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 44 of 82.
“May I just finish with one more sentence, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Speaker: I am sorry. You are entitled to one hour, and you got your hour. It has been proposed as an amendment to the Question, at the end, to add, 'but regret that the speech does not show any intention on the part of the government to help the workers thrown out of employment through no fault of their own but by the policies and actions of the government.' The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added." 12.44 pm”
“Is the Government going to say that it cannot afford that? What about the surpluses? What about the payroll tax that you have collected? Do something, in God's name, please. And then do something about the retrenchment. Some Members have voiced fears that employers are perhaps taking advantage, and unnecessarily retrenching workers.”
“And the Prime Minister is talking about it, immediate information that is needed. Immediate relief is needed. Please, let me appeal to you, do not just ignore the unemployed in Singapore. We have to do something. We have got to give them some help. I say unemployment benefits. I am not ashamed to advocate that. An hon. Member: How much?”
“If the HDB cannot absorb these concessions, the decrease in the interest rates, or even a lowering of the prices in the HDB flats, let the Government take it over. But do something. Do not pass the cost to those people who cannot afford the cost. This is what the Economic Committee Report does: it passes the cost of this recession to the workers. And I am very, very angry about that. It should not be doing it. The cost should be spread over everybody. Equitably. Not just the workers. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, about the problems of the unemployed. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the efforts made by the Government on this are pathetic in the extreme. May I know what has been done to help the unemployed? That is, as I said, the stark reality facing us in Singapore today, the unemployed. What is being done to help them? We have glib statements, Mr Speaker, Sir, in this House that there is a job waiting for every worker retrenched. And I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that is a blatantly untrue statement. I know myself that there are workers who have been unemployed for six months, even a year. They are there in my constituency. Mine is a working class constituency, of which I am very proud to be its representative, and I know what I am talking about. The Ministry of Labour made glib statements. We called for facts and figures. Tell us what you are doing to help the unemployed? That is ignored. I was going to speak to the University students, and I asked the Ministry of Labour, "May I have the latest figures?" They said, "No, we do not have the latest figures. We can only give you figures going back six months earlier." That is the cavalier treatment that the workers are getting. The Ministry of Labour does not even collate information, immediate information that is required.”
“And I see that in the Panel Discussion on Sunday, staged by the Times Group, an American businessman was saying that they pay far more attention to demand in the United States. Demand is an important factor and we were prepared to agree to a corresponding 5% cut from the employers' side. But we said, along with it there must go a concession to the workers who have to meet their house payments. That is what we spelt out. And we do not depart from that. The Workers' Party is grievously unhappy over this 15% cut in the employer's contributions. How are they going to meet their instalments? What about all these thousands of unemployed workers? How are they going to pay? I know this cut does not affect them because they are unemployed. We ask the Government to think again very carefully before it implements that recommendation. The cut in the employer's contribution is not going to make all that difference to lowering the productivity cost. At the most 3% or 4%. But what is the social cost? Do you not have to balance that against the social cost? What about the rest of the community? Do they not matter? So I ask the Government to think very, very carefully, please. No distinction has been made, as has been said a little while ago, between companies that can pay this contribution and those that cannot. If you have to, then I ask you not to reduce it for workers earning $1,000 and below. I shall spell this out, I hope, in the Budget debate, but I ask the Government to think very carefully before it proceeds to implement this. And if it does, then I say it must make arrangements to enable our workers to pay the instalments. The HDB can absorb the difference. It has built up its surplus. Bring in the MND profits, I say. What are you keeping the MND profits for?”
“But against that, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Government proposes to cut the incentive payment for the daily-rated employees. I say "shame" on this Government they should seek to deprive the poor of even the little that they have. First, come out of your own pockets, may I tell the Ministers and the Government Members. And I also say it is a shame that this Government has not been able to absorb the 100 workers or so, whose retrenchment by the PWD was announced. These are workers who have been working with the PWD in the construction of Changi Airport and elsewhere, and they are going to be retrenched. We have statements by the Labour Ministry, by the PWD, that the Government and the statutory boards cannot absorb them. I say "shame" that you cannot absorb a hundred workers to keep them employed. As my Party Chairman said at our Variety Show on Sunday night, "The salary of the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office and the salary of the Second Deputy Prime Minister will be more than enough to keep these 100 persons in their employment." What are these two Ministers doing to help in the economy, may I ask? What are they doing to merit $26,000 a month from the public? So I say "shame" that this Government ignores the cries of the poor. Time is running on, Mr Speaker, Sir. The CPF cuts. Sir, we laugh about this because last year the Acting Minister for Labour was leading the chorus from the Government Members, "No cuts in CPF." Now there is a different chorus, "Cut the CPF contributions made by the employer." We made a stand on this. We said in the 1985 National Day Rally, "Cut the employee's contribution by 5%" because, we said, that would stimulate the demand for products. And that is one of the causes acknowledged by this Economic Committee here.”
