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 48 of 82.
“It is also a point of order, and it concerns the petition that was presented - whether the Standing Orders have been followed in dealing with this petition that was presented to the House. It is a point of order. It concerns Standing Orders.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise on a point of order.”
“Sir, would the Minister say, where jobs were offered to these retrenched workers, whether the wages were of the same level or were much reduced?”
“Sir, does the Minister realize that a section of our community are required to pass proficiency tests in two languages? I am referring to the Chinese taxi drivers. Would he consider removing the restriction or the requirement to pass the Mandarin proficiency test?”
“Would the Minister say whether the reason for the Government's complete inaction on this matter is that the Straits Times serves it very well?”
“It serves the Government. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not holding any brief for any newspaper, but I think we have to look at the overall behaviour of companies over a period of time before deciding whether or not the companies are responsible and are justifiable in their pricing decisions. I would say that although the Straits Times is a monopoly, it is not a monopoly enforced by the Government and it is, in fact, open to anybody who wishes to break into the business to do so.”
“May we know which officers were considered for this conference?”
“Is the Minister holding a brief for The Star in this Parliament? Would the Minister please try and answer my question? And the question, I repeat, is: what was the claim of this officer over all the other officers? Were any other officers considered? And what was his claim?”
“Would the Minister try and answer my question? The question is: what was the claim of this particular officer to attend the Foreign Minister's con- ference? Have I made myself clear, Mr Minister?”
“Would the Minister say what particular claim did this officer have to attend the Foreign Ministers' conference in Kuala Lumpur in July? And were the claims of any other officers considered?”
“Would the Minister say whether only one officer was nominated or more than one officer was nominated?”
“Would the Minister say whether any officers attended the recent ASEAN Foreign Ministers' conference in Kuala Lumpur in July? Mr Goh Chok Tong: Sir, the answer is yes. I am surprised that that meeting is regarded as a political conference. In my view, a political conference is one where only politicians or parliamentarians attend. The meeting in question was a Foreign Ministers' meeting which included participation by officials. In that instance, an officer from the SAF was nominated to attend the conference.”
“Would the Minister state whether or not military officers have been selected to attend political conferences?”
“Does the Minister of State perhaps not realize the import of my question? Does he not realize that the clause in the covenant allows sale to anybody, not just SAF officers, provided the approval of MINDEF is obtained? And does he also not realize that that approval cannot be unreasonably withheld? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 1(g) stands. I am not a lawyer. But I am advised by legal officers that what MINDEF has done is strictly according to the law. SINGAPORE ARMED FORCES OFFICERS (Preparation for a Political Career) 4. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (a) whether it is the policy of the Government to prepare officers in the Armed Forces for a political career; and (b) how does the Government decide what political conferences army officers should be invited to attend and who should be selected. The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government does not have a policy of preparing officers in the Armed Forces for political careers.”
“Does the Ministry realize that they are changing their contract with the officers? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, the Ministry does not change contracts which it has entered into. In clause 1(g) of the lease of the sale of the flats, there is a covenant. The covenant states: 'Without prejudice to clause 1(e) [which is the bond period] not without the prior consent of the lessor in writing to assign, demise, underlet, divest, part with, dispose of or otherwise deal with (except by will) the title, estate, interest, right to or in the flat, or share or part with the possession, occupation of the flat, or any part thereof.' Therefore, the rules which MINDEF has made are perfectly within the meaning of this clause.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question for the Minister of State. As I understand him, when these flats were originally sold to these officers, they were told that the flats could only be sold again to MINDEF approved purchasers. Would the Minister of State appreciate that that is much wider than the restriction which I am told has now been brought in - that only SAF officers may buy them?”
