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 45 of 82.
“The question that arises in this motion is that wide one - not the narrow one of trying to save the petitioner from the legal proceedings to which he has been subjected, but the much wider one - whether we, as Parliament, are zealous of the privileges and rights which are absolutely necessary for the proper functioning of Parliament? If we are to uphold the tradition of Parliament, then we must be zealous. We must uphold the right of any citizen in this country to come forward before Parliament and to say, what he wishes to say without fear of any sanction being brought against him. Otherwise, the whole purpose of Parliament is lost. Now, what is this that this petitioner is complaining? This petitioner was invited, and when I say "was invited", I do not, of course, mean that a special invitation was extended to him, that he was singled out, but he was invited as a member of the public to make representations to the Select Committee on a Bill that was before Parliament. And being a good citizen and being desirous of doing his part, he submitted a representation to the Select Committee on that Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there was no doubt that he was taking part in parliamentary proceedings, albeit he was not a Member of Parliament. That, I assure you, is on the authority of cases which go back to the 18th century. He was taking part in parliamentary proceedings. He was invited by the Select Committee as a member of the public to make representations, and he did. So he was taking part in parliamentary proceedings. After he submitted his memorandum to the Select Committee, the Select Committee concluded its deliberations and published its report and, of course, it included the representation made by this man as an appendix to the report.”
“Otherwise, Parliament will not get the information it needs from members of the public. It is as simple as that. If any member of the public thought, "If I report something to Parliament, I might be faced with a court action or I might be faced with Police action", then he will not report it to Parliament. And Parliament is there for that specific purpose, as the representatives of the people, to consider the people's complaints, the people's interests. So it is important that any member of the public who takes part in parliamentary proceedings is equally protected and he should be assured that he can impart information to Parliament, he can appear before Parliament, before any Committee of Parliament and give evidence without any fear that whatever he said would be questioned outside Parliament. I keep saying "outside Parliament" because Parliament itself may censure any Member for anything he says or does and equally may censure any member of the public if he abuses the privilege accorded to him by Parliament. But it is only for Parliament to decide whether a member of the public has abused this privilege and not for anybody outside. Otherwise, Parliament as an institution cannot flourish. We have already in our statute books the protection accorded to witnesses in court proceedings. Whatever a witness says in court is protected. Likewise, whatever he tells Parliament, Parliament is the high court of Parliament, must be protected. I mentioned earlier this afternoon about Parliament zealously guarding its powers of taxation. Equally, may I say that we should be zealous of the privileges that Parliament enjoys. Because once you give up those privileges, then the institution of Parliament will decay.”
“And under the Parliamentary Privileges and Immunities Act, no proceedings in the House shall be questioned outside the House. No one shall be questioned outside the House for anything that he says in this House. And that is important, Sir, because Parliament consists of the representatives of the people. If there is to be frank, full discussion, uninhibited discussion on any matter that concerns the country or its inhabitants, then it is equally vital that that discussion should be protected from any sanction, from any quarter outside the House. That is, may I say, the cornerstone of parliamentary tradition and government. And Parliament has zealously guarded its privileges. It has throughout the ages fought for these privileges and refused to give up any of its privileges. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if a Member thought that whatever he said in this House, whatever he said before the Committee, would be questioned outside the House, then there is a clog put on the Member and he will not be able to represent the interests of these for whom he was elected. Equally, I know it does not concern a Member and we are going to be told this does not concern a Member and I see that the Attorney-General falls into that error as well. I shall have something to say about the Attorney-General's opinion. The protection equally applies to any member of the public who takes part in any parliamentary proceedings. Sir, I do not have to spell this out. It must be abundantly clear to Members of the House that if any member of the public is invited to partake in parliamentary proceedings, to give some information to the House, to Parliament, and he does so, then he must be protected from any consequence of having done so that may put him in peril.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House resolves - (i) that the Report of the Public Petitions Committee (Parl. 3 of 1985) presented on the 16th of October 1985 be rejected; and (ii) that the Petition which was the subject of the said Report be referred to the Committee of Privileges. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at the last sitting of Parliament, I raised this as being a point of order. I was then told, and the House ruled, that it was not a point of order and that I was not allowed to raise it without having given notice of any motion to this House of my intention to raise it. Of course, I accepted that ruling, and hence I gave notice to raise the motion at this sitting of the House. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hate to say this. But I am convinced that it is a point of order and that it should have been raised at the last sitting. I shall explain why it is a point of order further on when I elaborate on the Standing Orders. But may I say that I have it on no less an authority than Erskine May in his treatise on the proceedings of the House of Commons. Sir, this particular motion is not brought before this House, let me assure the Members, to save the petitioner from the consequences of any legal proceedings, although it may have that result. But that is not the object of this motion. My object goes much wider than that. It is the whole principle of parliamentary privilege that is at stake. If you look at the Parliament (Privileges, and Immunities and Powers) Act, you find it enacted that Parliament shall be possessed of several privileges. And, of course, this means Members of the House, and not only Members but persons who take part in parliamentary proceedings are protected.”
