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 4 of 82.
“Do they have to travel long distances to come into Parliament as is the case in other countries? Do they have to maintain residences near Parliament to be able to attend the sittings, which they have to do in other countries? How is this decided? What is the workload? Has that been taken into account? I am only talking about Members of Parliament. I have dealt with the workload of Ministers and I have said that their workload did not justify the salaries. But the public is entitled to ask how are Members' allowances justified when Parliament only sits one or two days every six weeks and that only for an afternoon of four or five hours. Of course, Members will say, "Well, it is not just work inside this House. We have got work outside Parliament." But there again, how much work do they have outside Parliament? Is the work outside Parliament such as to justify these allowances? I was a Member of Parliament, with a constituency to take charge of, for four or five years and I know what was required outside this House as a Member of Parliament - meeting my constituents once a week in the evenings. [Interruption.] I did not lose. I was re-elected with a majority. At that time, there were no town councils, but now we have town councils. But again, when we come to GRCs, what is the workload of Members of Parliament in town councils? I am quite serious about this. Let the public know how this payment is justified and not come up with answers that we would not be able to attract MPs in. Is that the reason? If that is the reason for paying Members of Parliament this amount, then I am afraid it is the wrong reason. As I have said, politics is a vocation and you seek to enter Parliament because you feel you wish to do something about bettering the society from its present state.”
“I say this seriously, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when one considers that there are people in our society who are only paid $600 a month or even less, and for working for eight hours or more every day. May I make this observation that politics is a vocation. One chooses to go into politics or go into Parliament and be a Member not because it is a job, or because it has an attractive pay, but because of one's feeling of a vocation, one's feeling that one would like to contribute towards a better society, the present society which he finds himself. That is probably why the term "allowances" is used rather than a salary for Members of Parliament. I want to ask: are we lacking a sense of proportion when we are paying the Members of Parliament in this House $14,000 a month? The public is entitled to know, as I have been saying they ought to know how Ministers are paid. The public is entitled to know how this sum has been arrived at. What is the basis of assessment that Members should receive an allowance of the sums that I have set out? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is not as though Parliament sits every day and for continuous periods with recessions, twice a year or so, to give them some time-off from sittings of Parliament. In Singapore, Parliament sits every six weeks or so and only for an afternoon or perhaps two, or it might sometimes stretch to three. This, of course, is outside the Budget sessions. Members are not obliged to give up their other work or pursuit of their professions to be Members of Parliament. And even beyond that, there are Members of Parliament who have very rarely spoken in this House. So what is the workload of Members in this House that justifies a payment of the sums that I have said earlier?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I expect Members are tired after the long session. Fortunately, we have only got half an hour for the rest of the business, so I have to be quite short. I have asked for an examination on the allowances that are presently paid to Members of Parliament. May I say why I am raising it. The main reason is that so far, I have been talking about salaries of Ministers, the over-excessive salaries paid to Ministers. I do not want to be thought that while I am belly-aching about the high salaries of Ministers, I am happy that Members of Parliament can be paid the allowances that they are paid at the moment. I want to show that my concern applies equally to the allowances for Members of Parliament. I also want to say that I am not raising this out of pique, as may be thought by some Members, because I am not paid the same allowance. I only get about one-seventh of it. I am quite satisfied with that. It only shows the sort of puny mind of the PAP that they should try and be vindictive. The present allowance paid to the Members of Parliament, I am told, is $11,800, if they opt not to take the medical benefits that are accorded to Members of Parliament, and it is $10,800, if they opt for medical benefits. Previous to this revision, Members were paid slightly over $9,000. If you consider that Members' allowances are exempt from tax, what do you get? Members are being paid something in the region of $13,000 or $14,000 a month. What I want to put to the House is: do we lack a sense of proportion when it comes to paying politicians - Ministers and Members of Parliament?”
“It is only if we are prepared to go that far, can we say that we are really intent with one purpose, with one mind, to see that all our children are better educated and prepared for the future that lies ahead of them. May I finally touch on this drafting problem, if I may say so, and that is the Director-General is given permission to exempt any child if the parent submits a prescribed reason. No guidance is given as to what is the prescribed reason for which the parents may be exempted. Should that not be spelt out? At least, should it not say that families whose household income is below $1,500 will be given free education, if that is the reason put forward by parents that they may have financial difficulties or problems in sending their children to school? So I would urge the Government to rethink about this Compulsory Education Bill and to bring in a full measure to provide free education for children of families whose household income is below $1,500 a month and, at the same time, to rethink whether primary education is good enough. Should our children not deserve a bit more than just the primary education?”