“Question No. 3, Sir, on behalf of Mr Chiam. BG Lee Hsien Loong (for the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence): Mr Speaker, Sir, Normanton Park Housing Estate was built in 1977 for sale to SAF officers with the following objectives: Firstly, to attract SAF officers to sign on as regulars. Secondly, to retain good officers who have decided to make a career of the SAF. Thirdly, to enable SAF officers to own flats at lower prices. There were also the additional benefits when SAF personnel live together, of helping to build up the sense of identity, allowing quick mobilization of manpower when needed, and providing for the general welfare of families, especially when the officers are away. These objectives of building Normanton Park still apply. To further them, the lease for each of the Normanton Park units contains a covenant that seven years after purchase, the owner may, with the prior written consent of the lessor, sell the property, but only to an approved buyer. In order to preserve the SAF character of Normanton Park as long as possible, the Armed Forces Council has decided that approved buyers should be serving SAF officers. Initial, and no doubt resale, prices of the flats have taken this restriction into account. The point-block units were sold in 1977 at prices ranging from $36,000 to $39,000. Over the last 10 months, 42 of these units have been resold by the original owners at prices ranging from $128,000 to $180,000. A further 11 units are in the process of sale. It would therefore appear that owners have been able to find buyers for Normanton Park flats at acceptable prices.”
“I am asking you: did you inform him by letter?”
“May I know if he had the information by letter?”
“Because I want a clarification of his present threats.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification.”
“' What the Minister forgets is this man's complaint that these allegations that he was a member of the Communist Party of Malaysia and that he had been specifically instructed by the Communist Party of Malaysia to penetrate the Barisan Sosialis were never made to him. They were made for the first time this year, and the Minister says, "He could have rebutted these allegations before the independent review board." I cannot follow this answer of the Minister. You have had this man detained for 19 years. You do not specify these grounds until 19 years have gone past and then you say, "Oh, well, he could have answered these grounds." I simply fail to understand the logic of this answer. But I am not here to quibble about the logic of these answers. My plea to this Government is: how long more do you want to keep this man in prison? What is the crime that he has committed that he should spend the rest of his life in prison, virtually in solitary confinement? I ask: what is his crime? Whatever the reasons may have been in 1966 for his detention, I do not know whether the Government then had sufficient reasons, but whatever the reasons may have been, the question that the Minister and the Government should address itself to, today, is: is his continued detention still necessary, even if it was necessary in 1966? We are not living in 1966. We are living in 1985. Would the Minister say how the continued detention of Mr Chia Thye Poh is still necessary today? How does he jeopardize Singapore's security? How does he threaten the peace of Singapore?”
“" He said he had only taken pan in one demonstration, and that was to protest the US involvement in Vietnam. He was charged for that in court and punished. He said it was not true that he was involved in many industrial strikes. So he was very upset that not only these false allegations should be made but that they should be made so late, after 19 years of detention, and that they should be made without giving him a chance to reply to those allegations. It is one of the cardinal principles of natural justice, of which the Minister must be aware, that you do not condemn a man unheard. You give him an opportunity to be heard. He was very upset about that. I asked another question in Parliament on 23rd July 1985, again for a Written Answer of the Minister for Home Affairs. The question was whether "the Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law (a) had received the letter of 20th May 1985 from Mr Chia Thye Poh; and (b) if he has replied to the letter and, if not, does he propose to." The answer given by the Minister was this [col. 2451: 'The MP for Anson is fully aware that I have received the letter since a copy of that letter was sent to him by my Ministry at Chia's request. Chia in his letter merely denied the allegations against him and wanted to register his protest over the allegations. The letter did not call for a reply. For reasons best known to himself Chia has not bothered to challenge any of the allegations or grounds of his detention before the Advisory Board since his detention in November 1966. Chia knows that he is legally entitled to present his case to the Board which is an independent review board comprising a High Court judge and 2 prominent members of the public. He can engage his own counsel to represent him.”