“' In subsection (2), it says: 'Any person aggrieved by any order of the Authority under subsection (1) may appeal to the High Court.' So that is provided for in the case where the Authority prohibits persons from carrying on business as insurance agent or insurance broker in Singapore. Why is there not a similar protection given under clause 4 and clause 5 of the Bill? If one turns to clause 20 (Amendment of section 20) where the Authority is given power to cancel the licence of an insurance agent or broker issued under the Act, one again finds that there is no remedy provided for the insurance agent or broker whose licence is cancelled under the power of the Authority. Is there not some inconsistency in all this? In one particular case, the proposed amendment allows an appeal to the High Court. In all the other cases, it removes even an appeal to the Minister and does not go on to provide any appeal to the High Court. I share the views expressed by the Member for Whampoa about the need not to unduly and harshly penalize people who perhaps unwittingly lapse into committing an error. But more important than that, it is vital, as I see it, that any decision of the Authority should be subject to a review, otherwise it erodes confidence among the business community and that is not something that we want in Singapore.”
“Then if you move on to the proposed section 6 in clause 5 of this Bill, one finds that the Authority is given powers to cancel the registration. The Member for Whampoa has gone through the proposed section and I do not propose to repeat it. The powers are very wide. Again, there is nothing in the proposed section which allows an appeal against the Authority's decision. If one looks at the explanatory note, there is specific mention that the power of appeal to the Minister is being removed. It does, of course, require the Authority to give notice to the insurer of its intention to cancel and to hear him. But that is not good enough. Why have we removed the remedy of an appeal, albeit to the Minister, however inadequate? I have said many times that the appeals to the Minister are inadequate on a number of things. But why have we removed even that appeal? Is it also the intention here that the person who is aggrieved by the cancellation should be allowed to have recourse to the courts? I hope it is. If it is, then I would suggest that there should be another section allowing the person aggrieved to appeal to the court. And you find this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in clause 19 of the Bill. Clause 19 enacts a new section 19A after section 19, which says: 'The Authority may by order prohibit any person from carrying on business as insurance agent or insurance broker in Singapore or from taking part directly or indirectly in the management of any insurance agent or broker in Singapore where the person has been convicted of an offence involving fraud, dishonesty, or moral turpitude or the Authority is satisfied that the person has been involved in any activity prejudicial to the public interest.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have reservations on two or three clauses in this Bill and my reservations spring from the fears expressed by the Member for Whampoa. My reservations relate to the power now given to the Monetary Authority of Singapore to register any person who wishes to carry on insurance business in Singapore. Previously it was the Commissioner for Insurance. Now the power will be transferred to the Monetary Authority of Singapore. The law as it stands now, where the Commissioner refuses registration, anyone may appeal to the Minister and that is to be found in section 4(5)(a) of the present Act. But in the proposed amendment of section 4 contained in clause 3, paragraph (b), there is no provision for any appeal to the Minister where the Authority refuses to register a person who wishes to carry on insurance business in Singapore. I wonder what the reason for this is. Is it because it is intended that the person who is refused registration should have recourse to other remedies and of course I mean to the courts? I hope that is the intention, that anyone who is refused registration by the Authority can ask the courts to look at it, not on the merits, but to see whether the Authority has applied the Act strictly in accordance in refusing the registration and whether its judgment on the question on whether a person had misled the Authority is right or wrong. If that is their intention, then there should be a provision in this Bill providing for an appeal to the courts. But I cannot see it. So will the Minister be good enough to explain why the present appeal to the Minister is to be removed without any remedy being given to a person who is aggrieved by the refusal of the Authority to register his insurance business in Singapore?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may it be recorded that I voted against this Bill at all stages.”
“We can save the expense of paying Members of Parliament. We can save the expense of maintaining this House. But if we are going to preserve Parliamentary rule and the supremacy of Parliament, then we must not abdicate our powers.”
“We now find that the Government has no intention of doing away with payroll tax. The Minister in March was saying that it was necessary to do away with it to simplify the tax structure. But obviously it now appears that they have got over that objection and they think it is not necessary to do away with the payroll tax to simplify the tax structure. But what is worse is this. This amendment now continues the payroll tax. But the sting is this. It now delegates to the Minister the rate at which the payroll tax is to be collected. I have - I am sorry that I keep saying "I have" - I have more than once in this House said that delegated legislation which gives the Ministers of the Government the power to levy tax or any charge or fee without the consent of Parliament was an abdication of the power of Parliament. It has been long established, and for which Parliament had to fight - I am sorry. Of course, I am referring to the English Parliament because this is the tradition we borrowed - Parliament had long to fight for the sole right to impose any tax or charge on the people. They resented the authority given to anybody else. And now the House of Commons has the sole right to impose tax, and attention has been drawn as far back as 1926 to the dangers of giving to the Ministers any power to levy any tax as that must remain within the sole preserve of Parliament. What are we doing now in 1986? We are again abdicating. Parliament is abdicating its function when Parliament should decide whether any tax should be imposed and at what rate the tax should be imposed. We are abdicating that power to a Minister of the Government. Is that necessary? If that is to be the order of the day in Singapore, then we might as well do without Parliament. We can forget about Parliament.”
