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 52 of 82.
“This student typifies his generation who now realizes the risk of such voting and that without a strong and capable government, the good number of years they invest in education would come to nought. Lastly, let me advise the Member for Potong Pasir because I live in Potong Pasir and because I still have a little hope for him. He has said in Parliament that he would be a loyal Opposition Member. I hope he would keep to his promise by his deeds and not follow the example of the Member for Anson. I hope he can really contribute this little bit to the fostering of a true Opposition in the interest of our nation. Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on this big topic, I would like to give a little opinion of mine. I hope we could all consider this matter with a cool mind and in a calm and peaceful manner. Let me give an example. Last month, when Sabah held its state election there was one political party which won only six out of the 48 seats in the State Legislature. Yet this party wanted to form the Government. Fortunately, the then Acting Premier Musa Hitam made a very wise decision. Otherwise, I believe the state of Sabah would have some trouble and there might even be a bloodshed. Sir, this brings me to think about our situation in Singapore. If at any particular general election in future one political Party should happen to win only 10 to 20 seats and the leader of this political Party says that only he represents the people of Singapore and he wants to be the government ruling the country. Then, what kind of Singapore will it be? Perhaps, some may say it is unnecessary worry.”
“It is a point of order. Dr Ow Chin Hock( In Mandarin): On the other hand, they hope that these grassroots leaders would cooperate with them. Do these two Opposition Members know that community centres are built out of the contributions of the people, through the efforts of these grassroots leaders? Now they want to make use of these centres to achieve their political end. There is no such thing ( ) in this world! Let me tell a small story. It concerns - [Interruption] Mr Deputy Speaker: Will Members please refrain from unnecessary interruptions? Dr Ow Chin Hock( In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. When he was talking, nobody interrupted him. Let me tell a small story. It is about the result of the general election. The purpose is to let the two Opposition Members know that they should not be too elated about the 51 to 60% votes that they got. There was a university final year under-graduate, a student of mine. He voted for the first time in the last election in 1984. After the results of the general elections were announced, he came to see me with a green and distraught face. I thought something must be wrong with him. He said he had to talk to somebody. I asked him what was the matter. He confided in me that he voted for the Opposition and said that he had contributed to the near 13% swing in votes. He regretted very much what he had done. I asked him why he voted for the Opposition. He said he was not happy about certain Government policies, particularly about the Government's policy on priority given to graduate mothers for admission of their children to schools.”
“What is the Government's attitude to this? Because we know that the Toa Payoh Athletic Stadium will be available on the 25th May. It is not being used. Will the Government tell the Singapore Sports Council to grant us the Stadium, that they would have no objections if they gave it? Or am I going to be told tomorrow by the Singapore Sports Council, "You can't have it." When we come down to specifics, are you going to obstruct the Opposition MPs from discharing their duties to serve the voters in their constituencies? To get down to more specifics, are you going to allow the Anson Community Centre classrooms for classes for children of residents in that constituency? Or are you going to shut them out? Why, if you are going to shut them out? Are you going to allow the use of the Conference Room for residents? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not the only one who want the answers to these questions. It does not matter if I am the only one who want the answers. The Government can ignore me. It can even ignore them if it was only the voters of Anson who want the answers to these questions. But, unfortunately for the Government, the people of Singapore want the answers to these questions. And so I trust the Government will answer these questions this afternoon. The people of Singapore demonstrated, in no uncertain way, their preference for a constitutional Opposition when 13% of the voters swung over to the Opposition. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“He should be here to answer these questions. At least, he was battling with this way back in 1956. The questions that I would like answered are: does this Government believe in a parliamentary democracy for Singapore? And may I say that parliamentary democracy can only come about if you have constitutional Opposition in the House, in Parliament, if you afford opportunities to the people to elect their representatives who can then make their representations known to you. So the question is this: do you believe in a parliamentary democracy for Singapore? Secondly, are you committed to that? It is one thing to believe, but are you committed to that? Third, if you are committed, what steps does the Government propose to take to encourage the growth of parliamentary democracy? I have said in this House that one of the things that we can do is to remove the restriction on the freedom of speech. Time does not permit me, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, but I will refer to the public meetings we have asked for, which have been denied time and time again. We asked for a meeting on the 1st of May, not to sing Communist songs or subversive songs, but to explain to the people what we meant by parliamentary democracy and constitutional Opposition. That was denied to us, even though the First Deputy Prime Minister then said that he would support it. And we had, I am sorry to say, a specious reply from the Minister for Home Affairs to May Day is only for trade unions." He was sitting here next to the First Deputy Prime Minister when he said he would support it. We have asked for another meeting on the 25th May. We have been told that we would be granted a permit. But we are still waiting to hear from the Singapore Sports Council whether they would give us the Toa Payoh Athletic Stadium.”