“The letter was written in Chinese (Mandarin) to the Minister. The substance of it was a challenge to the Minister of his accusations against him, Mr Chia Thye Poh: a challenge to the accusations that he was a member of the illegal Communist Party of Malaya and that he was specifically instructed by the CPM to penetrate the Barisan Sosialis, and a challenge to the allegation that he did this by mounting a series of illegal demonstrations and industrial strikes. He pointed out that there was no truth in these allegations, and he quoted a Chinese phrase about calling a stag a horse to nail him. When I saw him at the detention centre, Mr Speaker, Sir, he was very upset by this. He was very upset for a number of reasons, chiefly on these allegations that he was a member of the Communist Party of Malaya and that he was specifically instructed to penetrate the Barisan Sosialis. They have never been made the subject or the grounds for his detention when they were first served on him, way back in 1966. I do not want to be very long on this, but it is well worth - I do not think any length of time is too long to state the case for Mr Chia Thye Poh. He said to me, when I saw him, that the organizations he belonged to were all legal organizations. He said he was a member of the Chinese Middle School Union; he was the Vice-President of the Nanyang University Students Union from 1958 to 1960; and then from 1961 to 1962 he was a Member of the Council of the Guild of Graduates of Nanyang University. In 1961 he joined the Barisan Sosialis after the split with the PAP. He said he had never taken part in illegal demonstrations or, as the Minister put it, "in a series of demonstrations". If I may look at his answer again, "a series of illegal demonstrations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I make no apologies for detaining Members and you, Mr Speaker, Sir, after a long day on this subject on which I have claimed the right to speak on the Adjournment. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a subject which must lie on the conscience of all Singaporeans, and lie heavily on the conscience of Singaporeans. It is to quicken that conscience that I have raised this matter in this House. This is not the first time. I have raised it twice before and I am raising it now again, following what I did previously on this matter. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the sitting of this House on the 14th May this year, I tabled a Question for Written Answer for the Minister for Home Affairs about the number of persons detained as of 1st May under the Internal Security Act, inter alia, other Acts that provided for detention without trial. The Minister in his written reply said: 'As of 1st May 1985, only one person was detained under Section 8 of the Internal Security Act. He is Chia Thye Poh, a member of the illegal Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). Chia was specifically instructed by the CPM to penetrate the Barisan Sosialis and engage in Communist United Front agitation to destabilize the Government. This he did by mounting a series of illegal demonstrations and industrial strikes. Chia was therefore placed under preventive detention in November 1966. He will be released as soon as he is prepared to give a public undertaking disowning the CPM's use of force and terror to overthrow the Government.' That is the reply about detention under the Internal Security Act. This man saw the reply in the papers on the 15th May, 1985. Then he expressed a desire to see me, arising upon the reply given by the Minister. He wrote a letter to the Minister and sent me a copy of that letter.”
“No, you did not say that. But I expected you to give the figures because when you said, "i do not have the figures but the numbers are sufficiently large", I expected the Minister, as an honourable Minister, a responsible Minister, to let me have the figures.”
“It is true that the Minister did not say, "I have the statistics." But he said this on the 29th of March, "I do not have the figures." I took it that he did not have the figures with him at that time. That is how it appeared to me: 'I do not have the figures but I can inform the House that the Immigration authorities were so concerned because people were arriving at the checkpoint with infants in arms requesting Social Visit Pass and long-term Social Visit Pass, and when they were asked why, they said, "Well, we want to have this child adopted by this relative in Singapore." The numbers are sufficiently large to cause concern and to introduce administrative measures.' What does that convey? That the Immigration Department had numbers of people which had caused concern to the Ministry. The Immigration Department had told them that there were hundreds of people who were arriving here, And how could they know that unless they had kept a record of people who were coming with infants in their arms? Yet when I asked on the 14th May, he says, "No, we do not have any such figures. We do not keep an such figures." I do not want to go on. That is a gross misleading of this House.”