“Please, later on. An hon. Member: Shame.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, that was the Government's response to a suggestion that the Government Ministers set an example. May I tell you, Mr Speaker, Sir, about the remark made by a taxi driver who saw the news about the Minister having sent half his month's salary to the Community Chest. He picked me up at Colombo Court and whilst driving me to the Subordinate Courts he said, "Bah. If I get a free trip to China, I will give my whole month's salary. What is half a month's salary?" That was the way he dismissed it. Will we hear from the Government of its response to its own call? Will we hear from the Ministers today, or before we finish this debate, of their response to the call that they make to our people? Or will we be told, "No, you can't cut our salaries. We've got to be paid more." I see that the First Deputy Prime Minister was telling the students at the Polytechnic that they, in fact, should be paid more, that they are being underpaid, for mismanaging the economy! The First Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Point of clarification, Sir.”
“I am not here preaching strife and discord. If the Government wants the support of the people - and the President, I see, asks for the support of the people - then I say, be honest about it.”
“And that is why I say that this Government has no moral right any more to govern this country. It has misled our people time and time again. During the elections, they were talking about the City of Excellence, about reaching the Swiss standard of living. Was there any word about the problems that lay ahead for our people? No. Everything was wonderful under the PAP sun. It was only the Opposition who were out to create mischief and uttering falsehoods and the Opposition was trying to warn the people against the false promises. There is a saying that he, who laughs last, laughs best. After the elections which I say was won on misleading information, on concealing information from the voters, the Government proceeded on its course to talk about forecasts, again completely oblivious to the trends. The Minister for Finance in March 1985 in this House talked about real GDP growth for 1985 of about 6-8%. The Prime Minister in his May Day message in 1985 forecast a 5-7% growth in the economy. On what did they base these forecasts? Was that not misleading the people of Singapore? The Minister for Finance in this House dismissed the growing bankruptcies, winding-up of companies, that were drawn to his attention as a temporary set back, and he said, "Not to worry about all that." So I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this Government has perpetrated a big confidence trick on the voters. And this is why I say that this Government should accept the responsibility fairly and squarely. That would be the only decent thing to do for a government that is responsible, for a government that is alive to its responsibilities. And it will be the only graceful thing to do. I am not here to try and sow seeds of strife among the people against the Government.”
“All right, Mr Speaker, Sir, I bow to your ruling. But let me just say this. Did the Minister for Finance who is responsible for the MAS resign? Did the Minister for Communications resign as a result of this blunder? No. I only hope that they sit comfortably in their ministerial chairs. Mr Speaker, Sir, the burden of my speech is that the Government was aware that things were going to take a different turn, and yet they blindly refused to take note of the trends, the signs that were only too clearly visible to them. They shut their eyes and their ears to whatever they were told and whatever they could read, basing blind confidence in their own abilities. But far from taking any measures, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government Ministers were forecasting a bright future. I do not wish to embarrass the Members of the Government by reading to them what was said before the 1984 elections. The message to the people before the 1984 elections was, "Come on, you people of Singapore, everything is lovely in our garden. The flowers are blooming. The sun will be shining. You just come into our garden." And what a garden is it now! I say that this Government has lost its moral right to govern as a result of the blunders, as a result of the mismanagement of the economy of this country by the Government, a mismanagement which has resulted in misery to our people. Of course, it will be maintained that they have a legal right, but the moral right is higher than a legal right. And this legal right based on the 1984 elections was obtained, may I say, on misleading statements to the public, concealing information from the public, from the voters, of the true state of the country's affairs. It is as bad as that, concealing the true state of the country's affairs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am trying to. As I said, it is to place the responsibility on the Government.”
“There was no way in which the taxi drivers were going to suffer any loss, or going to find it difficult to pay the increased diesel fee. Months later, he had to eat his own words. And the increased diesel fee was slashed. At least we have got to be thankful for small mercies that they slashed it. But that mistake made by the Minister and his Ministry had brought suffering to the taxi drivers. What is it? 50,000, 55,000 taxi drivers and their families, he has ruined them. I see the Acting Minister laugh. But it is no laughing matter. You ask the taxi drivers whether --- The Acting Minister for Community Development (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, my complaint is that it does not seek to put the blame where it lies. And I am trying to show that the Government must accept the responsibility, no shying away from this responsibility. That is what Cabinet responsibility, ministerial responsibility, public accountability, is all about. And as long as the Government tries to shy away, tries to evade responsibility and shift it to others, it will never, may I say, get the support of the people. I was saying about the Pan-El and Stock Exchange crisis. The Minister said that the Securities Industry Council did not have the powers. Well, as I said, he is grieviously wrong. I have seen the terms of reference of the Securities Industry Council, and those include power to intervene where there is suspicion of false trading or dishonest trading, and also powers to report to the Registrar of Companies if any activities of a company are suspect. So I say that the Minister has misled the House. And as a result of this inaction on the part of the Government, what do we have now? 1,500 or so workers face unemployment. Many of them have already had their services terminated. Others are waiting. And if you translate 1,500 into the number in their families, you will have a lot more. So they face a bleak future, uncertain future, as a result of the failure of this Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, there was another instance last year. The Minister for Communications went on television, fully convinced that the earnings of taxi drivers would not suffer; in fact, they would earn more. He was trying to justify the increase in the taxi diesel fee. He was so sure. His Ministry had worked it all out.”
