There should be a separate Judicial Service Commission, independent of the presence of any Executive member of the Government on that Commission.”
“Of course it was. That is what I said, that under the present system the Legal Service Commission, which consists of the Attorney-General as No. 2 who is Head of the Legal Service, decides on the transfers, promotions, discipline, of District Judges. And I said it was desirable that the Attorney-General should be removed from that.”
“The Prime Minister - I am sorry to have to repeat, Mr Speaker, Sir - completely misses the point, completely misses the point. In the first place, may it be recorded and, if necessary, get the Parliamentary report of what I said in this House when we discussed the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill. What I said was - and I stand corrected, of course, if the Report is produced - but going from memory, what I said was that there was disquiet about the transfer of this man four months after he had given a decision. And the Prime Minister must know, if he has read the report containing my speech, that what I was urging in that speech was the setting up of a separate body for District Judges to take them away from the Legal Service Commission, have a separate body which will determine their promotions, their transfers, so that they can be seen to be absolutely independent of the Executive in their decisions. So the Prime Minister must first get his facts correct. I was not making any specific allegation. I was urging the need for the independence of the District Judges, whose jurisdiction was raised last year, to be jealously safeguarded so that, in the minds of the public, there would be no qualms at all about their independence and their ability to have regard only for the due and proper administration of justice, without worrying about anything else.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister now seems to have suddenly discovered the technique of playing football.”
“I can only repeat, Mr Speaker, Sir, what I said a little while ago. I am afraid the Prime Minister is unable to grasp that. If the Prime Minister is anxious that it should be made to appear to the public that there can be no suggestion of any impropriety in this, then the ball is at his feet.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the Prime Minister either refuses to see the principle involved or is perhaps unable to see it. He, as the Head of the Government, comes to this House and says there is no impropriety in this transfer. As I said, if the Prime Minister feels it is absolutely necessary that the whole thing should be cleared, then there is only one way to do it. I am glad that the Prime Minister is now offering to clear this. But will he accept what I tell him - that the only way to do it is for a Parliamentary committee to look into it? The Chief Justice's note, of course, I accept. He says, "I directed it." May I also say that the Chief Justice's note was a personal note to the Prime Minister. I was a little taken aback that the Prime Minister decided to make it public. But let that pass. The Chief Justice's note, of course, I accept. I do not know what is in there. He said, "I directed it" or "I arranged it in consultation with the AG." But it still does not tell us enough as to who originated the transfer. What was the reason for it?”
“How it came about that this man should be transferred.”
“To the Secretary, yes. That was what the Prime Minister quoted. This is a note from one Mr Tan Eng Siong, who is the Personnel Coordinator of the Legal Service Commission, to the Secretary of the Legal Service Commission. It simply says that the Chief Justice has directed through the Registrar of the transfers that should take place. What I did ask was whether the Hon. Prime Minister would make available as to how the transfer came about. Who originated it? Somebody must have originated it. And whether there was any reason given for the proposal that this man should be transferred. That is what I asked, whether there was a minute. I understood from the Prime Minister that the transfer was arranged or discussed between the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice because it had been delegated to them. If he wants the whole thing to be made public, subject it to scrutiny, then should not all that be placed? If the Prime Minister is very anxious - I am glad that he is anxious - that there should be no criticism made of this, then perhaps the best thing would be to set up a Parliamentary committee, and let the Parliamentary committee go into it and then report to the House. I think that would be the best method, may I tell the Prime Minister, of satisfying any public disquiet about this movement. Because I will tell the Prime Minister - I have said this before - that there was public disquiet about this man being removed from the post of Senior District Judge, not promoted, but transferred to the AG's Chambers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, may I point out to the Prime Minister that it was not I who raised this question two days ago. It was his reference to what I said in this House in the debate on the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill that brought up this discussion two days ago. I then said, why were not all these produced last year when we were discussing this matter? Nothing was done but I will let that pass. The Prime Minister says that transfers between the Legal and the Judicial branches of the Legal Service are quite normal. Of course, I know it is normal. I was once a member of the Legal Service. I was trans- ferred from the Subordinate Courts to the AG's Chambers, and then back again from the AG's Chambers as Head of the Civil District Court, and then as Registrar of the Supreme Court, and finally to the equivalent of the present post of Senior District Judge in the Subordinate Courts. I am well aware of that. But may I ask the Prime Minister how many instances are there of the holder of the post of Senior District Judge and before that, District Judge and First Magistrate, being transferred to a post in the AG's Chambers equal in standing and grade to his post? I am not talking about promotion. As I said, there was once a promotion. But how many holders of this post were transferred to the AG's Chambers to a post on the same level? As I said, the post of Senior District Judge enjoys a status and a prestige which is much higher than that of the Senior State Counsel or the Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor. Finally, the Prime Minister has quoted - I am not quite clear yet what is it he quoted - it was a note I gather from the Director of the Personnel Department.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask another supplementary question? Mr Speaker: No, because the Member has already asked his Question. Mr Yeo. MEDISAVE ACCOUNTS (Common limit for couples) 6. Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong asked the Minister for Health whether he will consider exempting a working spouse from contributing to his or her Medisave account if the combined balance in the working couple's Medisave accounts is $15,000 so as to allow more money for the repayment of a housing loan. 9. Mr Leong Horn Kee asked the Minister for Health whether he will allow the Central Provident Fund Medisave accounts of a married couple to be considered jointly so that when their combined Medisave savings exceed $15,000, the balance can be transferred to their CPF ordinary accounts for use towards repayment of any housing loan.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, another supplementary question for the Minister of State about the aim of the Medisave. Will the Minister of State again quite candidly concede that one of the principal aims of Medisave was to ensure that Government would be able to recover the cost of medical treatment? Is he aware that very recently the Attorney-General has written a letter to a man who owes the hospital something like $300 and who is at present out of employment, threatening to bring proceedings if he did not pay up the $300?”