“We have called, again for a long time, for a Commission to be appointed to inquire into the whole purpose, the why and wherefore of education, a Commission which would receive representations from parents who are widely interested in the education of their children, from any member of the society who is interested, and then come up with what they think should be the education for our children in Singapore. Mr Zulkifli talked about collective responsibility but he seemed to be asking what is meant by "collective responsibility". He was suggesting that it has to be left to the Government or to the leaders. The collective responsibility lies with our people. It is they who are responsible in the end, not the Government or a Committee or a few people, but our people as a whole. The collective responsibility lies with them. So they should have been consulted on this. There should have been a public hearing, representations received from people who are interested. The other thing is this. Some speakers have spoken about the difficulties parents may have in sending their children to school, and one of them of course is the financial restraint, straitened financial circumstances. This Bill will not achieve its purpose unless, at the same time, the Government announces its readiness to take over the education bill for our citizens, particularly in primary schools. I do not want to be told that education is free, but what they pay is for something else. I think we should stop all this pretence of education being free in Singapore. We should assure parents that there will be no payment required at all for anything if they wish to send their children to school, at least at the primary school level. Can we not find the money for that?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be quite brief in what I have to say. There is no doubt, of course, that this Bill is long overdue. But may I say that this is another instance of the PAP Government introducing half measures to meet the problems confronted. At the last sitting of Parliament I moved a motion on the growing gap between the rich and the poor, and I referred to the measures that the Prime Minister announced at his National Day Rally as lollipop measures totally inadequate to meet the problem that had arisen. Similarly, I think this Bill is a half measure. Why do I say this? Other speakers have referred to the period of six years. We in the Workers' Party have called, way back in 1987 or even earlier, for a minimum of 10-year education for our children. Now, 13 to 14 years later, Government still talks about a 6-year minimum education. May I ask how is just primary education going to prepare our children, our citizens, for the 21st century? Is that enough? We have heard a speaker or two talk about the quality of education, about the need for our children to be better and higher educated. Is primary education adequate? Why are we stopping with primary education? Why should they not be extended further? The other fact is about the quality. Mr Chiam has referred to the Committee which sat to consider this Compulsory Education Bill as consisting mainly of politicians.”
“The Minister has spoken of accelerated liberalisation and the benefits that are to be derived. Would he tell us how many players are queuing up for licences to be issued?”
“Why was it found necessary to assure SingTel and StarHub that there will be no players until 1st April 2002? Would they not have come into the market without that assurance?”
“May I ask whether if that is the position. Why is it not considered feasible to reduce the petrol tax? It seems that it does not really have any great effect on controlling the number of cars on the road.”
“May I come back to my question, Mr Speaker, which was asked earlier? As I understand the Minister, the duty on petrol is to control the number of cars on the road. May I ask whether this has had an impact and whether there has been a reduction in the number of vehicles on the road as a result of the duty?”
“May I ask whether the Government has taken note of the rising demands in other countries for their governments to cut the duty or tax on fuel oil? Has this Government considered it? Why is it not possible to reduce the tax or duty?”
“May I ask the speaker, by way of clarification, what is this call by NTUC for a new contract that I saw in the Straits Times on 23rd August. Could he explain to us what is this new contract that you are calling for?”
“What is the present poverty line in Singapore? I would commend to the Government that one of the immediate things they should do is to set up a Commission to inquire into poverty in Singapore, to admit truly and honestly that we do have poverty in this society and that the Government is prepared to take it seriously.”
“The income gap after 1999 began to widen because the salaries in the top sector were going up, whilst the workers remained down at the bottom. So, we are in the position today of having a society where Ministers earn over a million dollars a year. I see in the last sitting of this Parliament, the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement about the revisions. I was not here then. The salary of the Prime Minister was given, after the revision, as nearly $2 million annually. No figures were given for the salaries that were to be paid to the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Ministers after the revision was made. The other Ministers would be paid, after the revision over $1 million annually. It is not politics of envy, Mr Speaker, Sir. No doubt, it will be labelled as one. But, seriously, we have to consider and ask ourselves a question: how is it that in a society the lowest employee gets below $200 a month and the Ministers earn over $1 million a year? That is nearly $100,000 a month. Are we to be proud of that fact? What does that say for ourselves as a society? Does it say that we are concerned with the under-privileged, the people who do not have enough? Or does it say that we are a society that shows a callous disregard for those down below and allows those who are able to go on earning more and more and more without any ceiling? We should ask ourselves that question. What does it say about Asian values of which this Government makes a lot. Is it Asian values that a society with this yawning gap is acceptable? I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it is an affront. But if it is argued that it is not contrary to Asian values, then let me say I do not think very much of Asian values if the Asian values can tolerate this great disparity in income.”