“This is another illustration of the sort of double talk that we have from this Government. In one breath, they say they did not want the payroll tax. It was not needed for the revenue. But having said that, they go on collecting it as part of the revenue. Then in 1985 in the Budget statement, the then Minister for Finance announced to the relief of several Members of this House, and I am sure to the relief of employers and people outside this House, that he had decided to suspend the payroll tax. I have the Hansard here, the sitting of the 8th March 1985 [Vol. 45, No. 7, col. 496]. He said: 'I now move on to the tax changes. In an Addendum to the President's Address at the Opening of Parliament, I stated that one of the objectives of the Ministry of Finance was to simplify the tax structure wherever possible.' I would pause here and repeat again "to simplify the tax structure wherever possible." 'In line with this objective and to alleviate the burden of costs on companies, I have decided to suspend with effect from 1 April 1985, the collection of Payroll tax. I do not know what the other Members of the House thought. But I certainly was left with the impression that payroll tax was to be abolished, that it was going to be removed from our statute books. He did not use the word "temporarily". He did not say, "for the next one year or two years." He said, "I have decided to suspend ... the collection of Payroll tax." When I was speaking on the Budget statement, I pointed out to him that he had no powers to suspend the payroll tax under the Finance Act and that a Bill had to be introduced to abolish it altogether. Well, we never saw that Bill until this Bill was presented to the House. And what do we find?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose this Bill. Sir, the payroll tax was first introduced when we were part of Malaysia. It was a Malaysian Finance Act which introduced the payroll tax. When we came out of Malaysia on the 9th August 1965, it was left to us to determine whether any tax or laws should be continued. And speaking in this House as far back as 1983, I pointed out the debate that took place in this House on this very matter, the payroll tax. Then several Members and the Minister said that the payroll tax was a very unwise measure that was introduced by the Malaysian government. And that the then Singapore State Government had opposed the introduction of the payroll tax but, of course, being part of Malaysia, they could not do anything about it. But the Minister went on to declare that the Government would set aside the funds collected from the payroll tax for the welfare of the workers. They were not going to have it. It was not necessary for the Consolidated Fund to have the payroll tax paid into it. Singapore was not in need of the monies. But as I pointed out in 1983, those solemn words made by the Minister for Labour in a 1965 sitting of this House were completely forgotten the moment the sitting was over. Nothing was done about setting up a fund for the workers out of the payrol tax monies that were collected. And year after year, the monies were paid into the Consolidated Fund against this solemn declaration made by the then Minister in this House. And so it continued. When I asked the then Minister for Finance, the late Mr Hon Sui Sen, in this House, he said that he had no intention of giving up the payroll tax. But there were nevertheless protests against the imposition of the payroll tax.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. I am sorry it is taking up the time of this House. But again, I am afraid, the Minister has not completely understood the purport of my objection. As he points out, the court has powers to seize the vehicle if it has been used in the commission of an offence. Then he points out that the other provisions are left to the Attorney-General to decide. The court has no discretion if the Attorney-General makes the application and the court finds that the vehicle has been used in the commission of the offence. My question to him was: should the court not be allowed to decide whether the owner was privy to the offence, and not just left to the Attorney-General?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, again my concern is with the possibility of people losing their vehicles through no fault of their own, that is, when they themselves have not been shown to be guilty of the offence for which the vehicle is made seizable. The Member for Potong Pasir pointed out instances of owners of properties which are let out and where the tenant indulges in illegal gambling activities, and the owner is then taken to task. This, of course, applies with much more force in the case of vehicles. I understand the Minister to say that the Bill provides that, on the application of the Attorney-General, the court shall make the order. Well, is the owner going to be given an opportunity to make representations? And will the law provide that where the owner is shown to be completely innocent in the commission of the offence, will his vehicle be returned to him?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not going to repeat what I said when talking on the Betting (Amendment) Bill but, of course, I stand by all that I said and it applies with equal force here. I again make the call - I know it will not be heeded - that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. Finally, may I make the point which has already been made about the enhanced penalty now for those who gamble in public. Previously the maximum fine was $500 and they were normally fined about $100 or $150. Now the maximum is lifted to a $5,000 fine. It seems to me to be unduly severe.”
“May I clarify with the Minister that he has completely misunderstood the suggestion that it be referred to a Select Committee? The merit in referring it to a Select Committee is that a body of this House considers the recommendations. We know that the Law Society have made recommendation to the Minister, which he has rejected. But he is not the Select Committee. The Select Committee considers the recommendations and it gives an opportunity to others, besides the Law Society, to make recommendations. I am astonished that the Minister cannot see the difference. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry but may I reply to this complete distortion? As I said, it is probably the Minister is getting a bit too old. I thought he was going to reveal something so completely inconsistent with what I said this afternoon, but then what do we find? I thought he was going to bring something out of his bag. Instead we find a statement that I made - that whilst I support the Government's efforts to stamp out illegal gambling, I would urge the Government to take care that innocent people are not caught in the net. What have I said this afternoon that is inconsistent with that? Perhaps the Minister is unable to comprehend what I said. I am not advocating illegal gambling. I was questioning the motives and the double standards of the Government. That is what you should answer - the double standards which say that you can have a flutter with us, you can gamble with us, but you cannot gamble yourself. If you think that is something to live by, well, so be it; that is the Government's policy: double standards.”