“What about children's allowances? Why do you not give them something?”
“Would the Minister of State concede quite frankly and candidly that this policy, like everything else, is a thoroughly discriminatory measure against the poor and the lower educated?”
“May I ask the the Minister for State by what right does his Ministry take it upon itself to consider the affordability of parents to have a third child or more?”
“Sir, does the Senior Parliamentary Secretary recognize that if a person takes, for example, dry goods in a van and moves around from estate to estate, there is really no problem as regards pollution or environmental health?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the Parliamentary Secretary. First, is he in a position to tell us what is the vacancy rate, that is, the percentage of stalls that are vacant in food hawker centres? Secondly, has his Ministry stopped issuing licences for itinerant hawkers? If so, will the Ministry consider issuing licences for itinerant hawkers in at least some special cases?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to inform the Senior Parliamentary Secretary that these are long residents of Singapore, if he has not heard me. They should have been citizens but this Government has denied them citizenship. And I said this woman in Tiong Poh Road who works with the hospital is a Singapore citizen. But please do not be evasive. Do not beat around the bush. Give me clear answers. Mr Lee Yiok Seng( In Mandarin): I do not want to answer his question further.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not seem to be getting anywhere with this, talking at cross purposes. I have said that the Resettlement Department had told these families that they are not eligible. Now, is the Senior Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that if they go and see him, he will get them alternative accommodation? Or is he saying that they are not eligible for alternative accomodation and that he is going to send the bulldozers there? Can we not have a simple yes or no to these questions? Mr Lee Yiok Seng( In Mandarin): Sir, let me spend some more time. I have clearly said that there must be an approved policy. Under this policy either such and such a person is eligible, or is he not qualified. So the first thing you must ascertain is whether you are eligible under this policy or regulation. So that is the first step. Next, when there is some special problem or difficulty, then the person affected can go to the Resettlement Department where, if there is room to accommodate him within the constraints of approval policies, the Department concerned will try to help. Mr Jeyaretnam rose -”
“Will the Senior Parliamentary Secretary say whether he will send the bulldozers there if they do not move out? Yes or no? Mr Lee Yiok Seng( In Mandarin): Sir, to carry on with unprincipled talk is very difficult and troublesome. I have clearly said that anybody having difficulty can personally go to the Resettlement Department to raise his problem or difficulty, and we will try our best to help. But if he should resort to force, or unprincipled argument unreasonable action, then I would not keep on with this kind of unprincipled talks. It is rather tedious.”
“Our policy is that we cannot allow a non-citizen to own a house subsidized by our Government, which is the right of our citizens alone. So we are not duty bound to provide accommodation for non-citizens. The other point is that nobody knows yet whether or not this non-citizen can stay in Singapore. Therefore, as I have said just now, if and when we meet with individual cases encountering difficulty, we should just tell the people affected that they should raise their problems directly with the Resettlement Department or the Department concerned, and not do as what the Member for Anson said, "I have already asked this person not to move out and to stay put there." This is an approach without principle and reasoning, and such action without reference to any policy would, lead to anarchy if taken by some people. This is a kind of unscrupulous action.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary quite understood what I was saying. In the first place, it was not a question of postponement - that is what I understood from the translation that he thought I was asking. My question related to three families, two in Kampong Bahru and one in Tiong Poh Road. These people have been told that they are not eligible for alternative accommodation because they are permanent residents. And my question is: what are you going to do about them? Will the Senior Parliamentary Secretary answer me here, without beating around the bush: is he going to provide them with alternative accommodation, or is he going to send the bulldozers there? It is as simple as that. Because there is no other way. They are not moving out, as I said. The other thing I asked is about the families in Tras Street. What I want to know is: when will they be asked to move out? So I hope he understands my questions and tries to answer them. Mr Lee Yiok Seng( In Mandarin): Sir, I have already replied to the questions he raised. Those people affected by resettlement will be dealt with according to our development plans and related principles. Those people affected will have been notified on the date of their resettlement, when they are required to vacate, and how to apply for alternative accommodation or matters relating to that. As regards the two cases he raised, I have said just now that we cannot do anything without regard to the policy, principle or standard. Non-citizens under our HDB policies could not enjoy the same right as citizens. He mentioned about a citizen woman who is the wife of a non-citizen.”