“Well, I am saying it does not admit the responsibility of the Government. I am going to show why the Government is responsible.”
“Now, the Government was aware of insider trading in Pan-El in 1984. The Government was aware of forward contracts in February 1985. This is on the admission of the Minister in this House. Did the Government do anything about it? Did the MAS do anything about it? I am sorry that the Minister is not here. But I am sorry to have to say that he misled the House when he said, "There was nothing we could do. We referred it to the SES Committee and they said they could not do anything."”
“Of course, that is if the Government was alive to its responsibilities and doing its work. The Far Eastern Economic Report, a journal, in a cover story in September 1983 - it is September 1983, Mr Speaker, Sir - drew the dangers to the over-supply in properties and hotel rooms. It called attention to the fall in the occupancy rate in the hotels. It said, "Is Singapore heading for a slump?" But how is it when the local correspondent for the Far Eastern Economic Review in Singapore who wrote that (I think it was he who wrote that) - how is it that if he could see this, our managers of our economy in Singapore could not see it? Or was it that they were so drunk with their own confidence, their ability to steer the economy, whatever may be happening to it from outside forces that they refused to pay any heed to these warning signs? And it is not only the journal like the Far Eastern Economic Review and others. There were people in the country itself, businessmen, Chambers of Commerce, were drawing attention. We were drawing attention. And not only that, the Member for Rochore particularly, a member of the Government's Party, was drawing attention to all these. What was the Government doing about all these? Dismissing all of them as panic-mongers, uttering warnings of gloom, when the Government could only see bright sunshine ahead. So the Government dismissed all these warnings and did nothing, it would appear. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is instanced very dramatically, the Government's inaction, when one considers the case of the Pan-El crisis that led to the unprecedented suspension of the Stock Exchange. Sir, I do not have to remind the House that that unprecedented closure of the Stock Exchange has cost us a lot. Almost every economic journal underscores that.”
“But whilst the Prime Minister was saying this, his presumed heir apparent - Mr Speaker, Sir, when I used those words yesterday, they were not my words. They appeared in a report from England on the press conference held by the Minister.It is reported in the Guardian for the day after the press conference, and incidentally the Minister is billed as the country's Economics and Defence Minister. I did not know that we had an Economics Minister. The Minister of State, as he then was at that time, had elaborated further on the reasons. He said that the reasons for Singapore's downturn included an excessive dependence on US investors, an increasingly hostile trading environment, as well as a drop in demand for key products and commodities. I hope we shall hear from him in the course of this debate about these other causes that do not find any mention in the Report of the Economic Committee. Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, all these causes mentioned by the Economic Committee are not anything new. They were there long before 1984. The 1983 Economic Survey Report for the Second Quarter points to the fall in Manufacturing output, and that is acknowledged in this Economic Committee's Report at page 32. So there the Government was aware of the fall in Manufacturing output. About the structural problems in oil and marine-related industries, they began to emerge, Mr Speaker, Sir, when oil prices dropped. And when did the oil prices begin dropping? 1979. What was the Government doing about that? Did it take note of the glut in the oil supply? Did it take note that tankers would be laid up because there would be no need for so much oil to be carried across the oceans and the seas? So there they were! Everything was available to the Government.”
“I am told that in the first quarter it will probably be minus 4%. The Government must find this galling, and I sympathize with them. 1984, there they were with their banners, trumpets, "Look at the wonderful success of our policies." 1985, they have to sing a different tune. This is one of the things that I suppose we mortals have to learn, and I hope the Government will learn. What are the causes? What has led us to our present state? The Economic Committee selects the causes at page 37 of this Report, "New Directions", and states them as: '(a) The structural problems confronting several of our key industries, particularly in the oil- and marine- related sectors; (b) The loss of international competitiveness and the severe squeeze on profitability of companies in Singapore; (c) The weakness in domestic demand, caused not only by the slump in construction, but also by a continued high rate of national savings that cannot be channelled into productive domestic investments.' Mr Speaker, Sir, these are nothing new. These were all known. It did not need this high-powered Committee to tell us that these were the causes for the recession. The man-in-the-street knew it. The taxi driver knew it. The market stallholder knew it. But whilst the Economic Committee came out with these reasons, the Prime Minister speaking to his constituents on 12th February at the Lunar New Year Party, blamed it on not having had timely information and accurate forecasts. May I say that the Prime Minister was being less than truthful when he spoke to his constituents, trying to put the blame on not having had timely information and accurate forecasts.”