“One more utterance of the First Deputy Prime Minister, and this was only yesterday. In an interview with Business Week, Miss Cheryl Debes, he was quoted having said that: 'Political self-renewal in the People's Action Party is proceeding well and this is one of the three key factors which will ensure stability and progress in Singapore after Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew retires.' Sir, may I say that that is a piece of arrogance because it assumes that only the People's Action Party can continue to look after Singapore. If anybody is to look after Singapore, it will be the people of Singapore, not the People's Action Party. And one of the key factors which will ensure stability and progress in Singapore is not political self-renewal in the People's Action Party. The key factor is whether you allow the free play of ideas that the Prime Minister was advocating in 1956, whether you allow the expression of constitutional rights by the citizens. That, Mr First Deputy Prime Minister, is what will make for political stability. If you do not, as the Prime Minister then said, the alternative would be an armed struggle. I should have thought that the PAP would welcome our efforts in the Opposition because we are here to see that an armed conflict does not come about. We want constitutional progress in this country, not throwing of bombs, of going round beating up people. We want to see constitutional progress through the ballot box. And I should have thought that any sane, sensible government would welcome that from the Opposition Parties. But no, not from this Government. So, before I sit down, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I spell out what I would like to hear this afternoon from the First Deputy Prime Minister. As I have said, I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here.”
“On the 1st of May at a meeting for trade unions, attended by about 1,000 people, the First Deputy Prime Minister was thinking aloud about the social unrest in Singapore that had been noted by an American company, the Business Environment Risk Information. The First Deputy Prime Minister tried to explain what was the cause of this social unrest that was noted by this company. And he said, "Could it be the loss of Anson in a by-election to the Workers' Party in 1981?" May I ask the First Deputy Prime Minister to say in this House what is it that he is trying to say in that? Because I do not understand it. Neither do the people of Singapore understand it. Is the First Deputy Prime Minister saying that there is social unrest in Singapore because Anson voters elected an Opposition Member into Parliament in 1981? Are you saying that there is social unrest in Singapore because in 1984, the voters in Anson and Potong Pasir elected Opposition Members? Because if you are saying that, Mr First Deputy Prime Minister, I am saying to you that you are completely out of touch with reality. So will you please explain your stand? It should be quite clear to the Government and this motion assumes that - that the people of Singapore want to see the growth of a genuine constitutional Opposition in Singapore. That is quite evident. It is quite evident that the people of Singapore have grown up, as was noted by a foreign observer commenting on the 1984 Election results. The question is this: has this Government grown up? Is this Government mature enough to accept a constitutional Opposition? Or is it so insecure? I ask you, are you so insecure that you are afraid of any Opposition? It is as plain as that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.”
“So I hope we shall not hear any more about wild men in 1955, 1956, creating trouble. And we do not want to go back to those days. Now, as I said, I have asked for classrooms and do I get them? In spite of the First Deputy Prime Minister saying, "Well, if they have got something constructive, we will help them. We will let them do what they want." I get a reply from the People's Association to say, "You can't have the classrooms. You can't have the conference rooms for meetings." I asked for the rooms for the Anson Council that I had formed. I then wrote again to the First Deputy Prime Minister asking him for clarification of the statement made by his Parliamentary Secretary that community centres are Government properties and no MP can do what he likes with them. Well, I have not had a reply to that yet, except to say that the People's Association would be replying to me. The question is this: are you going to put obstacles in the way of the Opposition MPs attempting to do anything in their own constituencies? If you are, then what does one make of the First Deputy Prime Minister's statement on the 8th February 1985 to community leaders? Was that all mere mumbo jumbo, not intended to be carried out? This is why I have raised this question, not as an academic exercise, because I am almost desperate in trying to understand what the Government's policy is towards a constitutional Opposition. So, I repeat, please declare your stand now, unequivocally. What is it that you stand for? Are you saying that all Opposition Parties are instigators and agitators? Are you making that allegation against the present Opposition Parties? If so, come out with it, and bring the evidence. I must carry on, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because I see time is running on.”