“I said then that I had found it difficult to understand the statement that the average household income was $3,500, and that I had checked it with the officers of the Statistics Department and they had admitted to me that that was not quite accurate, that for 50% of our population, the average household income was well below $2,000. In fact, if one looks at the figures, for 60%, it is well below $2,000. And yet there was that claim made before the parliamentary committee. The Opposition, and particularly when I had tried to bring up this question of poverty in Singapore, was ridiculed and laughed at. I remember that when I was in the House in the years 1981 to 1984, I was berated for an interview that I had given to a foreign journalist that in an affluent society, there were still some people who were starving. But, as I said, I was not speaking out of turn. And if one really looked at the statistics put out by the Department of Statistics, one can see the extent of poverty that exists in Singapore. May I illustrate, Mr Speaker, Sir? In 1989 - 10 years ago - there were still 20,100 workers whose wages were below $200 a month, and there were 74,300 workers whose wages were well below $400 a month, making a total of 94,000 workers who were earning below $400 a month. In 1999, last year in question, there were still 14,700 workers earning below $200 per month, and 33,700 earning below $400, making a total of over 48,000. It is important to note that between 1998 and 1999, the figures in these two categories of wage earners had increased. There were more people in 1999 earning below $400, as against 1998. So their incomes were going down. There were more people earning below $400.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That this House expresses its deep concern at the widening inequalities in our society and, recognising that the inequalities may lead to unrest, calls upon the Government immediately to put together a programme to lessen the inequalities. Mr Speaker, Sir, through the media, completely subservient to the ruling party - the Government - a press and TV which see their role simply as the voice of the Government, the Government has, over the years, put out an impression that Singapore was an affluent society, that everything was affordable, and people really had nothing to worry about. Because of the media serving purely the Government, this impression gained acceptance not only amongst some people in Singapore but also outside Singapore. But that only gave a picture of a part of the society, not of the whole society. Occasionally, because it could not be suppressed, there were peeks at the level of poverty in Singapore. Sometimes it surfaced that there were people who were living at extreme poverty level, homeless, thrown out of HDB apartments, but they were soon forgotten, dismissed as isolated cases. This claim of being an affluent society, of a society where everyone was able to afford not only the basic needs but even the better things in life, defied the statistics on wage levels and other statistics that indicated the level of income in Singapore. But, nevertheless, the claim continued to be made. We even had an officer from the Statistics Department appearing before a Select Committee - I think it was in 1995 or 1996 - claiming that the average household income in Singapore was $3,500. I drew attention to this when I spoke in this House on 25th August 1997 on the appointment of a parliamentary committee to review prices.”
“May I ask the Minister whether he has not missed the point in the question that was posed to him? The question was: what is the justification for increase, if you have made a profit of almost a billion dollars? The Minister says even with reduced prices, we made that profit. So could he tell us what is the justification for this increase? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: I am not very clear about Mr Jeyaretnam's question. I thought I have made it very clear that the increase is directly explained by the surge in fuel oil prices in the last one year. Let me draw Mr Jeyaretnam's attention to the graph which I have circulated. You have it on your chair. Take a look at the graph. We have on the left hand side "Fuel Oil Price"; on the right hand side "Average Electricity Tariff". The graph starts January 1998. Around March 1999, fuel oil prices, because OPEC had an agreement, surged all the way from about US$9 reaching US$30+ in August 2000. So it is this tripling of fuel oil prices which had led to a necessary increase in electricity prices. Of course, you may want to make an argument that we should subsidise electricity consumption in Singapore. But that is a different argument. We have for a long time taken the position that it is harmful to us, as a country, to subsidise the use of electricity, because it will lead to over-consumption and structural vulnerability to energy fluctuation in the world or, rather, to the fluctuation of energy prices in the world. UNION REPRESENTATION OF EXECUTIVES (Progress report of Tripartite Committee) 3. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower if he will give a progress report of the Tripartite Committee on union representation of executives.”
“The Minister has not answered my question. Does it not infringe the double jeopardy rule?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I take it that before the HDB compulsorily acquires the property, the offender is taken to court and punished. Does the Minister realise that this is double jeopardy, which is wholly wrong in principle? The other question that I have is the one raised by the Member for Hougang, which I was going to ask. Is the Minister not discriminating between a dweller in public housing and a dweller in a private flat? Why the discrimination? If it is bad in one case it is bad in the other. The Government can acquire that flat and sell it. Why is he showing discrimination? May I have short answers?”
“It is a continuation of what we have had for the last 40 years since the PAP took over, complete curtailment of the freedom of expression in Singapore. This Speakers' Corner does not open up the freedom at all. It is just a pretence.”