“The Economic Committee's Report does not represent the national consensus, contrary to what the Member for Changkat, the mover of the motion, said in Parliament yesterday. I was surprised when she said that it was as though the whole country was taking part in the debate. Nothing, Mr Speaker, Sir, is further from the truth. This Report has been presented by the Government, consulting a group of businessmen and bankers, businessmen appointed by the Government, selected by the Government, and they have presented their proposals for the country's economic ills. I know there is a representative on this Committee from the National Trades Union Congress. But was this representative selected by the labour movement? Does he represent the workers, or does he represent the ruling party, or does he represent the Government? The Report fails because it does not purport to represent the views of the community as a whole. It is the views of businessmen and which the Government now says that it will accept, in principle, without consulting the labour movement, without their views being taken into consideration. Mr Speaker, Sir, it must be an irony, one of the ironies of fate, that almost a year after this Government put out the flags - let me add, at the expense of the taxpayers' money; was it $18 million or so of the taxpayers' moneys? - a year after the Government put out its flags to celebrate the 25 years of economic prosperity of Singapore, to celebrate the success that the Government had made of the economy of Singapore, that the following year they should have the carpet pulled from under their feet. The economic prosperity took a complete nose-dive and 1985 ended with a minus 1.7% growth in our economy with prospects for that decline to grow further this year.”
“The Opposition parties are taken to task for not outlining their proposals and their measures. Where is the Government's programme outlined in the President's Speech? All it says is that the Government accepts, in principle, the Economic Committee's Report and the Government will, in time, introduce measures. We are not told what measures they are. So what programme of the Government are we debating in this House? My quarrel with the President's Address - not that I am averse to saying "thank you" to him for his speech - my quarrel is that the Address which outlines the Government's programme lacks two main things. First of all, it lacks abysmally in not trying to place the responsibility for the recession on the Government, in the failure of the Government to accept the responsibility where responsibility is due. It is the Government's responsibility to manage the economy of this country and, in that, this Address of the President singularly fails. Secondly, my quarrel with it is that nowhere in that President's Address, nowhere in the Government's programme (I should say it is the Government's programme) is there any plan for the plight of the unemployed which is a stark reality in Singapore today. That is the immediate problem - the growing unemployment. There is nowhere in the President's Speech any suggestion of any measure to help solve this unemployment problem. This is why, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am moving this amendment to the motion. But before I come to deal with these two factors which, I say, are lacking in the President's Address, may I say a few words about the Economic Committee's Report. Let us get this very clear.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the Motion standing in the name of the Member for Changkat be amended as follows, by adding, to the end of the Motion, the words: 'but regret that the speech does not show any intention on the part of the government to help the workers thrown out of employment through no fault of their own but by the policies and actions of the government.'. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is just as well to remind ourselves that we are debating not the Economic Committee's Report. I take it there will be an opportunity to debate that when the Budget Statement is presented by the Government. What we are debating is the President's Address delivered to this House on the 20th of this month. Begging the last speaker's pardon, we are not debating the standard of medical care in Singapore. I am not saying we do not need this standard of medical care that she is advocating. We are debating the President's Address and the President's Address is expected to contain the Government's programme for this Session of Parliament. So we are debating the programme of the Government outlined in the President's Speech, and of course it is not the President's Speech. It contains the Government's programme. It is not written by the President. I am not giving any prizes for guesses as to who wrote it. But the important thing is this. That the President's Speech is delivered by him on behalf of the Government and outlines, not his programme, but the Government's programme. I think it is important that we should keep that in mind when we debate the motion of thanks to the President. What programme is outlined in the President's Speech? Mr Speaker, Sir, I have studied the speech and I fail to see any programme of the Government outlined in that speech.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment to the Motion. Sir, may I move that first and then speak on the motion and the amendment generally?”
“He is the presumed heir apparent. Don't you know?”
“But it was not conveyed in the press conference.”
“Did he pre-empt a dropping? Dr Hu Tsu Tau: Of course, not. [Interruption] But that was due to market reaction, logical or otherwise, and in a few days' time the drop was recovered and, in fact, in the process of the last few days, a good proportion of this so-called loss which the Member for Anson has mentioned has been largely recovered. I do not wish to go into the intricacies of what stock market movements mean but I think most people who are knowledgeable will understand. As to the statement made by the Member for Anson about foreign loss of confidence, he is quoting from the BBC, the Far Eastern Economic Review, Financial Times, commentaries which suggest that the closure of the stock market in Singapore is an unprecedented tragedy of unprecedented scale. As I said earlier, investment by foreigners in our market is relatively small. Therefore, by no means, does their withdrawal of confidence mean all that much, as I have said earlier. Secondly, as to the question about the unprecedented nature of the closure, I would like to say that if it is decided that in the interest of the public in general that the stock market should be closed for two or three days in order to ensure that a proper regulated market guaranteeing the trades of all investors could be achieved after that, the decision to close, I think, was a wise one.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to know what is the great obstacle to the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry? As was said by a letter to the Straits Times on the 7th December, 1985: 'Nothing must be swept under the carpet or foreign investors will simply go elsewhere.' This man is crying out for full information. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, here we have a situation where some millions of dollars have evaporated and the Government refuses to hold an inquiry. The Government refuses to account to the people. I ask that the Minister should recommend immediately to the Cabinet in discharge of its responsibility that a Commission of Inquiry be appointed so that we know why the MAS has failed completely.”