“And the Attorney-General's Chambers had all the facts as early as November 1981. They knew that she had come into Singapore on her father's passport. They could have found out when the father left Singapore. And the child had obviously not gone back with her father. So the child was illegally overstaying in Singapore. But it is for the Department of Immigration and for the Attorney-General to say that. The Minister says, "Oh, we did not know." What an answer. The facts are laid before them, the competent authorities, who have to say whether the child is an illegal stayer or not. They do not say it. And then they say, "Oh, we did not know that she was an illegal stayer." I cannot accept that answer, I am sorry. It does not make sense because the Attorney-General should have determined whether her presence was illegal or not. He could have sent a memorandum to the Immigration Department to check this: "Is the father still here? Call up the petitioning parents. Where is the father? He has gone back. Well, then, how is this child staying here? No social visit pass. Nothing." They all say that: she had no travel documents. So it is for the Attorney-General's Chambers to say that she was an illegal overstayer, not for the petitioning grandparents. So I am sorry, I cannot accept the answer. The Attorney-General's Chambers was fully aware that her presence was illegal. If they were not aware, they should have been aware; they ought to have been aware. The thrust of my charge is that the Minister is misrepresenting to this House when he says that her illegal presence only came to light in December 1982. The second part of my charge relates to his statement made on the 29th March 1985. It is true he did not say -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid that the Minister, as we say in court, with all due respect to him, has totally failed or missed the point of my charge against him. I was not saying that he had to have a number of cases before he should bring in a Bill to amend the Adoption of Children Act. As he quite rightly says, he does not have to wait for statistics. One instance would be enough for him to change the law if he thought it necessary. But that is not what I am saying. I am not criticizing him for bringing the Bill. What I am criticizing him is that, on two instances, he failed to give the House the true facts. That is my criticism, not because he brought the Bill or because he sent the child out. That is not the criticism. My first part is that, speaking in answer to the question on the 18th March, he had misled the House when he said that the illegal presence came to light in December 1982. I am sorry but I am amazed at the Minister's reply. He would appear to be saying in his answer, "I am right in what I said because before the adoption order, we did not know that her presence was illegal." All I can say is that I am amazed at that reply. I have pointed out that the entire facts were with the Attorney-General's Chambers, were with the court. Who is it who determines whether a person's presence in Singapore is illegal or legal? Is it left to the person himself to determine that? Or is it left to the Immigration Department and the Attorney-General's Chambers to determine that? The Minister's complaint would appear to be, "look at their affidavits. They don't say that she is an illegal stayer in Singapore." How are the grandparents to know whether she is an illegal stayer or a legal stayer? It is for the Immigration Department to determine that.”
“I wish to reply to this, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“At least that is the picture that it conveyed to me, and I am sure to anybody who heard him and anyone who reads this will agree that that is the picture. "I can inform the House that the Immigration authorities were so concerned because people were arriving at the checkpoint with infants in arms." Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not let it rest. I tabled a question about the number of infants entering Singapore to be given for adoption to Singapore parents. This was asked in the sitting of this House on 14th May 1985, and I quote from Vol. 46, No. 1 of the Official Report. It is at col. 28: '12. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law if he will give the number of foreigners who have arrived at immigration checkpoints for the whole of 1984 with infants for adoption in Singapore.”
“" So I asked him about the cases: 'May I ask whether he has the number of these cases, whether there is a large number of people sending their children in to be adopted by families in Singapore.' I wanted to know whether there was a traffic of children coming into Singapore to be adopted. His reply at col. 1775 to my question is this: 'The first question is: have there been such a number of cases as to warrant concern to justify this legislation? [that is, cases of people bringing in children into Singapore to be adopted as in that case].' And he said: 'The answer is yes. [A number of cases]. If it was not a problem which needed a solution by way of legislation, then we would not have recourse to this option.' Then I asked from my place, "What is the figure?" And the Minister goes on to reply, at col. 1775: 'I do not have the figures but I can inform the House that the Immigration authorities were so concerned because people were arriving at the checkpoint with infants in arms requesting Social Visit Pass and longterm Social Visit Pass, and when they were asked why, they said, 'Well, we want to have this child adopted by this relative in Singapore." The numbers are sufficiently large to cause concern and to introduce administrative measures requiring these persons to undertake that they will not proceed with adoption proceedings. This is why, Sir, the case which was mentioned a week ago showed that some of the administrative measures are not fool-proof because of the large numbers of persons coming here on Social Visit Pass or long-term Social Visit Pass.' So the picture that the Minister was attempting to paint to this House is that there was a constant stream of people entering Singapore with infants to give the infants in adoption to Singapore parents.”