“Let us contest on ideas, on policies. [I say Amen to that.] Who have better ideas and who have better people in implementing good ideas? The contest of ideas must take place not only in Parliament but also in the constituencies. If an MP preaches a certain policy, for example, if he is against our fining people for littering, for inconsiderate parking and driving, then we should perhaps waive the implementation of such rules in his constituency, He believes in that. The people have voted him. Let us take an enlightened approach. Let us implement what he wants to do in his constituency. If an MP, whether he is a PAP MP or Opposition MP, argues for a race circuit for hell-drivers, well, let us put the race track in the MP's constituency. He wants it. No other MPs want it. Put it in his constituency and let it go round and round his particular constituency.' These were the words spoken by the First Deputy Prime Minister. As I have said before, I do not want a racing circuit in Anson. What I want, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, are classrooms for conducting classes for students from poor families, not classrooms for students to be taught revolutionary songs or Communist songs. I say this, Sir, because from time to time we have heard from the Government an insinuation that in those days somehow Parties, other than the PAP, were responsible for the riots in 1955 and 1956. There was talk about wild men in those days and do we want to go back to those wild years. But let me lay that ghost to rest here. I see there was a full-scale debate in the Legislative Assembly following the riots and there, the PAP was accused of being at the back of all the riots, not the Prime Minister personally, but that Members of his Party were behind it.”
“I ask now of this Government to say here and now without any further hesitation: are you going to do anything to tinker with this one-man-one-vote system? I would ask the Government to come out into the open. You cannot keep these things to yourself. And if that is the intention, would it be referred also to the people in a referendum? I see that the Prime Minister went abroad to announce that he had persuaded his Cabinet Ministers to accept an amendment to the Constitution to give the President some powers. May I know if that is true, if that is the case, that the Cabinet has accepted this? Then after the 1984 elections, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we had many statements from the Government Ministers that I have found it very difficult to follow them in this maze of statements that have been uttered. There was the President's hope at the swearing-in of the Cabinet Ministers that the Government and the Opposition would engage in a meaningful dialogue. I have not seen any evidence of this from the Government benches. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister speaking to community leaders on 8th February, 1985, said this - I am quoting from a letter written by his Senior Parliamentary Secretary to me on 20th April 1985: 'Our attitude towards the Opposition will depend on the Opposition themselves. If an Opposition sets out to topple the Government through instigations, agitations, distortions, half-truths, unfounded rumours, then surely we cannot be expected to stand by with folded arms. We have got to react and to come down very hard on them. But if the Opposition is constructive and challenges us with constructive ideas, policies, then we must give them a chance, We must listen to them because they might have some ideas which we can borrow and implement.”
“There is so much talk, Sir, about the present Opposition in Singapore not accepting the fundamentals of our society, about the need to defend Singapore. All this is a sort of smokescreen. I am asking the Government now: do you accept the fundamentals of a truly democratic state in Singapore? I would ask the Government to declare its stand now, whether or not it is for a truly democratic state in Singapore. Along with the non-constituency MP idea, the Prime Minister said in this House that his Government was considering amending the Constitution to give the President certain executive powers because of an imaginary fear that if another government got into office they might spend all the reserves. I asked him then whether any proposed change would be referred to the people in a referendum and he said he might consider it. Well, I would like an answer now without any equivocation, whether the Government intends to go ahead with its move to amend the Constitution to give the President powers, limited though they may be. Let us not have any shilly-shallying on this. Let us have clear answers, direct answers. If that is the intention, may I ask whether it will be referred to the people in a referendum or is it the Government's intention to introduce a Bill in this House without a referendum? Then, at the end of the elections in 1984, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the Government realized that all that it had done to try and keep off Opposition Members had failed, when all its intrigues and all its devices to keep off Opposition Members from Parliament had failed, we had the Prime Minister going into a rage after the polling results were declared, saying that it was time that the one-man-one-vote system was looked at for us to consider whether there should be any change.”