“You are not only going blind, you are going senile.”
“May I ask you, first of all, to say what I said this afternoon?”
“My reply is as follows: 'It is erroneous to say that a new offence of loitering has been created for the purpose of betting or wagering or bookmaking. The Law Society has failed to note that this offence in fact already exists, section 5(3)(b) of the Betting Act. The proposed amendment is merely a drafting amendment to reflect the position more clearly.' If Members have any doubt, let me point out section 5(3)(b) of the existing law, and I quote: 'Any person who, inter alia, for the purpose of bookmaking or betting or wagering or settling bets frequents or loiters ...'. So how can it be said that a new offence of loitering has been created when, in fact, this amendment recasts and re-enacts the offence of loitering which already is to be found in the existing law? I shall stop there, Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as my reply to the Law Society is concerned. I think the Member for Potong Pasir should have checked with the Secretary of the Law Society as to whether there was a reply from the Minister and whether he had the Law Society's sanction to refer to both. Now, the Member for Anson. It is really incredible that he can make such a fast about-turn. Not so long ago he said that "he appreciates the need for the Police to take action against any form of illegal bookmaking." I repeat "any form of illegal bookmaking." Now he comes here and says, "No, this is wrong. This is double standards." Well, I see he has a very quizzical look on his face. Mr Jeyaretnam rose -”
“That is a matter for the Law Society to look at. Prof. Jayakumar: Right. But the question is, whether it was given to the Member for Potong Pasir and whether the Member for Potong Pasir has sought clearance for it to be divulged in this House. I have asked him on several occasions and he did not answer the question whether he had the authority to divulge it in the House. He, together with the Member for Anson, and certain other Members in this House are Members of the House and they are also members of the legal profession. Certain correspondence and certain information to which they may be privileged recipients, as members of the legal profession, but other Members may not be privy to it. And for him to rely on it, point by point, as if this was a great exposition of views of his own until I had to intervene and say that this was not so, it is a very disappointing conduct of a member of the House. And it is just fortuitous that, although my eyesight is growing old, I could see some resemblance between his speech and the document that I have seen. He made a big song and dance about the presumptions. He said that I am wrong in saying that apart from betting information centres and obstruction of police officers, no new offences are created. He says "This is wrong. The Minister is wrong." Why? He refers to the Law Society memorandum and says, "Ah, a new offence of loitering is created. The Minister is wrong." I will not divulge everything that I have said to the Law Society. I will just quote one portion to show how foolhardy it will be for him to rely on that his allegation, based on the Law Society memorandum, is that a new offence of loitering is created.”
“And now at this time of recession, when many are thrown out of employment, some of them may be forced to seek employment in this sort of thing. It is of course illegal but, as has been pointed out, it will be legal if they go and work for the Singapore Pools betting centres. What we are proposing to do is to punish these people, not the big operators, but the small people who are runners, who are agents, and who assist the promoter in any way to run a lottery. Under the law as it stands now, Mr Speaker, Sir, a runner on conviction is subject to a minimum $500 fine. With the amendment, he is subject to a fine of $20,000. Likewise, an agent, who is subject to a minimum $500 fine under the present law, will, after this Bill becomes law, be subject to a minimum fine of $20,000; and it may go up to $200,000. Are these people, runners and agents, in any position to pay these fines? The result will be that they will be sent to prison. And there will be an overcrowding of our prisons, if you are going to enforce this Act with all the severity that this Government is capable of. So I hope more thought will be given to the purpose and the motive for this Bill, and that it should be considered not only by a Select Committee but also outside.”
“Then you throw the burden on to an accused person. He has got to prove himself innocent. This is something completely alien to the system of justice that we have observed in this country. I know presumptions have been introduced before and this is not the first time. But there seems to be a growing tendency to pack our criminal Acts with presumptions. I understand that the Law Society has presented a memorandum to the Minister. I take it that it was with his concurrence that they presented a memorandum to him. I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to what is set out in that memorandum, and perhaps will agree that this Bill should now be referred to a Select Committee so that the representation of the Law Society and others who are interested may be considered. We were only told this morning, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the draft of the proposed new Securities Industry Bill was sent to the Stock Exchange as far back as May for their comments and somehow they were not happy about it and so nothing was done. I am tempted to ask: Why is the Committee of the Stock Exchange given such special treatment? Here is the Law Society which has submitted a memorandum, I understand. Would the Minister agree that the Bill should now be referred to a Select Committee so that the Law Society may present its views and be heard on it and anyone else may present their views on this problem? Finally, about the punishment. Mr Speaker, Sir, we glibly talk about punishing the operators. Everybody knows that the people who get caught are the small people, people who are employed by these operators. It is the runners who collect and settle bets or those who assist a bookmaker, an agent.”