“" I have just read out the affidavit of the Social Welfare Department's supervisor where she draws attention to the immigration status of the child in her affidavit. What do we make of this statement by the Minister: that neither the Attorney-General nor the Ministry of Social Affairs at that time had to comment on the immigration status of the child? There you have the comment by the supervisor of the Social Welfare Department in that affidavit. That is the first, very serious, in my view, mis-statement by the Minister for Home Affairs. But it did not stop there. On 29th March,1985,some days later after answering that question in that sitting of Parliament, in moving the Second Reading of the Adoption of Children (Amendment) Bill, the Minister for Home Affairs had to say this and, Mr Speaker, Sir, I quote Vol. 45, No. 18, cols. 1773 to 1774, of the Parliamentary Debates, Official Report: 'The proposed amendment, Sir, is necessary so as to prevent adoptions of convenience. We have many examples where adoptions were used to circumvent immigration policies.' Then he referred to the case that was answered on 18th March this year. I asked him, when I spoke on this amendment, about the number of people who brought children to Singapore to be adopted. I am sorry. I suppose I should have read a little bit earlier in his speech. At col. 1773, he said this: 'Sir, there have been many other such cases [that is, other than that] where Singaporeans have been approached, or attempted, to adopt their foreign nephews and nieces even though they already have children of their own, and there was no reason for them to adopt another child.' "There have been many other such cases.”
“The natural mother wanted to give away the infant because the horoscope of the infant predicted that evil omens will b&all the family if the infant remains with them. Rather than allowing the infant to be with strangers, I agreed to take the child. The natural parents are in Penang with their four other children. The natural parents do not visit the infant nor is there any form of contact between them and the infant. Any contact would mean that the evil omens will befall them.' So the court was fully cognizant of all the facts: that the child had been in Singapore for some five years, the child had no travel documents, no papers. The Attorney-General was aware, the Social Welfare Department was aware. I do not know whether the Immigration Department was aware or not, but the Attorney-General's Chambers was fully aware, and they raised no objections to the petitioners adopting the child. And the court, in exercise of its discretion, made an Adoption Order on 8th October 1982. Everybody who had anything to do with the adoption petition was fully aware of everything, and this is why I find the Minister's reply in his answer to me at col. 831 "that her illegal presence came to light in December 1982" completely puzzling. When I first heard it, of course, I thought that there must have been some misleading of the Government departments. But now all I can say is that those words are a complete mis-statement of the true facts of the position. Again he said it at col. 832: "What is wrong, Sir, is that there is a gap in the law in that neither the Attorney-General nor the Ministry of Social Affairs at that time had to comment on the immigration status of the child.”