“When all this failed, when they saw that all this was not going to get them anywhere, the Government decided that perhaps it was time to change, not because of any genuine change of heart but because they felt that the policy that they were carrying out was not going to help them in any way. We were told by the Prime Minister that there was a conversion, that he and his Senior Ministers decided that perhaps - this was 18 months or so after the Anson voters elected the first Opposition MP into Parliament - it was a good thing for Singapore to have an Opposition. But what was he saying in 1956? What was he saying in 1966? But at least he was truthful enough to say that he decided, 18 months after 31st October 1981, to change his mind about the Opposition. But was it a genuine change? Was this Government really interested in building up a constitutional Opposition so that Singapore may become a viable democracy? Or was it further intrigue, further play-acting by this Government to somehow hold on to power? I ask this because the Government came up with this ingenuous idea, first for Singapore, of having non-constituency MPs elected into Parliament. If anything was hypocritical, I say this is, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. It was quite clear that the Government was not interested in the emergence of a constitutional Opposition. What the Government was interested in was in a form of Opposition which could be managed and controlled by the Government. But very luckily for Singapore, the people of Singapore saw through this intrigue, saw that this was a phoney Opposition that the PAP Government was planning for them and they rejected it. They returned two Opposition Members into Parliament, not through the non- constituency method, but through direct elections.”
“Rubbish? Well, I will prove it to you. You ask the officer in the Prime Minister's Office whether it was not changed overnight. It was changed so as to keep the Opposition Member out of the Residents' Committees, not that I wanted to, but the rules were changed. Then the members of the Management Committees of the Community Centres and the Citizens' Consultative Committees were told, "You are not to have anything to do with the Opposition MP." I had to wait eight months before I could get my office in the Constituency. Before my election, the PAP Member of Parliament had his office. And as I said it once before, I was told, "No, you can't have that. We have given it to somebody else." I understand from my colleague, the Member for Potong Pasir, that he is still waiting for his office. There was the National Day Dinner that was organized in my Constituency in 1982 or was it 1983. One would have thought that the people's representative from Anson would have been invited. No. As an insult to the people of Anson, the then Second Deputy Prime Minister - I see he was opening an animal hospital yesterday, I was glad to see that he is well - was the Guest-of-Honour. And he talked to the people present, people who were more or less forced to attend the dinner, because the Anson residents were not going to have anything to do with it. He gave them a lecture on what the PAP was going to do about recapturing Anson. So this went on. Not only was the Opposition MP denied outside but in Parliament, an attempt was made to try and get him off the rails.”
“There was the statement made by our ex-President when he was a candidate, I think, for the PAP about Vietnamese troops marching down the length of Malaysia if one Opposition Member were to be elected into Parliament. Then in spite of all this, as I said, in 1981, 31st October 1981, in the by-election, the Anson voters decided that things had gone far enough, that they had to call a halt at whatever cost to them and they decided that for the sake of Singapore's future, there had to be an Opposition Member in Parliament, And so they elected an Opposition Member into Parliament. How did this Government react? This Government which had paid lip service to the idea of a parliamentary Opposition. It went into tantrums. The Prime Minister said that Opposition was irrelevant for good government. "We did not need an Opposition in Singapore." His then Second Deputy Prime Minister made similar statements and said, "We are going to get Anson back." Some hope they had! One of the rules of democracy, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that you respect the choice of the electors. That is democracy. You have an election and the people elect a person of their own choice. Then you accept that election and you respect the decision of the electors. Did this Government, with its statements about wanting a democracy, respect the choice of Anson voters after 1981? No. It behaved like a child whose toy had been snatched away from it. Overnight, the rules for residents' committees were changed so that - An hon. Member: Rubbish!”