“There is no objection to have a police officer there to see that persons who speak are the persons who have shown their identity cards and proved themselves to be Singapore citizens. I cannot see the need for their particulars to be recorded and kept, not just for a day, as I asked whether it would be destroyed. It is going to be kept for five years. Why? And I have tried to get an answer from the Minister whether these records will be released to anyone. He has not answered the question. All we get are evasive answers, attempting to laugh away the question, that we have better things to do than to keep records and to give to others. Mr Chiam has asked whether the speeches would be recorded. Again, it is laughed at. And yet, the Minister, when I asked him questions at the last sitting, says we have to keep the records because we need to look at them later if there is any complaint to determine what the speaker has said is against the law or not. Well, there you have it. There is an admission that the speech will be recorded. Otherwise, how can you determine what he has said is against the law or not? So there are all these curbs, all these restrictions, against persons speaking out freely without fear. He is still subjected to this fear. In Singapore, he will be subjected to the fear that his particulars will be released to the ISD, which I asked the Minister and he has not replied on that. And Singaporeans know that the ISD has the power to detain him or her for 28 days. Are they going to come up and speak when they know that their names may be released to the ISD and they might be called up and questioned? So where is the freedom of expression in Singapore?”
“If a speaker from a minority community stands up and says that his language is neglected; there should be greater use of his language, because it is one of the official languages in Singapore, that the Government should encourage greater use of his language in official correspondence or in Government offices, would that be considered as having the potential to cause feelings of enmity between races? Do you consider that may arouse feelings of hostility in another community? Again, you are cutting down a major portion of the freedom of the individual. Every community, every group, should have the freedom to speak about matters that concern them. And if you are not going to allow them to speak because you are worried that it may have the potential to cause feelings of enmity, then you are telling him to shut up. You cannot speak on this subject at all. So, where is the freedom of expression? It is all this pretence that upsets me and which I cannot accept. Let us be honest with ourselves for once and say that, "No, we are not saying that this means that we have complete freedom of expression in Singapore. This is just a little beginning that we are really testing to see whether we can have freedom of expression in Singapore or not." If the Government takes that line, then I have no quarrel with it, but it is the pretence. That is what I wanted to speak about this afternoon. Then there is this question about registration. I have heard the Minister but I am still not satisfied of the need for registration. All that is needed is for the man or woman to produce the identity card to show the officer that he or she is a Singapore citizen, and then be allowed to speak. There is no need for any records to be kept. There is no need to ensure that there are no policemen there.”
“When one comes to look at the conditions that are attached, even to this little symbolism, one can immediately see that is not freedom of expression that is being allowed to the speaker at the Speakers' Corner. The Minister, in answering questions, produced a table of the conditions that applied at Hyde Park and in Singapore. If one looks at that - he spelled it out - one can clearly see that the proposed plan continues with the curtailment on the freedom of expression in Singapore. It does not, in any way, expand that freedom, or open up the society in Singapore. Firstly, under the proposed plan, the speaker may not speak on anything religious in nature. And that, again, is an all-catching phrase, vague and nebulous. What is "anything religious in nature"? What is wrong, may I ask, if somebody who is a devoted Christian or Muslim stands up and speaks on the virtues of his religion? Would he not be allowed to speak? But then, are you not unduly restricting his freedom to speak on something which so vitally concerns the individual, the people, religion? What are you afraid of? Of course, it is another thing to call upon people to attack members of another religion. What is wrong with him or her speaking on the virtues, the values, of the religion itself, so that others may come to understand the religion better? But that is not allowed. So you are cutting down on a major aspect of freedom of expression. Then it goes on to say that whoever speaks shall not say anything that may have the potential to cause feelings of enmity, etc, between races or religious groups. This again is as vague as one can get. What is meant by "anything that may have the potential to cause feelings of enmity"? Let us take an instance.”