“" Then she goes on in paragraph 3 of her affidavit: 'The said infant was born on 11 the February, 1976, in Penang and according to the petitioners, she was first brought into Singapore by her natural mother sometime in August 1976. She has no travel documents as her entry was reported to be endorsed in her natural father's passport. There is indication on her certificate of inoculation against diphtheria, that she received her inoculations in Singapore as early as September 1976. Since then the said infant has been staying with the petitioners who are actually her grandparents. However, the said infant is unaware of her status and has been brought up to acknowledge the petitioners as her natural parents and the petitioners' children as her natural siblings. The said infant was observed to have a strong attachment with the petitioners and the rest of the family. She is well-loved and accepted by them. I see no objection to the adoption of the said infant by the petitioners provided [here we come again to the most important part of it) the court is satisfied that the said infant is deemed to be a resident of Singapore.' Not only that, Mr Speaker, Sir - I am sorry, but I have to present my case for this - there is an affidavit by the male petitioner because the court, having seen all this, wanted further affidavit from the male petitioner as to the reasons why they were adopting their own grandchild. And this was filed in September 1982. The male petitioner says in his affidavit: 'I now explain the circumstances [i am skipping the first three paragraphs, Mr Speaker, Sir, because they are not very relevant]. The said infant was given to me in Singapore sometime in August 1976 by the natural mother who is my daughter.”
“And the Director of Legal Aid replied to that letter on the 12th November 1981, a full eleven months before the Adoption Petition is heard and the Order is made. And the reply, Mr Speaker, Sir, is as follows: 'I wish to inform you that the infant in question was first brought to Singapore sometime in 1976 by her natural father and placed in the care of the petitioners. Since then the infant has been residing in Singapore continuously in the petitioners' custody and control. [And this is the most operative one] The infant had no travel documents. [That means there is no pass for the child issued by the Immigration Department.] She came to Singapore by virtue of an endorsement in her natural father's passport. The natural mother is in Malaysia and does not maintain any contact with the infant and/or the petitioners.' So nothing could be clearer. The Attorney-General is told fully about the child's stay in Singapore. If he wanted to make any further investigations, he could have ordered it. He could have directed his mind to it. He could have told the Immigration Department to check all this. This is, as I said, 11 months before the petition was heard. Then there is the affidavit of the Social Welfare supervisor, filed in the adoption petition proceedings. I read from the affidavit, Mr Speaker, Sir: 'I have made investigations and am of the opinion that: (a) the statements in the petition are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief except there is no evidence that there has been a monetary transaction regarding the adoption.' So she says "all that the petitioners have set out are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.”
“I discover that all the facts were before the court when the Adoption Order was made on the 2nd October, 1982. The Attorney-General was aware and there was no question about them not being aware at all about her presence in Singapore without a visit pass at the time the Adoption Order was made. There is, first of all, the Adoption Petition. In paragraph 7 of that petition, the petitioner states that they are related to the said Gunasundry d/o Ramakrishna, the natural mother of the child is the daughter of the petitioners. So it is stated quite clearly there in the Adoption Petition, "the child that we are going to adopt is our grandchild." There is no hiding of the fact from the court or the Attorney-General's Chambers. The Attorney-General wrote to the Director of Legal Aid, by letter of the 23rd October 1981, in these terms, Mr Speaker, Sir: 'I refer to the above petition. I note that the petitioners intend to adopt their own grand daughter who is a Malaysian citizen.' So here is the Attorney-General's Chambers writing on the 23rd October, 1981, almost a year before the Adoption Order was made on the 2nd October 1982. 'I note that the petitioners intend tO adopt their own grand daughter who is a Malaysian citizen. In view of this, please let me know: (a) when the subject infant was first brought to Singapore, the nature of her stay, whether continuous or not; the type of visit pass or other licence for her stay here. (b) whether the natural mother is residing in the same house as the petitioners and whether she maintains any contact with the infant or the petitioners., So there was an inquiry about her presence in Singapore: the type of visit pass that she was holding. So they were all aware of this.”