“I am sorry to have to say this but public accountability, Ministerial responsibility, requires that the Minister should resign if he does not discharge his functions and accepts his responsibility for what has happened.”
“I could read the report on that press conference as published in the Straits Times of 4th December as it makes very interesting reading. Mr Pillay has asked whether he would name the bad guys, the bad stockbroking firms, and he says, "I leave it to the stock exchange to reveal their names." Silence from the gentlemen on his left. Then he was asked, "Wouldn't you think it was a matter of public interest?", the journalist tried again. Mr Pillay: "You've got a point. We'll take it into account." So the journalists press on. They were trying to discharge their duty to the people. They asked, "So why should one company's failure lead to such a colossal collapse of the whole system, bringing about the unprecedented suspension of all trading?" The expected question was asked. "Yes," Mr Pillay says, "that's a question on everybody's mind." And he turned to the brokers for an answer. It shows a complete incompetence of the MAS. May I tell the Minister - I am sorry I have to say this - I know he did not take up the Minister's post until sometime in the middle of last year. May I tell him that he should not have sent a civil servant to chair the conference. He should have attended the conference. That is all what Ministerial responsibility is about. I am sorry to have to preach to this Government, but it would appear that the Government is not aware of Ministerial responsibility. Civil servants are not there to take the responsibility and to account to the people. They are there to carry out the policies decided by the Ministers, by the politicians. So I say to the Minister that he should have attended this press conference.”
“I asked him whether there was a member from the Monetary Authority of Singapore sitting on the Stock Exchange Committee and his answer was that there was not anybody. But there is, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the present Securities Industry Act a provision which says that the Minister may establish an advisory body to advise him on matters relating to the Securities Industry. And on this body persons from the business community, the Government and the Monetary Authority should sit. What is important is that this advisory body has the power to inquire into any matter or thing related to the Securities Industry. So was there an advisory body or consultative body existing? If there was, did it exercise the powers given to it by subsection (2) of section (3), 'to enquire into any matter or thing related to the securities industry and for this purpose may summon any person to give evidence on oath or affirmation or produce any document or material necessary for the purpose of the enquiry.' What was the MAS doing? I think the people of Singapore have to be told. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have not got very much time. But one of the things, the cornerstone of a democratic government, is the accountability, the accountability of the government or the Administration to the people. The government must accept responsibility. The government must answer to the people. How has this Government discharged its duty of being accountable to the people for what took place in the first week of December? The Government sent a civil servant to answer the questions. He held a press conference on the 4th December. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that press conference was to no avail in answering any of the questions that the public wished to know.”
“Did the MAS decide on the closure of the Stock Exchange? In the programme "24 hours" broadcast over the BBC, a commentator, on being told that Singapore had close its Stock Exchange, commented that it would appear that whoever was in charge had lost his cool, or was panic-stricken. He commented that even during the Great Depression the Wall Street Exchange did not close. He said that this must result in investors all over the world losing confidence in the ability of the Singapore Government and the authorities to manage Singapore's financial affairs. The Far Eastern Economic Review, in its issue for the 19th December, 1985, said that the suspension had put Singapore damagingly on the map. People who had not known of the Stock Exchange of Singapore knew now about it. The Wall Street Journal called it a body blow to the efforts of the Singapore Government to establish itself as a world financial centre. The Financial Times said there would be unhappiness abroad at the way the authorities had tolerated the stockbroking practices which lay at the heart of the crises and failed to monitor the lending activities of the banks. So these financial journals were expressing their amazement that the authorities in Singapore had allowed this to happen. There was a startling revelation in the Minister's Statement, and that is, that the Stock Exchange Committee was self-regulating and therefore the MAS did not wish to interfere too much but allowed them to carry on. He said that the MAS was aware of forward contracts as early as February or March, 1985, referred it to the Stock Exchange Committee and asked them to look into it.