“So I do not know why the environmental problem is posed as the main reason because, as has been pointed out, the Turf Club presents a problem, an environmental problem, to the people living there and to motorists, and the proposed setting up of Singapore Pools betting centres in housing estates will equally present a problem. So it would appear that what the Government is saying to our citizens is: You may gamble with us but you may not gamble with anybody else. If you want to have a flutter, the only persons with whom you can have a flutter is us. I would ask the Minister to consider what has already been said and to try and be logical and consistent in the application of Government's policies and to state quite clearly what is the reason for this Bill. If it is a question of revenue, because the Government is losing revenue as a result of illegal gambling, then the answer is to license them, away from housing estates, and collect the revenue. Or is the motive of the Government to drive more and more gamblers to the Turf Club and to the Singapore Pools so that more revenue may be collected? The other point is presumptions. I know the Minister says glibly that the presumptions are rebuttable. But it has been observed, Mr Speaker, Sir, by many a Judge and no less than by Lord Devlin, a very distinguished jurist in England and I am sure the Minister for Home Affairs knows this, who has gone on record as saying that presumptions are odious. They reverse the burden of proof. Our system of law is that an accused person is innocent until he is proved and found guilty. Presumptions reverse this. It is, of course, very convenient, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the Police and for the Prosecution if our statutes which regulate or punish criminal activities are full of presumptions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I also make my position quite clear: that I am not a gambler nor do I favour gambling in any form. But what I do want to question here is the motive of the Government in the introduction of this Bill. I say this because, as has been pointed out, there is legalized gambling. Last year, plans were announced of steps being taken to popularize legalized gambling and, as the Member for Changkat has pointed out, plans were announced of setting up betting centres for the Singapore Pools, even in housing estates. I do not want to repeat all that has been said by the Member for Queenstown and by the Member for Changkat. But it is these double standards of this Government that I find so abhorrent. What this Government appears to be doing is to say to our citizens: You must practise what I preach but you must not practise what I do. I see that the Minister, however, did not put it on a moral plane. This is why I am questioning the motives. He proposed to put it purely on a social problem, an environmental problem. He said that this illegal gambling was posing an environmental social problem in housing estates. I would be the first to agree that that is something which we could do without in our housing estates. We do not want this environmental problem mushrooming in all housing estates. But if that is the only concern of the Government, then of course there is an answer to it and, that is, to allow, as the Member for Queenstown has said, people who wish to promote public lotteries or games of chance to set up their centres outside housing estates, license them and then collect the revenue from them for that.”
“The Member does not seem to understand the use of English.”
“The Minister has asked me to reply to his point about which countries provide for appeals to the Privy Council in criminal matters. The Minister must know that Singapore does not provide for appeals to the Privy Council. One has to go to the Privy Council again and get special leave from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council before one can take up the appeal to the Privy Council. So here you do not provide it. We have to go to the Privy Council for permission before we can take an appeal to it. Secondly, the Minister wants to know how many other countries provide for appeals to the Privy Council. Hong Kong is one. There are a number of other countries which still retain the Judicial Committee's Appeal. But the point is this. Would the Minister tell the House in how many countries does an appeal stop with the first appeal? And in how many countries does an appeal stop with the first appeal? Would the Minister tell this House in how many countries does the Public Prosecutor have an unqualified right of appeal from an acquittal? Would he tell us that? Would he also tell us in how many countries does the Public Prosecutor have a second right of appeal, as I told the House, in this provision, from the appellate judge's decision if the Public Prosecutor requests it? Will the Minister answer those questions?”
“Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Minister for some reason known to himself clearly wants to completely misunderstand what I said. I did not say "he should have been". I said "if he were to be promoted, the next promotion would have been the High Court Bench". I did not say, "You should have promoted him to the High Court Bench." Please try and follow what I said.”
“Please answer that question. Judges of the High Court. Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson can speak later, after I have finished my reply. Replying to the Member for Anson, I do not have the figures for the criminal cases which would be now going to the Subordinate Courts, but I understand that they are in the minority and the majority of cases would be the civil cases. As for the rest of what he has said, it is in fact a regurgitation of what he said in the Second Reading of the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill. Although he has made a long speech on the importance of appeals and administration of justice, clearly, Sir, his is a jaundiced view. For when he talks of the views of the public, what he really refers to is his own views. And his own views cannot be taken seriously or completely impartially here, for as he himself has said, that he is an involved party in the cases which he has referred to in this House. The Judge whom he refers to was involved in the case in which the Member for Anson was a party. So how can he expect this House to take his views as being serious. And really, Mr Speaker, Sir, he has decided who is fit for promotion and who is not fit for promotion. He says that particular Judge should have - this is his own words - "should have been promoted." I do not know. I do not sit on the Legal Service Commission.”
“Please answer the question. It is Judges of the High Court he is asking.”
“As I said, it is important that in our administration of criminal law and criminal justice, we should be seen to be acting fairly, and that the scales are held fairly between the prosecutor and the accused, that the Prosecution is not given undue advantage over the accused.”