“What else can these words mean, "her illegal presence came to light in December 1982"? In Col. 832, the Minister says: 'What is wrong, Sir, is that there is a gap in the law in that neither the Attorney-General nor the Ministry of Social Affairs at that time had to comment on the immigration status of the child. This is the gap in the law that we are now seeking to remedy through the Adoption of Children (Amendment) Bill in which we propose that the immigration status and the immigration policy will become a relevant factor.' The operative words which I say were misleading of this House are the words, "What is wrong, Sir, is that there is a gap in the law in that neither the Attorney-General nor the Ministry of Social Affairs at that time [that is, at the time of the adoption] had to comment on the immigration status of the child." Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned, when I heard the Minister, I thought this was a case where the petitioning parents had completely misled the court and the Attorney-General's Chambers when they presented the petition. That the true facts were not known to the court and to the Attorney-General's Chambers before the adoption petition was heard. May I inform Members of the House, as I said then and the Minister accepted, that the Attorney-General is always made a party to any adoption proceedings presented by any couple wishing to adopt a child. The petition is served on the Attorney-General and he appoints somebody from the Social Welfare Department. So I thought these parents had somehow completely misled the Attorney-General, the Social Welfare Department and the court, and they have got this order through that misleading. So I went back to my office and, sometime later, got all the papers that were in court. And what do I discover?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may move on now to what I say was the misleading remarks made by the Minister for Home Affairs. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 18th March 1985, in this House, I asked a question (Question No. 12 which was answered) on the repatriation of an adopted child of one Therawardy s/o Mardan. It is reported in Vol. 45 of the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates, col. 830. The Minister in replying to this Question said as follows: 'Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason why this girl was asked to leave Singapore is that this was clearly an adoption of convenience designed to circumvent Immigration rules and regulations. Sir, the adopted child is a nine-year-old Malaysian girl. Her natural parents and four of her siblings are also Malaysian citizens. She was first brought to Singapore in 1976 by her natural father. She was granted a Social Visit Pass for 14 days. Her Visit Pass was not extended and she overstayed in Singapore for more than six years. In other words, she wag an illegal overstayer and her illegal presence came to light in December 1982. By then, Sir, she had been legally adopted by Mr and Mrs Therawardy on 2nd October 1982.' I do not need to read any further, Mr Speaker, Sir. The misleading statement is contained in those two sentences there, "In other words, she was an illegal over-stayer and her illegal presence came to light in December 1982. By then, Sir, she had been legally adopted by Mr and Mrs Therawardy on 2nd October 1982." It was quite clear to me, if it was not clear to other Members of the House, that what the Minister was saying was that until December 1982, the Government departments concerned in the adoption of this girl were not aware that her presence in Singapore was illegal.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House regrets that the Minister for Home Affairs should have attempted to mislead the House when speaking at question time on the 1&h March 1985 and again on the 29th March 1985 when moving the Adoption of Children (Amendment) Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope sincerely that I do not have to remind Ministers and Members of this House of the importance and of the value of the principle that Ministers of the Government must never mislead Parliament on any matter requested of or addressed to them. The whole principle, the whole foundation, of parliamentary government and all that it implies, parliamentary control over the Executive, parliamentary checks on the decisions of the Executive, will be undermined if this principle is not strictly adhered to. I hope this is quite clear to the Ministers and to all Members of this House. We have adopted the British parliamentary procedure and system. Members will recall how, only quite recently, the British Prime Minister was very very upset at allegations that she had misled the House. There was a Minister who resigned because he made an incorrect statement in the House. So these lie, as I said, at the foundation of the parliamentary system of government, whereby the Cabinet, the Executive, is answerable to Parliament and its Members. And "answerable" means answerable truthfully to Parliament and its Members. Therefore, it is a matter of great regret to discover that the Minister for Home Affairs was less than truthful in this House on two occasions. And it is my painful duty to bring this up b&ore the Members this afternoon. I do not relish this, but it is important because of the principle behind it, because it undermines the whole Government, as we know it to be.”
“My reply to this motion is that it makes a mockery. Simply, it does make a mockery of your resolve and sincerity. It exposes the sincerity of the Government leaders and the MPs. I say that this motion is not worth the paper on which it is written. An hon. Member: This is your motion!”