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the ramifications of the events that led to the suspension of the trading of the Stock Exchange do not concern just the simple failure of a public listed company. It goes far beyond that. About the time that the Stock Exchange was closed, I happened to meet a man who should know about the operations of the Stock Exchange and the market and he summed it up all in one word. He said, "It is all plain greed." Greed on whose part? Greed on the part of some stockbrokers. And, of course, from what we now know, it is quite clear that the debacle was the work of a group of unscrupulous manipulators, aided and abetted by a small number of equally unscrupulous and greedy stockbrokers. So here we have a group of people who, it would appear, deliberately went about to bring the market to the verge of collapse, giving full rein to their greed. And what they did precipitated unprecedented monetary loss, hardship and mental anguish to thousands of our small shareholders. The magnitude and seriousness of the problem, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, must be seen in the fact that nearly 20% of the total market capitalization was wiped out. The Minister tries to minimize the damage that has been done to Singapore and to its chances of becoming a financial centre. I thought that was the declared aim of this Government, that Singapore should become a financial centre. But here we have what has been described as a crippling blow delivered to these efforts. The Minister seeks to minimize these, as I said, but if the Minister thinks that a 20% loss in the capitalization is not something to lose sleep over, then I do not know what is the loss to Singapore over which he would lose some sleep. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Stock Exchange was closed.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I again say what I said sometime ago that I do not apologize for keeping you and the other Members of this House at this late hour on this matter that I have claimed the right to speak on the Motion for the Adjournment. I did so because of the bewilderment and consternation that swept through Singapore and not only just from the hundreds or thousands of investors but from the public at the complete silence or explanation from the Government on the events that shook Singapore in the first week of December last year. There have been letters to the press, frantic calls to the papers from members of the public asking for information. But not a word from the Government. And so I felt it my bounden duty to raise this matter before this House. Of course, at that time, I was not aware that the Minister would make a Ministerial Statement. My Party had called for a commission of inquiry into the events and when we saw that there was no reply forthcoming from the Government on our call, we repeated that call a week later. We also suggested that Parliament should be convened so that the Minister may make a statement for the information of the Members and the public. That was also not forthcoming and so I claimed the right to speak on the Adjournment. When we were told that the Minister was going to make a Ministerial Statement, I thought perhaps it would not be necessary now for me to claim the right to speak on this matter on the Adjournment Motion because the Minister might explain everything. But may I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, having heard the Minister through, he has not revealed anything. He has not given away anything. The statement has been tight-lipped, as have been the statements of the Government before this.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I ask for a Division. The House divided: Ayes, 2; Noes, 42; Abstention, 1. Ayes Noes (cont.) Chiam See Tong Lee Yiok Seng Jeyaretnam, J.B. Lee Yock Suan Leong Horn Kee Noes Lim Boon Heng Ng Kah Ting Abbas Abu Amin Othman Haron Eusofe Abdullah Tarmugi Ow Chin Hock Ahmad Mattar Sidek bin Saniff Ang Kok Peng Tan Cheng Bock Beng Kian Lam, Tan Guan Seng Arthur Teh Cheang Wan Chai Chong Yii Teo Chong Tee Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Vasoo, S. Chin Harn Tong Wan Hussin Zoohri Ch'ng Jit Koon Wong Kan Seng S. Dhanabalan Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Goh Chee Wee Yatiman Yusof Goh Choon Kang Yeo Cheow Tong Heng Chiang Meng Yeo Choo Kok Hu Tsu Tau Yeo Toon Chia Koh Lam Son Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Koh Lip Lin Zulkifli bin Mohammed Lai Tha Chai Lau Ping Sum Abstention Lau Teik Soon Lee Hsien Loong Tan Soo Khoon Motion accordingly negatived. ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE (Motion) Resolved, "That at its rising today Parliament do stand adjourned sine die." - [Mr S. Dhanabalan]. ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“Could you please produce the authority for that? Who is this wise man who gave you the advice? Or will you produce chapter and verse from Erskine May?”
“I heard the Leader of the House say that he has been advised that something is not the same as the practice in England. Would the Leader please repeat that?”
“This is exactly what I am saying in this Motion that this House should decide on the complaint. It has not been decided by this House. It should be debated in open Parliament on this quest- ion and then, for the information of the Leader of the House, we will show that there is clearly a breach of privilege. There is abundant authority for it. But I do not want to go into that because this is not the point. I am taking it up purely on a procedural point. The petition has not been dealt with, as required by Standing Orders and by the practice in the United Kingdom Parliament. That is my point, it has not been dealt with. And the poor petitioner has not even been told. But now, of course, he will be told that Parliament has not even dealt with his petition. It was a waste of time writing to Parliament.”
“No, no, we are not going to put it to the vote until I have finished because I am the mover of this motion. May we know from the Leader of the House, without any shilly-shallying, without being equivocal in all his answers, whether, first of all, this petition concerns a matter of privilege and, secondly, whether he agrees that the practice in England as set out in Erskine May is for all matters of privilege to be debated by the House? And if he agrees with that, would he tell this House when was this petition debated by this House? He says we can, of course, decide. But this is exactly what -”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I again (it is already 8.20) -”
“The Leader is misleading the House. On a point of order.”