“But what is important is that the administration of criminal law and justice should be seen to be done fairly and to protect the individual and that he is not harshly prevented from seeking his remedies. I have mentioned the provision in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act which provides for reference to the Court of Criminal Appeal. I said that it was purely left to the appellate judge to decide whether he should refer the questions to the Court of Criminal Appeal. I asked the Registrar of the Supreme Court if he would let me have the number of cases since the provision was enacted in which reference was permitted by the appellate judge to the Court of Criminal Appeal. He said he was unable to give me the number of cases. But I know myself over the past few years that most of the applications were refused so that the accused had no further way of testing his convictions. This provision is also to be found in the Malaysian Supreme Court of Judicature Act. The Minister may be aware that in 1982 or so the Malaysian Parliament amended that provision to enable an accused person who has his appeal dismissed by the High Court to make an application, not to the judge who heard the case but to the Federal Court, as it was then known, for the questions to be brought before it. That is an improvement so that the three judges then can decide whether those questions are questions that should be brought before them and not left to the decision of the judge who tried the appeal himself. I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have taken up your time, but I would urge the Minister to give consideration to this.”
“We allow an appeal to the Privy Council in civil claims for $2,000 but a man who is sentenced to seven years' imprisonment may not appeal. Is that the price we put on a man's liberty? Is that the value we attach to the freedom of the individual? We should think about this. Why this undue preference for monetary claims and not enough attention being paid to the claims of liberty and freedom of the individual in this country? The only thing we can do about this is to provide automatically a right of appeal for an accused person, who has his appeal from a Subordinate Court dismissed by the High Court Judge, to the Court of Criminal Appeal. I know the answer may come from the Minister that in that case the Court of Criminal Appeal will be inundated. There will be so many appeals coming in. Every accused person will want to have another bite. But why not, if he thinks it should be looked at again. One answer to this fear that the Court of Criminal Appeal may be inundated with appeals if that is allowed would be to restrict appeals from the decision of a High Court Judge sitting on an appeal from the Subordinate Court to appeals which raise substantive questions of law. This can be done where the Counsel certifies that there are questions of law. The other thing is that the Minister is perhaps aware that the Court of Criminal Appeal itself has the power to dismiss summarily any appeals if it thinks there are no substantive questions of law involved and all are pure questions of fact. 0So there is enough power in the courts to administer this, so that the Court of Criminal Appeal is not inundated with criminal appeals from all and sundry persons.”
“There is a provision in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act which provides that an accused, after he has been convicted in the Subordinate Courts and has appealed to the High Court and has his appeal dismissed, may apply to the Judge who heard the appeal to refer questions of law to the Court of Criminal Appeal. He may apply and the Judge who heard the appeal himself has to decide whether he would allow the reference on the questions of law to the Court of Criminal Appeal. And if the Judge refuses to refer the questions of law to the Court of Criminal Appeal, the man cannot take his case up to the Court of Criminal Appeal. But, and this is where it is so unequal in this society, Members of this House, if the Public Prosecutor asks the High Court Judge - for example, if the High Court Judge should allow the appeal and acquit the man - to refer the questions of law to the Court of Criminal Appeal, then the Judge has no discretion. He must refer those questions of law to the Court of Criminal Appeal, and so the Court of Criminal Appeal becomes seized of the matter and there it can be heard by three Judges sitting together and deliberating on the matter. But an accused person has not got that right. This is why I said the administration of the criminal law and justice here would appear to be unequal. It is weighted in favour of the Prosecution and it discriminates against an accused's remedies. There is much to be said for a two-tier system of appeal. I think it is important, particularly in the serious criminal cases where a person is tried before a District Court and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment or five years' imprisonment. We are concerned with the man's liberty. Do we equate his liberty to below $2,000?”
“And, as he also pointed out, except for capital cases where the death sentence is mandatory, the District Judges may try any case provided the Public Prosecutor makes the application and the accused consents. So we have the position that District Judges can try criminal cases of great magnitude except for cases which carry the death sentence, and they can impose sentences up to seven years under the Criminal Procedure Code. But under the Misuse of Drugs Act, they can impose much more. They can put a man away for 20 years. Now, what remedies does this man have if he thinks that the conviction is wrong, that it should be looked at? At one time, Mr Speaker, Sir, in criminal cases, one could go right from the Magistrates' Courts to the Privy Council. Even a simple criminal case could be taken up to the Privy Council by a person if he thought that he had been wrongly convicted. But today, Sir, if a person is convicted in the Subordinate Courts, he may be sentenced to seven years' imprisonment, he may be sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment, what remedy has he got? It is not that he has not got any remedy. He can appeal under the Criminal Procedure Code to the High Court. It goes before a single Judge of the High Court. There is a provision in the Criminal Procedure Code which provides that if the Public Prosecutor requests, it can be put before three Judges or if the Judge himself thinks it should go before three Judges, it can be put before three Judges. But normally it goes to a single Judge. So we have an appeal from one District Judge and now we are giving him jurisdiction almost equivalent to the High Court Bench, from him to another single High Court Judge and it stops there. Perhaps I should qualify that and I will qualify it.”