“So this rumour served the PAP very well. It was even resorted to, may I remind Members, in the last election in Anson by people who wanted to see the PAP returned to power in Anson. A whispering campaign was going on. "Don't forget, my friend, that the ballot paper is numbered." In the 1972 elections, the first time that I stood as a candidate for the Workers' Party, there seemed a possibility that there might be some serious challenge to this Government. A monstrous lie was put out through a PAP candidate in the general elections that the Workers' Party had got $600,000 from Malaysia. This was a monstrous lie, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, and it was broadcast over radio and carried in the press. Then we had all the statements about Opposition Parties being proxies of foreign powers. All this was done whilst lip service was being paid to the idea of a parliamentary democracy, a viable democracy with an Opposition. I remember, and I have said this once in this House some time ago, in 1972 on polling night, the Prime Minister came over TV and he was almost tearful that there was no one elected from the Opposition. And he said he was going to create University Seats because he thought an Opposition was essential if we were going to have a viable democracy. So while you had lip service on the one hand, you had action on the other. "Stamp them out," that was the order to the ISD, to the Police, to everybody. Then we had statements about what would happen if the Opposition were to get in, even if one Opposition Member were to be elected into Parliament. We had fanciful statements.”
“Yes, in spite of all that, I am here because of one thing, may I remind Members of the House, because of the spirit of the people, and the spirit of the voters in Anson. I have paid tribute to them and I will pay tribute again to those voters in Anson.”
“Then the whole social fabric of this society will collapse.' [Vol. 2, col. 3281 Those words, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, were uttered in 1956 and, if the new Members of this House are wondering who the Member was, let me tell them that in less than three years after he uttered those words, he found himself the Prime Minister of this country. And he has continued to remain as the Prime Minister to this day. You may well ow has he done this?" The answer is quite simple. There he outlined the steps that should be taken. The difference is that this Government did it far more ruthlessly and efficiently than the colonial government did it, to silence its critics and to do away with any constitutional opposition to it. An hon Member: How come you are here?”
“Then you use this machinery with the connivance and concurrence of your colonial masters against rival organisations. It is easier than building up an organisation of your own. All you have to do is to dissolve organisations and societies and banish or detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil and quiet - on the surface. Then an intimidated Press and some sections of the Press here do not need intimidation because they have very friendly owners - the Press and the Government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done. Or if these things are referred to again, they are conveniently distorted, and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict it. It has happened before in Asia. It happened in China and lndo-China. First, you knock out your opponents who compete with you, peacefully and constitutionally, because they are more vigorous, because you cannot compete with them, because they are better organised than you are. When everything becomes peaceful and tranquil, complacency sets in, and degeneration begins.' [Vol. 2, col. 3231 Before he sat down, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, he ended with these words: 'But if we say that we believe in democracy, if we say that the fabric of a democratic society is one which allows the free play of ideas, which avoids revolution by violence because revolution by peaceful methods of persuasion is allowed, then, in the name of all the gods that we have in this country, give that free play a chance to work within the constitutional framework. If you do not, then you will face outright opposition, an armed revolt, and eventually an armed victory.”
“All right, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I beg to move, 'That this House regrets the obstructionist attitude of this Government to the growth of a genuine Parliamentary Opposition in Singapore in accordance with the will of the electorate.' Sir, as I said, this motion seeks to examine the Government's intentions towards the political progress in this country. Whether we are to progress towards a viable democracy founded on the rule of law and on the supremacy of Parliament or whether we are to progress to some other kind of democracy a'la People's Action Party. Sir, it concerns the constitutional rights and the liberties and the freedoms of our people. And it is as well to remind ourselves in this House this afternoon that this is not the first time that this question has been raised. This question was raised in 1956, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when we did not have a Parliament, we had a Legislative Assembly. And there was a Member in the Assembly, who was not sitting on the Government Benches, who was sitting where we are now sitting (my colleague from Potong Pasir and 1) on the Opposition Bench. And he was raising the very questions that I am raising now in this House. May I read, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what he then said in 1956, and I read from Part I of the Official Report of the First Legislative Assembly, Second Session, for the sitting on the 4th October 1956. This is what he said: 'You take over the organisation [he is referring to the Government that had taken over from the colonial powers) of the colonial power, the government machinery, the instruments of policy- the administration,the police, broadcasting and all the "gimmicks" of a modern colonial State.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. This motion in my name seeks to examine the intentions of this Government towards the political progress of this country.”