“Here is a member of the public who writes to Parliament, to the high court of Parliament, to determine whether there has been a breach of privilege. And it is incumbent on us as Members of Parliament to decide that for ourselves whether it is a breach of privilege. The Leader would appear to take refuge or seek refuge behind the Attorney-General and his opinion. But that would be to (again I have to repeat) abdicate the functions of this House. Are we, representatives of the people, not qualified to decide on whether there has been a breach of privilege or not? This Government talks, times without number, about the quality of its Members, "They are all graduates, they are all professional men, top calibre." And now we have the Leader of the House saying we cannot decide on it. We have to accept what the Attorney-General says. It is not for the Attorney-General, Members of the House, to decide on the privileges of this House. It is for the Members of this House to decide the privileges and whether there has been any breach of that privilege. So I am sorry, but the Leader's reply to my motion is no reply. It is a complete evasion and avoidance of the issue raised in this motion and may I say that I find that very regrettable.”
“No, I have not, Mr Leader. Restrain yourself a little bit. There it is, plain as a pikestaff, that when it comes to matters of privilege, when there is a complaint of a matter of privilege, the House debates it. And it is also provided in our Standing Orders because if it is a matter of privilege it stands referred to the Committee of Privileges. What do you find when you look at the Standing Orders relating to the Committee of Privileges? That is Standing Order 95(7), Committee of Privileges. I do not want to read the whole of that Standing Order but it is paragraph (e) of that Standing Order which is relevant and that is this: 'The Leader of the House shall, upon receiving notice from the Clerk that copies of a report from the Committee have been made available to Members, give notice of a motion expressing the opinion of Parliament in regard to the report.' I hope that is clear to the Leader of the House. What the Standing Order says is that when a matter of privilege has been referred to the Committee of Privileges, and they submit a report,that report on a matter of privilege must be debated in Parliament because the Leader of the House shall, once he receives the report, "give notice of a motion expressing the opinion of Parliament in regard to the report." This is why at the last sitting I said I expected the Leader of the House to have given notice of a motion on this petition which affected the privilege of this House. But, of course, he did not. And this is why I tried to raise it on a point of order, and I was told that I was out of order in raising it. We all know that interpretations of sections are for the courts in proceedings that come before the courts. Here, we have been asked to determine this interpretation.”
“- the power to decide. He does not answer that. The Member for Potong Pasir referred the House to Standing Order No. 104 which says that Standing Orders shall be interpreted in the light of the relevant practice of the Commons House of Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - "shall be interpreted in the light of the relevant practice of the Commons House of Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". I hope that is plain enough for the Leader and that he understands what that means. Then I have, so has the Member for Potong Pasir, pointed out that if one looks at the practice in the House of Commons as presented by Erskine May, what does one find? I read this - I do not want to read it again - that if it is a matter of privilege it does not even go to the Public Petitions Committee. It is taken up by the whole House and debated. If the Leader says that the practice of the House of Commons is wrong, then perhaps he should put them right. He should write to the Speaker of the House of Commons and say, "You know, your practice is all wrong. I do not think you should debate matters of privilege. You should send them to the Public Petitions Committee and let the Public Petitions Committee decide that." Would you like to do that and let us know what the reply will be from the Speaker of the House of Commons?”
“If I may say so without being disrespectful to the Leader of the House, I did not expect him to be able to reply to the points that were made. I am sorry that the Leader of the House has completely missed the point probably because he is unable to answer the point that was made and therefore took the easy way out of completely ignoring it and pretending as though the point was not there. The question is whether it was the prerogative or the function of the Public Peti- tions Committee to decide on the petition. I have pointed out for the information of the Leader of the House that Standing Order No. 95(6) does not give the Public Petitions Committee -”
“But in my motion, I have suggested that perhaps we should send the petition now to the Committee on Privileges because it raises privilege. It is important for the powers of this House, for the continuation of the institution of Parliament, that we should show our readiness to extend protection to persons who take part in the proceedings of this House at the express invitation of this House. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 7.56 pm”
“' "Parliament should not preclude the court". The petitioner is not asking Parliament to preclude the court. The petitioner was asking Parliament to declare whether he was taking part in parliamentary proceedings and whether he was within the privilege of Parliament. The Committee agreed with the Attorney-General's views. As I have said earlier, the Public Petitions Committee had no business to even consider whether the petition should be heard or not. It was not the function of the Public Petitions Committee but, I am sorry to have to say this, they have misconceived their functions and powers and reported in this Report that it would not be proper for Parliament to intervene in the legal proceedings against Mr Sivadas. That Report was tabled, was sent to all Members, but it was never discussed in this House. What is more pertinent is that this petitioner, who presented a petition to this House, was not even given a reply. I understood that until yesterday he had not been given any reply from the representatives of the people to whom he appealed to declare whether he was protected by Parliamentary privilege. It seems to me, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that it is a failing in courtesy on the part of this House, but that is not what I am complaining about. I am complaining about the much wider principle which is at stake, whether we are going to take cognizance of the privileges of Parliament. This being a petition affecting a matter of privilege should be referred to the Committee on Privileges if that is the wish of this House. I am not saying it need necessarily be. It can also be discussed in this House in any debate without reference even to the Committee on Privileges.”