“We have also seen people protesting, coming out to speak against the shooting in the United States by police officers of innocent people whom they suspected of having committed an offence. There were two incidents and it provoked an outcry. But in Singapore, would that be possible? We had the recent case of a shooting by two police officers of a man who they said was armed with an iron rod. The Party issued a press release, calling upon the two men to be charged with murder and saying that if they had any justification, they could prove the justification in court and they will be acquitted. We said that because the Commander of the division to which the two police officers were attached immediately raised justification for the shooting of the man. The Straits Times, being a faithful servant of the Government, did not publish the press release as we put it. We called for the man to be charged with murder. It is covered up in some nebulous words, "calls for more action than a Coroner's inquiry". So let us not pretend that there is freedom of expression in Singapore, that people are allowed the freedom to speak up wherever and whenever they wish to speak up, that the people have the freedom to assemble peaceably to show their dissatisfaction or discontent over some policy or over any act of the Government. All we have, now that the Government proposes, is setting up of this one space in Hong Lim Green and they make so much noise about setting it up and holding it up as an example of how free Singapore is, how it allows its citizens to speak up and this is what I am protesting about because the whole thing is a pretence.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when I sent in my notice claiming the right I said I wish to speak on the pretence that the Speakers' Corner is proof that free speech, freedom of expression, exists in Singapore. That is my subject of this afternoon's talk, not just simply on the Speakers' Corner, but the pretence that because we are setting up a Speakers' Corner, there is freedom of expression in Singapore. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 5.40 pm As I have said more than once, in Singapore, there is a lot of pretence by the Government about what Singapore is, a pretence that things are not what they really are and that is what concerns me. I have been asked by a number of people why am I so dismissive of the proposed plan to set up a Speakers' Corner. Well-meaning people have said to me, "Mr Jeyaretnam, why are you so dismissive? It is at least a beginning. Why don't you welcome a beginning of the freedom of expression?" I have no objection to that if it is hailed as a beginning of the freedom of expression in Singapore. But it is not. What it has been hailed is that it is another instance of giving greater opportunities in a freedom that already exists in Singapore when the freedom does not exist. Freedom of expression is not simply limited to be able to say something. An integral part of it is the right of assembly and that is not going to be afforded by the Speakers' Corner being set up. We only just recently seen thousands upon thousands of women marching in Washington to protest against the gun violence in that country. Is that possible in Singapore today? Could people turn out to protest against something in the society? That is real freedom of expression.”
“It is simply this. Should not that power also be given to an independent person and not to a public official?”
“May I have your permission to clarify my objection to clause 29 in the Bill?”
“Why does the Minister consider the promotion of greater democracy, accountability and transparency to be something undesirable for Singapore when it has got nothing to do with promoting any particular legislation or policy for this country?”
“And by sub-clause (3) of this clause, he is empowered to enter any premises occupied by the political association at any reasonable time, even if he is not required to give notice, and to inspect any books, documents or other records relating to the income and expenditure of the political association.”
“NGOs exist in almost every other country. But they are a rare commodity in Singapore. And from what I can see of the UK Bill, which is before Parliament, it does not prohibit NGOs from receiving funds from overseas. It is common knowledge that a number of the NGOs in the United Kingdom have links with other NGOs overseas and they get funds. So what is the objection to allowing organisations which have got nothing to do with promoting any particular policy in Singapore from functioning in Singapore for the good of the people and receiving money, if necessary, from like-minded organisations outside Singapore? For example, if we have a human rights organisation, I would love to see one here, what is wrong with the human rights organisation in other countries saying, "Well, we got to help you to carry out your work. We will give you some money." What is wrong with that? The other clause on the same theme is the appointment of the Registrar. This is provided in clause 7 which reads, "The Minister may, by notification in the Gazette, appoint a public officer to be the Registrar of Political Donations for the purposes of this Act, and such number of Assistant Registrars of Political Donations as he considers necessary." By clause 29 of this Bill, the Registrar is given sweeping powers. By clause 29, the Registrar may call upon any person to produce, for his inspection, any books, documents or other records relating to the income and expenditure of the political association as the Registrar may reasonably require. He may also call upon them to furnish him or any person authorised by him with all information, explanation relating to the income and expenditure of any political association.”
“But is it an organisation that is attempting to influence any particular policy or object for Singapore when it is simply concerned with giving people a greater share in decision making? Take the Open Singapore Centre (OSC) of which I am the Chairman. We have said that our aim is simply to promote transparency and accountability through openness in Singapore. Is that politics? Of course, one can say yes, it is political. But that is something that concerns the entire populace in Singapore. So why should that be declared a political association? It is not concerned with promoting a particular issue or calling for a particular piece of legislation in this country. All it seeks to do is to promote openness, awareness and accountability among the public. The other objection is that the power is given to the Minister to declare which organisation is a political association for the purposes of this Act. I have no doubt that the Open Singapore Centre will be declared political, if not the other organisations. My recommendation to the Government is that that decision as to whether an organisation is a political association or not should not be left to the Minister. We do not have any Elections Commissioner. We do not have any Election Commission. It therefore should be left to somebody completely outside the Government, someone independent, and who is appointed for this purpose in consultation with the other political parties in Singapore so that he may, after listening to the organisation itself or other political parties as to what they think, then decide whether the organisation is a political association for the purposes of this Bill. That is important if we are going to encourage the setting up of NGOs in Singapore for the good of the people.”