“On a point of clarification. I think he has got it all wrong, what I said.”
“Answer it. Are you or are you not doing that for the Yishun Town Centre project? Mr Teh Cheang Wan: I suggest that the Member for Anson produce the evidence and not just guess or be a rumour-monger. Then I will give him an answer.”
“Sir, before the Minister gives up, may I, by way of clarification, ask him one or two questions. The Minister seems to have missed the point of my suggestion. The point is this. Does he or does he not concede that it is possible for the HDB to build its flats cheaper? Is the HDB prepared to go into an examination of cost-cutting to see whether flats can be built cheaper? The Minister has admitted, on behalf of the HDB, that the contruction cost, including land work, legal fees, everything, is still cheaper than the sale price. There is no question about that. So is he prepared to submit to public examination to see why the cost cannot be made any cheaper? The other question is: would he give us some details about this Yishun Town Centre project? Why is it necessary for the HDB to spend $4 million on providing aluminium wall coverings from the USA? For whom are these flats intended, and are they going to cost more than the other flats? Then about the Toa Payoh shopping complex with Italian marble wall coverings. Is the rental going to be much higher than other shopping complexes? This is the whole point: why is the HDB incurring all these expenses? Who eventually bears the cost? The purchasers, our citizens?”
“But if they do not wish to buy? An hon. Member: Then don't buy.”
“I have asked you not once but three times to submit your price.”
“Especially at this time of the recession, the HDB should make an effort to reduce its prices, and quite honestly I hope that I shall hear the Minister say, "Yes, we will try and reduce the prices. We will direct our energies to that and I will announce the result of our attempts as soon as I can." Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. That I think takes up all my time. 3.00 pm”
“" But no sooner had he sat down, there were other Members of his Party saying, "Yes, but the tenants do not want your doors. The tenants do not want your floors." So what are these better features that are being incorporated into the new flats? Can we have less of mumbo jumbo and get down to basic facts? I want to know from the Minister, please, for the tenth time, for the twelfth time: why is it not possible for the HDB to reduce its prices? Do you not want to make an effort? If you do not want to make an effort, well, tell us, so that the people will know. But do not try and hide behind a lot of general statements. I have asked twice for this question about costing to be referred to the experts. Why is the Minister reluctant to do that? If your case is that the HDB is not making profits, that the HDB cannot build flats any cheaper than they are doing now, then what have you got to hide? I should have thought you would welcome an examination by quantity surveyors and architects into the whole question of the cost of HDB flats. The very fact, as I said, in the course of this week, that you do not respond to it is a clear indication that the HDB is making profits and is not prepared to allow a public scrutiny of its operations. We come back again and again to accountability. The statutory boards must be made accountable. I have been preaching this: Government must be made accountable. I ask that the HDB be made accountable to the people for the cost of the flats. Let us have them. Let them open their books. Tell us how much it is costing them and why it cannot be made any cheaper. Nothing short of that will satisfy us, and nothing short of that will satisfy the people.”
“May I ask the Minister for confirmation of this? Moving on to the showpieces of the HDB, may I ask him about the new Toa Payoh shopping complex project, on top of the Tao Payoh MRT station. I said yesterday that it is not the business of the HDB to build huge shopping complexes and to try and compete with the private sector. The purpose and object for which the HDB, I should have thought, came into existence was to provide low-cost housing. I am told that one of the specifications for this Toa Payoh shopping complex are very expensive Italian marble wall finishes. It is going to cost a lot more than the Tanjong Katong Shopping Complex built by the HDB. Why is the HDB spending our monies, taxpayers' monies? They keep talking about subsidies in providing housing. Should not the benefits, if there are benefits, be passed on to our tenants and occupiers of these flats? If Yishun New Town Centre project is meant for our people, is the increased cost going to be passed on to them? We heard yesterday (was it?) somebody complaining about our citizens hacking off floors and removing doors immediately after the HDB gave possession to them, because they were not satisfied. This brings me to my point which we have been trying to get across, and that is, the high cost of HDB flats. I do not want to repeat what I have said earlier. We have been saying this since 1981. It is patently clear, if not to the Minister, that the HDB should be able to build flats much cheaper. But why is the HDB not directing its energies to that end? We heard from the Minister yesterday (was it?) an admission that the cost of building materials had come down. But he said, "Oh, we are introducing new features. That is why we have got to keep the prices at the same level.”