“So whatever the Minister may say, the public have a different impression. The other point that I wish to bring up is the question of appeals. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill, we have now increased the amount before which an appeal may be taken from the Subordinate Courts to the High Court. Previously, it was $500 and now it has been increased. So the limit for civil cases in the Subordinate Courts which bars them from appealing is $1,000 or $2,000, whatever it is. But once they go up to the High Court and, provided the claim is $2,000 or more, they can take their appeals to the Court of Appeal. And if they are still not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, they can go up to the Privy Council without leave. I say "without leave" advisedly because it has been held by the Privy Council that the leave stipulated in the Judicial Committee Act is merely a formal leave and that there is no discretion in the Court of Appeal to refuse to grant leave in civil cases where the amount qualifies for appeal to the Privy Council. So you have a situation where a man with a $5,000 claim in the High Court can go right up all the way to the Privy Council. But the position is completely different when it comes to criminal cases. And now, Members, we have just been asked to give jurisdiction to the District Judges to try criminal cases where the maximum punishment provided is 10 years. But as the Minister has pointed out, there are a number of other Acts which provide for heavier punishment than 10 years and which have given the jurisdiction to the District Judges.”
“The solicitors were not told the reason except that the particular District Judge, who should have heard the case and before whom the case had been fixed originally, had been selected to attend a conference abroad. Well, I know District Judges must attend conferences, but it might be illuminating to know who decided that he should attend a conference abroad which clashed with the hearing of this case. So the result was that the case was transferred from a District Judge, who never had anything to do with the AG's Chambers, to another court where the Senior District Judge, as I said, had come not too long before that from the Attorney-General's Chambers. That, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry to have to say this, that was not the first time. There were at least two other instances, and I know this personally. There was one case where, after a decision was given, the man was transferred. That was about four or five years ago, and there was one case much earlier than that. These decisions were not acceptable. So what independence of the Subordinate Judiciary is there if the public see these things happening? The District Judges are under threat or fear of being transferred from their posts when they administer justice, whether it is civil or criminal. That is why I say that it is important, I see it as of cardinal importance, that if we are to maintain the structure of our society as a democratic society, as a stable society, as a society in which every member can repose confidence, then the Subordinate Court Judiciary should be seen to be immune, as I said, from the displeasure of the Executive. Unfortunately, the public do not see that at the moment. The public see that the District Judges are not immune and that they may suffer the displeasure of the Executive.”
“But in this particular case, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Senior District Judge, a very senior qualified man, was removed from that post and transferred to the Attorney-General's Chambers, to a post not higher than the post of Senior District Judge but to a post which was on level with the grade that he was then holding in the Legal Service. This is what I was talking about when I spoke on the earlier Bill. It did not need a foreign journal to say that that transfer was a demotion. May I say that many people in Singapore thought that that transfer was a demotion for that District Judge. So much for the independence of the District Judges who administer the criminal law. I would ask the Minister to consider this seriously because this is a matter which concerns the confidence of the people in the administration of criminal law and justice in this country. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may elaborate further, there is another instance; perhaps I should have classified that "the case" is my own case. I have no personal pecuniary interest in this but I must relate my experiences in this House. In 1985, when a re-trial was ordered on one charge, the trial was originally fixed for hearing before a particular District Judge in the Subordinate Courts. That District Judge had never been in the AG's Chambers. He had had a long tenure as District Judge. But a month before the trial began, the solicitors were informed, when they appeared, that the case would be transferred to the Senior District Judge who had replaced the Senior District Judge who tried the case in 1984. And this Senior District Judge had come from the AG's Chambers.”
“So it is as important as that, the administration of criminal justice. Because that, as I said, seeks to apply sanctions against members of the society. I mentioned, speaking on the other Bill, about the free transferability of District Judges from the courts to the Attorney-General's Chambers or to other departments. The Minister, in replying, would seem to dismiss the idea that there is any compulsion or there is any fear felt among District Judges about displeasing the Executive. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the beginning of 1984 a Senior District Judge, and he is the head of the Subordinate Courts, a man whose next elevation should be the High Court Bench, delivered judgment in a criminal case. Some months later, he was removed and he was transferred to the Attorney-General's Chambers. That was not a promotion. As I said a minute ago, a promotion would have been to the High Court Bench. Prior to that, two Senior District Judges (one of them in his time was not designated a Senior District Judge but was designated First Magistrate), two incumbents of that post, were elevated to the High Court Bench as permanent High Court Judges. A third one was also elevated, except that his appointment was made temporary and he held the appointment of a High Court Judge for two years at a time. I suppose, for completeness sake, I should mention there was another transfer of an incumbent of that post to the Attorney-General's Chambers to a post which was higher than the post that he was occupying as Senior District Judge. He went there as Acting Solicitor-General or may even be to the substantive post of Solicitor-General.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Minister indicated, this Bill is in line with the Bill which we have just taken through all stages, with the difference that this Bill seeks to give the District Judges greater jurisdiction in criminal cases. I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to tell us what would be the increase in the workload for District Judges in criminal cases with this amendment. How many cases would then be transferred or brought before the District Courts in excess of what they are already hearing at the moment? I make the same remarks about the need, and particularly in criminal cases, to see that cases are dealt with as expeditiously as possible, and that there should be no further delay caused in the hearing of criminal cases as a result of the District Judges being overloaded with work. Criminal cases should take priority over civil cases, and I hope that that will be borne in mind by the Ministry and by the others who regulate hearings in the courts. Mr Speaker, Sir, when I spoke on the earlier Bill and about the independence of our District Judges, I said I would have something more to say when we come to discussing this particular Bill, the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill. And before I move on to say something more, I propose to say that more than in civil cases there is a need, a greater need, that the public should have confidence in the administration of criminal justice. If there is no confidence, or if that confidence is eroded even in a small measure, then the result would be the collapse of the society. Because if you have no faith in the administration of criminal justice which seeks to punish members of the society, then you begin to lose faith in the society itself.”