“I will try and explain why I am speaking on these clauses. Under clause 2, the definition of "political association", in subclause (b) of that, as at present drafted, is, in my opinion, far too vague and appears to catch everyone. The term "political association" which is to be applied to other than registered political parties should be spelt out with greater certainty. The Bill, as it now stands, reads: " "political associations" means - (b) an organisation . whose objects or activities relate wholly or mainly to politics in Singapore and which is declared by the Minister, by order in the Gazette, to be a political association for the purposes of this Act;". The operative words are "whose objects or activities relate wholly or mainly to politics". Sir, politics is something that concerns the general populace. That is politics. So if there is an organisation that wishes to speak on something which concerns the general populace or even a section of the community, it can be described as being a political association. We take the case of the women's organisation, AWARE, which is concerned with the rights of women and violence to women. Does it become a political association? Of course, their concern can be called political because it affects a large section of the community, the women in Singapore. For that reason, is it to be considered a political association? What about NGOs? We do not have many NGOs in Singapore. But we have one or two now, concerned not with promoting any particular political issue or political object, but have, as its aims and object, the promotion of greater democracy, greater transparency and greater accountability for the society. Is that political? Of course, it is, if you want.”
“Sir, I wish to speak on certain specific clauses in the Bill. These are clauses 2, 7, 22, 28 and 29. But before I speak directly on these clauses, may I say that I am concerned because this Bill is on a subject that concerns Singaporeans, not just political parties, not just political associations, like NGOs, but Singaporeans generally. And that is why I wanted the Bill to be moved to a Select Committee so that Singaporeans may be heard as to what they think about the Bill, not just the NGOs or the political parties, but Singaporeans, what do they think about the Bill. But you have ruled that I cannot speak on the motion, so I have to go on and speak about the clauses on which I have objections. My objections stem from the fact that in Singapore, elections would appear to be completely a matter for the Government, whereas in other countries, elections are a matter for the people and there is an independent elections body which controls the conduct of elections and makes all the rules and regulations. But that is not so in Singapore. In Singapore, elections would appear to be the prerogative of the Prime Minister.”
“But do I not have to spell out why it should be referred to a Select Committee?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, on a point of principle, ask the question. I thought that under Standing Order, I can make my speech on the motion. Your note says, "make his speech supporting his motion".”
“You tell me. Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Low asked why we cap at $5,000. Of course, we can choose the other way, like what the British and Americans do, cap at pound 50 or $50, which means that they can at most receive anonymous donations of $50 or less, and they can receive a lot of such small donations. Frankly, I do not even know that the opposition receive a lot of small donations and neither am I bothered about it. But, as I said, for the $5,000, it is just a macro number, it is a total sum, it makes it easier for them to receive small sums of anonymous donations up to $5,000 without keeping record. If they have to keep record, and we make the limit at $50, I think they will be very much troubled by it. And if $5,000 eventually is not enough, when we amend the Bill the next time, we will look at it.”
“May I ask my question as well. Will the Minister quote chapter and verse of the statement he says that the Workers' Party made calling for a merger again with Malaysia? When was it made, where, and where was it reported? Could he let us have all that?”
“Thank you. The Member for Hougang says yes.”
“Or is it merely an attempt, seeing that elections may have to be held within the next year or so, to further strangle the opposition parties from putting up a proper fight at the next elections? The history of this Government has been one long series of attempts to cripple, obstruct, opposition parties making headway. Are we not interested in greater democracy in this country? Will you tell us now? Is it the intention of the Government that Singapore should continue as it has with the PAP in government, decreeing what has to be done in Singapore without the people's participation? People need to know all this. Are you for or are you against greater democratic development in Singapore? Are you for or are you against greater participation by the people in political decision? The Minister concentrates on foreign donations. But what he does not realise, or he perhaps tries to hide, is that it dries up our own people here through the fear that exists in their minds. Are you capitalising on that fear?”
“So, the writing was on the wall for the PAP. And so the Workers' Party had to be branded and some of us were prosecuted and I had to leave Parliament, purely out of convictions which the Privy Council said were wrong. Then there was an amendment to the Constitution to bring in an Executive President. Again, the reason and the rationale that was put out for public consumption was that the opposition parties, if they were allowed to continue and take over the Government, would squander our reserves. So we have got to somehow put a brake on that. There was no question about the PAP safeguarding its reserves. The PAP will safeguard the reserves. It was the opposition parties that would squander and so we had an Executive President. But now, as it turned out, after all that show, the President was not given the powers. Things continued in much the same way, but the PAP was crying wolf to try and bring in that dramatic change in the way this country is run. So, I would ask the Minister, when he replies, to try and direct his mind to my question and not tell us about the 1959 donation received by a Government Minister, not tell us about Mr Francis Seow, because they are all completely irrelevant. They are things of the past. We want to know whether there is a need now. Why are you introducing this Bill now? What is the danger to Singapore now? It is like whenever I ask any question about the defence expenditure, they say, "Oh, we've got to be ready to meet threats." When I ask where is the threat coming from, they say, "Oh, no, we can't answer that question." It is all in the mind. Would the Minister please be specific about the need for this Bill at this point of time?”