“Are there no other speakers on this motion now?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not bringing forward any rumours. I am saying what has been told to me by a number of people. So let us get on with it. They do not need any further manifestation from me of my spirit of sacrifice for them. And you leave me to show my sacrifice. They know it. The question addressed now to all of us is simply in respect of our MPs' earnings and Ministers' earnings. It is obvious that the Government MPs and Government Minis- ters are not prepared to forgo a quarter of their earnings as to set an example to the people of Singapore. I shall announce my intention after this. But it is quite obvious what the Government Members propose to do and, as I said, this motion was intended simply for one reason, to test the sincerity of the ruling Party and the Government leaders. Now the people of Singapore know it. Their answer is, "It is not necessary for us. If at some future time it should become necessary and we will decide whether it is necessary or not, then we will take a reduction." That is a real laugh.”
“I said that I have been told by my clients that they have been asked by Government agencies, not only by the Police, by the CPIB, but other agencies also as to why did they go to see Mr Jeyaretnam. Maj Fong Sip Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. The Member for Anson is making a serious allegation. As responsible Members of Parliament, it is not for him here in this august Chamber to repeat rumours or to propagate hearsay. It is a serious allegation and I think the Member should substantiate it. Otherwise, it will be a disgrace and a mockery to the seriousness of this House discussing matters of state.”
“I am sure they know that Government agencies tell people who would want to come to me, to instruct me, "Why do you have to go to Jeyaretnam? Why do you want to go to Jeyaretnam?" I have heard this time and time again from people.”
“It is not intended as a measure to cut wages which can only harm the interests of workers and further impair the economy at this stage. Now, there is a daring challenge that is being made to me. They think they are very clever at making this challenge. May I say that the people of Singapore know the sacrifices that I have made in going into politics, in fighting for their cause. They do not need further examples from me. They know it. The Minister of State talks about lawyers fees, earnings. Does he have any idea - I am sorry to have to say this in this House, it pains me because I hate to discuss my personal matters - does he know, do the Members know, how much I have suffered as a result of going into politics to serve the cause, I thought, for the people of Singapore who are being ill treated? An hon. Member: And so are other lawyers. Another hon. Member: Tell us how much.”
“I will come to that. The final paragraph is: 'Urges all Singaporeans to address the current economic problems in a serious and comprehensive manner without resort to hasty measures to cut wages...' Again, this is not intended as a measure to cut wages, for the last time, please. How many times have I to repeat before it drops?”
“And playing with words. This is no time for playing with words. The other thing is, "if it should become necessary for earnings to be reduced . . .". I have never suggested that the earnings be reduced across the country. I have never suggested that. That is the last thing I am suggesting. I am upset, in fact, that our workers are being told that they can- not have any increases. I am not suggesting that. So please get it clear. I am not asking for earnings of all Singaporeans to be reduced and that you should set an example for earnings to be reduced. I am saying that you forgo voluntarily yourself, Members of Parliament, forgo a quarter of your allowances and salaries. Why? Because for one thing, as I said, Ministers particularly are grossly overpaid, and it would be an example for the rest of the country. So I am afraid, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this amendment completely fails to comprehend or to understand the purpose and the reason for the motion that I have proposed in this House. The final paragraph comes on to -”
“The second part of it, as I said, is: 'Declaring that if it should become necessary for earnings to be reduced as a national measure to overcome the recession, Members of Parliament including Ministers and other office holders shall be the first to suffer such reduction;' Well, I made it quite clear I thought, abundantly clear. But it was perhaps lost or Members are unable to understand that it is not introduced as a measure to overcome the recession. So please keep these words to yourselves. You know, it is just wasting the time of this House.”
“You ask the Singapore public, if you would like to know the answer. I go out and they say," Mr Jeya, why don't the Ministers answer your questions? We get half an hour of lecture from them." You ask them. You go to the street hawker and ask him. He knows it. Beating about the bush. An hon. Member: Answer to the point.”