“On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is the Minister not aware that I said that the Lord Chancellor wears three hats and that in his appointment of Judges he does not appoint them as a Member of the Cabinet?”
“This would then guarantee their tenure and make them less apprehensive about their future in the Service and to enable them the better to discharge their functions as judicial officers without any worry in their mind but to do their best according to their conscience. There is the other point, and that is about the quality of District Judges. May it not be said or may it not be thought for one moment that I am trying to detract from the quality of our present District Judges, but their jurisdiction will be increased, as I said, fivefold. Under the present Act, the only qualification is that they should have five years as a qualified person either in practice or in the Legal Service. The Government may consider the time has come perhaps to increase the period before qualified persons qualify themselves to be appointed District Judges. I see that in England even the Registrars of the County Courts have to have at least seven years' experience before the Lord Chancellor appoints anyone to the post. Then, finally, of course, there is the question of remuneration. If we are going to create a service exclusively for District Judges, then we have to see that they attract the best men into that service and that they be paid not excessively but adequately so that they may not feel the need to look to other pastures but will be quite content to stay within that service until retirement or until elevation to the High Court Bench. I would ask the Minister and the Government to give these matters their consideration.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was talking about the need for setting up a separate service for Judicial officers and particularly for the District Judges who would be a step higher than the Magistrates. I do not know whether I mentioned this morning that, as it stands at the moment, the District Judges, being members of the Legal Service, are freely transferable from serving as District Judges to either the AG's Chambers or to any other Government department. I mentioned, Mr Speaker, Sir, the position in England and was commending to the Government that it is time we thought of setting up a Judicial Service for Subordinate Courts; and if that is not considered necessary for all the Judicial officers in the Subordinate Courts, at least for the District Judges. We could have within that service itself avenues for promotion in that service and finally elevation to the High Court Bench. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a provision in the Constitution for the protection of the Supreme Court Judges. They may not be removed except for cause, either for misconduct or infirmity or whatever reason. They may also not be removed unless their case has been referred to a tribunal consisting of Judges, and for this purpose the President is empowered to recruit Judges from the Commonwealth. Forgive me that I should be talking about the British system and the Commonwealth. I hope I would not be accused of being an Anglo-phile but our judicial system stems from the British system, and this is why I refer to it. It may be necessary, and I would commend it to the Government, that there should be a similar restriction placed on the removal of District Judges from their posts.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister on these forward contracts whether he agrees that, in accepting these forward contracts, the stockbroking companies were advancing monies against the shares deposited with them and they were charging premium which, for all practical purposes, was interest on the monies advanced. And the rates for the interest were excessive in some cases. Has the MAS or the Government considered whether there have been violations of the Moneylenders Act?”
“May I ask one more question? May I ask why if the new Securities Industry Act was already drafted by May of last year, it was not presented to Parliament and then sent to a Select Committee so that the SES Committee could make its representations?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, as regards Pan-El, is the Minister aware that there were investigations into insider trading in this company as far back as February 1984, or was it 1985? Will the Minister say what was the result of those investigations into this insider trading? Secondly, about the massive forward share deals of $140 million entered into by Pan-El, will the Minister say whether the MAS was or was not aware of these massive deals in forward contracts on the part of Pan-El? Thirdly, regarding the Stock Exchange itself, the Minister said that it is self-regulatory. Are we to understand that the MAS had no one on the Committee of the Stock Exchange of Singapore? Although the Minister said that they were not obliged to submit reports, will he say whether the MAS was exercising any supervision at all over how the market was operated by the Committee?”
“Would the Minister explain why he is not in favour? Does he not realize that if major repairs are needed to an apartment, the expenditure on those major repairs is an investment for the contributor?”
“Is the Minister saying that the remisiers agreed to this penalty or deduction of a quarter of their takings?”
“Would the Hon. Minister say whether the roll-over concession which has now been granted - it would appear from the report on the 30th December, 1985 - to the $140 million Pan-El related forward contracts will also be granted for the balance of the $600 million forward contracts?”
“Does the Minister concede, and he would appear to have conceded, that it was imprudent, on the part of these stockbroking companies to have entered into forward contracts, although the Minister says they may not be illegal? Well, that is a matter to be decided. But would the Minister not agree that if the public are informed about this, then they would avoid companies which imprudently transact business on the stock market?”