“" All well and good, outwardly. But what was the real purpose? Speaker after speaker spoke of the need for Singaporeans to control the newspapers. Yes, but what was the result of that Bill, as I said last year? The result was to pass over total iron-fisted control over the press to the Government. The Government had to be consulted through its two classes of shareholders - the ordinary and preferred shareholders, who had to be appointed by the Government. And every appointment of any staff had to be made by these preferred shareholders appointed by the Minister. So, what was previously a de facto control of the press became legal with the passing of the 1974 Bill. The Government could then point to the section and say, "There you are, we've got the section here. You can't appoint so-and-so as editor. You've got to have the permission of all the preferred shareholders." So, that is another instance of crying wolf that there was a great danger to Singapore that newspapers were being taken over by foreigners. And then came the arrests in 1987. This was not a Bill. This was an Executive decision to arrest 22 persons. Some of them were accused of being proxies for foreign agents to take over the Workers' Party. One can see that all this was directed at the Workers' Party. The Government was saying that these people were going to take over the Workers' Party, and so, as I said then, a fanciful case was built up, that Marxists were taking over the Workers' Party. They had to be stopped. The Workers' Party had to be saved. Well, it was a lot of nonsense. And why? The PAP saw that the Workers' Party was becoming a real threat. After the 1981 election, the PAP vote dropped 121/2%. This is not fiction. This is a fact. Never before had the PAP vote dropped to that extent.”
“In 1972, at an election rally, a PAP candidate seeking election to Parliament uttered a monstrous lie that the Workers' Party had received $600,000 from Malaysia. $600,000 - my foot! We took him to court for uttering this monstrous lie, but this was all part of the PAP's plan then. Because even before the elections, there was publicity about opposition parties, particularly directed against the Workers' Party, which I had joined in 1971, of being used by foreign agents and foreign powers. He did not seek to justify his statement. There was no truth in that statement. But we lost our case because the Judge, the late Mr Justice F A Chua, dismissed the action on a purely technical reason that we had not pleaded the Hokkien text, or was it some other dialect text, in our statement of claim. Then, showing greater concern, the Constitution was amended to ensure that the sovereignty of Singapore was not surrendered, except only upon a referendum. This is to keep up the pretence, Mr Speaker, Sir, that opposition parties will be ready to surrender Singapore's sovereignty to foreign powers. Then, next in line, is the amendment to the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act which came in 1974. I stand corrected. And I spoke on this Bill when I moved a motion for the setting up of an independent newspaper in Singapore sometime last year. There, the reason for that Bill was that foreigners were using the newspapers to influence politics in Singapore. I mentioned of speeches in this House by Members - there was no Opposition Member in Parliament at that time - saying, "We can't allow foreign devils, foreigners, to take over our newspapers. We've got to stop all this." They said, "There was also evidence that foreign embassies were using the newspapers with their advertisements.”
“The Minister refers to other countries but there has been public disquiet about huge funds going to political parties by people trying to influence policies and decisions. We know all that. Do we have that in Singapore? There is a Bill before the UK Parliament. I have tried to get hold of the Bill but I was not able to get the whole Bill, but I have seen a little bit of it. There, it was because of disquiet among the public over huge sums of money being paid. Quite honestly, let us have it. What is the motive and purpose for this Bill at this present moment in Singapore? I shall have a lot to say more, Sir, on the lack of any public discussion, but time is running on and I want to try and explain why I think this Bill has been introduced. The Minister refers to past instances and I see he has brought in the Chew Swee Kee episode. That was the sum received by the Government in power, not by an opposition political party. I know all about that because I took part in that inquiry before Justice Buttrose. How is that an instance of the need for this Bill at this particular stage? Then he brings in Mr Francis Seow. Was there any suggestion that he received any monies? Did the PAP have any evidence that the US Embassy was giving him large sums of money? I ask the Minister to explain in this House whether this is not another instance of the PAP Government crying wolf to further strangle opposition parties? This is not mere rhetoric, Mr Speaker, Sir. This Government has a history of crying wolf whenever it wants to introduce legislation or take decisions which they think the people may not be ready to accept. I want to instance four such cases.”
“Of course, the Ministers can afford to give out of their huge salaries that they are being paid from public monies. May I ask: is that one of the reasons why Ministers are paid such huge sums so that the Party may get some of the money? But he makes a valid point, and that is this. This is the Treasurer of the People's Action Party, and he says this Bill may prevent people who have given donations anonymously in the past to think whether they should continue to give any donations anonymously. There you have it. This is to try and cut off from the other political parties people who would like to give money to the political parties but who wish to remain anonymous. They will not. Of course, they will be quite happy to give donations to the People's Action Party and even have their names recorded so that the Party knows that they are good Singaporeans who support the Government. I ask the Minister: is there any evidence? Let us be serious about this Bill. Is there any evidence that opposition parties have received funds from outside Singapore? Have you got any evidence? Let us have it instead of making glib statements that we must tell our political parties not to be funded from outside. Let us have it here and now. Is there any evidence, other than foreign interests, that vested interests in Singapore are using opposition political parties for their own ends? Let me tell the House that no company in Singapore will want to make any donation to an opposition party. That is the grim state of affairs in Singapore. While they will be ready to open their purses for the PAP, they will not make any donation to the opposition. What are the opposition parties to do? They will be crippled. This is an attempt to further cripple them.”