“The Public Petitions Committee sought the advice of the Attorney-General on this. The Attorney-General gave his advice. His advice was that Parliament should not do anything about it. I am sorry to have to say this, but the learned Attorney-General is in error. He is abysmally wrong when he states in his advice: 'The privilege of Parliament exists principally for the protection of Members of the House in the performance of their functions. Parliament should not, therefore, readily exercise its jurisdiction over any case involving Parliamentary privilege pending before the court where no Member or officer of Parliament is involved.' As I have said, parliamentary privilege extends to anybody, a member of the public who takes part in parliamentary proceedings. The Attorney-General would appear to have treated the whole thing as an invitation to Parliament to try and stop the court from hearing the case. That is not the purpose of the petition, and I do not suppose Parliament can just say to the court, "You can't hear this." But that is how the Attorney -General has approached it. That this was perhaps an application to Parliament for a directive to be sent to the court not to entertain the suit. It is a complete misconception on the part of the Attorney-General. And may I say that his advice or report displays, as I have said earlier, abysmal ignorance of Parliamentary practice and procedure. He says: 'Parliament should not, therefore, preclude the court from determining the matter unless it is clear beyond doubt that there has been a breach of one of its recognised and established privileges and that the intervention of Parliament is essential at this stage to prevent obstruction or threat of obstruction to Parliamentary proceedings.”
“You have got it there quite clearly. "All public petitions, except petitions regarding a personal grievance ... or matters of privilege,". Except petitions on matters of privilege, other petitions stood referred to the Committee on Public Petitions. Then Erskine May goes on about the functions of this Public Petitions Committee, and he says later on: 'It had, for instance, no power to investigate or report on the merits of any petition, or to interrogate representatives of government departments or other persons as to possible remedial action.' That is the 19th edition, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Perhaps I should inform Members of this House that in the House of Commons, the Public Petitions Committee has been dissolved, and now all petitions go straight to the Minister to be dealt with, except for matters of privilege. The Minister has to report on the petition to the House. You will find in the 20th edition of Erskine May, Public Petitions, again what has already been dealt with in the 19th edition, the statement that the discussion of petitions relating to present personal grievances, "the petition may be brought into discussion on the presentation thereof". And they give the illustration of a petition that was presented in 1844. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is quite clear that this being a petition raising a matter of privilege should have been considered by the House or should have been referred to the Committee on Privileges. That it is a matter concerning a privilege is even acknowledged by the Public Petitions Committee in its Report, when they set out the head note that the legal proceedings be declared a breach of the privileges of Parliament. How did the Public Petitions Committee go about this?”
“They are simply to prepare the petition in such form and manner as shall best convey to Parliament all the information required. In other words, they have got to get information about whatever is said in that petition that is necessary so that Parliament may consider it when it comes to debating the petition. It is not, as I read Standing Order 95(6), for the Public Petitions Committee to decide whether the petition should be considered or not or even to decide on the merits of that petition. It is for Parliament. But more than that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this petition raises a matter of privilege. And I have it on the authority of Erskine May that if there is a matter of privilege that is raised, then it must be debated by the House. It must be considered by the House and not by a Committee. May I quote from the 19th edition of Erskine May at page 821: 'Petitions affecting privilege. - Although the Standing Orders restrict debate to urgent cases, that restriction does not extend to a petition complaining of a matter affecting the privileges of the House, such a case being governed by the general rule that a question of privilege is always entitled to immediate consideration.' See how they take the questions of privilege? They take them very seriously. 'Committee on Public Petitions - Formerly, all public petitions, except petitions regarding a personal grievance if dealt with under S. O. No. 101, or matters of privilege, stood referred under Standing Order to the "Committee on Public Petitions," under whose directions they were classified and, when necessary, printed at length.' The important part of this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that it is only petitions other than Petitions on matters of privilege which stood referred to the Committee on Public Petitions.”
“And he then found that he was faced with legal proceedings in respect of what he said in his memorandum to the Select Committee. So he sought the protection of this House. He asked the House in his petition to declare that it would be wholly wrong to visit him with any sanction because of his having taken part in parliamentary proceedings. That is all he was asking. He was, in fact, saying, "Well, you invited me, honourable Members of Parliament, through your Select Committee, to make representations and I did. And now I am faced with proceedings". And so he asks this House to declare that he was taking part in parliamentary proceedings and that it would be a breach of parliamentary privilege for anyone to question him outside. But what do we do? What did we do to that complaint? It was referred to the Petitions Committee in accordance with Standing Orders. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if your look at Standing Order 95(6) which relates to the Public Petitions Committee, you will find what the functions of the Public Petitions Committee are. According to Standing Order 95(6), the functions are: 'It shall be the duty of the Committee to consider all Petitions referred to it under the provisions of Standing Order No. 17 to classify such Petitions, prepare abstracts thereof in such form and manner as shall appear to it best suited to convey to Parliament all requisite information respecting their contents and the signatures attached thereto and to report the same from time to time to Parliament.' There you have it, the functions and duties of the Public Petitions Committee. It must be apparent to Members from what I have read that the function of the Public Petitions Committee is purely secretarial.”