“There have been no opportunities given for discussion on this Bill outside Parliament. There has been no opportunity given by way of a White Paper explaining the reasons for this Bill. It will be passed as though it is just an ordinary Bill, and people should not worry too much about it. This is no ordinary Bill. Sir, I rise to oppose this Bill, not only myself but also my Party. The previous speaker mentioned that the Member for Hougang from my Party supported the Bill. I have clarified this with the Member. It would appear that he was quoted out of context. Of course, the Workers' Party is second to none in not wanting foreigners to come and tell us how to run our country. But what does this Bill do? This Bill, for all its high-sounding words from the Minister, is attempting to dry up for the political parties in Singapore getting monies to further the cause of democracy for Singapore. The People's Action Party, I am quite sure, is flushed with funds. We have not been told how much they have got in the kitty. Would they like to tell us? We will then tell you how much the Workers' Party has, but I am sure the Government knows what the Workers' Party has. I do not speak for the other opposition parties but I am sure that they do not have anything like what the PAP can boast of in the way of funds. May I ask: is that a healthy state of affairs for Singapore that whilst the Government ruling party is able to tap money, the other political parties which oppose the Government are starved of any funds? I see that the PAP Treasurer, in a statement to the papers some days ago, mentioned that quite a substantial sum comes from the members themselves and he picks up the monthly pledges or donations made by the Ministers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak at this early stage of the Second Reading. This Bill particularly concerns the opposition parties and it is very vital for the opposition parties. I thank you for recognising that and you have given me the opportunity to speak. Sir, let us make no mistake about this Bill. This Bill is going to have far-reaching implications on the political development in this country. Let no one misunderstand that. This Bill, I say, is sounding the death knell for political development along the road to a greater democracy in this country. That is what it is all about. We have heard this afternoon from the Minister but what he has said does not, even in one iota, tell us the need for the introduction of this Bill in Singapore and particularly at this point of time. It is completely silent on that. May I tell the Government that questions have been raised outside and I have spoken to others and they say, "Why do you think the Government is introducing this Bill now?" They need to be answered. So I ask the Minister, when he replies, to try and answer that question. What is the burning necessity for this Bill to be introduced in Singapore at this particular moment? And furthermore, there are a number of other things wrong about the way this Bill is being presented in Parliament. It was read for the first time on the 9th of this month. Barely 12 days after that, we are asked to pass this Bill. What is the great haste? Because this Bill concerns Singaporeans, it is a question that concerns Singaporeans, the growth of political development in this country. Every Singaporean should be interested in that. Where are we heading in the way of political development? Why is the Government rushing this Bill through?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister says that it is unfair to say that married women have been discriminated. Has his Ministry got any figures to support his statement that they have not been discriminated? I have called for a Board against discrimination more than once. Will the Ministry set up a Board against discrimination in Singapore to inquire into any complaints?”
“Is the Minister saying then that the bus and MRT transport should be run for profit and not as a public service to the people who need to use them? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, there are tens of thousands, if not, several hundred thousand Singaporeans, who own shares in SBS and there is a reason why we arranged the scheme so that the shares are widely distributed among Singaporeans. That is precisely because it is necessary for all services to run efficiently and one of the measures of efficiency is that you break even and earn a reasonable profit. There are subsidies which we have provided bus companies - roads, bus terminuses, taxes. But given what we have already decided they are entitled to, they have to operate efficiently and the measure of that is that they have to earn a profit.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when I last asked the question on the bus and MRT fare increases, the Minister of State was unable to answer my question whether he was aware that the bus companies had been making profits. I have now learned that they have been making quite substantial profits. Does the Government still think that it was necessary to increase the bus and MRT fares? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member was not here when I addressed this issue at the last sitting following his exchange with the Minister of State. I explained that all companies have to make profits, because if they do not make profits they will fold up. Are they reasonable profits or are they excessive profits? That is a matter for the bus and public transport companies to justify to the Public Transport Council. They have put up a proposal and members of the Public Transport Council have scrutinised the proposal and they have decided that these increases are fair. I see no reason to challenge that conclusion.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister of State, finally, is he saying then that these increases were made to enable the returns for the shareholders to be satisfactory? Is that the reason?”