“You should report back to Parliament. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think I have made my point. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, That the Requisition of Resources Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. - [BG Lee Hsien Loong]. VISIT OF THE HON. DR M. BASSETT (Presence in Gallery) 2.43 pm”
“Billets. BG Lee Hsien Loong: And billets. That is all. And we have legislation because our requirements are extensive and our legislation is based not only on the British Army Act but on all the rest of the legislation which we have found relevant to this purpose - British, Hong Kong and elsewhere.”
“Two points of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. First of all, I was not saying that these powers should not be exercised in peacetime. What I want to know is: will separate provision be made in a case where Singapore is at war? Of course, I accept that we do not always have declarations of war. But the Singapore Government must be able to recognize when there is an actual state of war in progress, whether it is declared or not. That is the point I was making, whether these provisions are meant for that situation or are they only intended for peace-time exercises. I should have thought that was quite clear. Secondly, these powers that have been incorporated in this Bill have been taken from the British Army Act and the Air Force Act. And it is in those Acts that you find that the Minister has to report immediately to Parliament once he brings these powers into operation and it is in there that you find that Parliament must approve the continuance of these orders beyond the month. So will you please try and answer my points? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Bill indeed provides for a case in which the security of the Republic is endangered. Indeed, clause 2 of the Bill specifies that the Minister for Defence must, as one of the pre-conditions for invoking Part Ill, be satisfied "that it is necessary for the securing of the public safety or the defence of the country." I think that is quite clear. "Defence of the country" means there is indeed a threat to national security. As for the British Army Act, Sir, it is necessary to seethe problem in its totality. The British Army Act does not provide for requisition of land, of services, of aircraft, of ships. It provides for requisitioning of vehicles and -”
“The details will be discussed in the Select Committee.”
“How are they made responsible to Parliament? BG Lee Hsien Loong: The Cabinet is collectively responsible to Parliament. The second point, which perhaps was overlooked by the Member for Anson when he pursued this line of argument, is that the British practice is not so straightforward as was presented in his speech. The British have a complex, partially unwritten system of government, and what was explained to us was just one facet. There are at least two other facets which are highly relevant here, which I should point out. One, there is recent British legislation in which Secretaries of State have been delegated such powers without requirement to refer to Parliament. I refer specifically to the Civil Aviation Act of the United Kingdom of 1982. If I may quote from section 62(l)(b) of the Act: 'In time of war, whether actual or imminent, or of great national emergency, the Secretary of State may by order provide for taking possession of and using for the purposes of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces any aerodrome or any aircraft, machinery, plant, material or things found therein or thereon ...'. And this is without the requirement of reporting to Parliament. So British practice is not so straightforward. Secondly, the British also have unwritten rules. In particular, there are certain prerogatives of the Crown. And the Queen, by Order in Council, may order the requisition of resources without reference to Parliament. In fact, it was by such means that ships were mobilized in the Falklands war and committed to the battle, and not by parliamentary statute or resolution. So British practice is not straight-forward. We do not blindly follow anybody else's practice. I think we have a Bill which serves our purposes.”
“Thank you. BG Lee Hsien Loong: This is, of course, unlike the situation in the United Kingdom where they do not have a written constitution. In pursuance of this clause, we have made a system that the Minister shall decide and the Cabinet shall recommend to the President to endorse.”
“Responsible to Parliament. BG Lee Hsien Loong: I am sorry. "Collectively responsible to Parliament."”
“On a point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“They can be determined in advance. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, I think I have answered the question.”
“Hire. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Or if we hire it, there are a myriad ways in which we may interpret the damage, we may question the responsibility, and we may doubt the amount which is due to be paid. Those of you who are in the insurance business and have to work these compensation claims will know the complexity. That is why we have found it necessary to establish compensation boards. It is not to deal with the vast majority of cases where we will pay market rates, as we pay reservists market rates when they come in.”
“May I ask a clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. It is about my misreading the Bill on the Compensation Board. I have not. My point is this. If it is specified that payment will be made according to commercial rates, that should be quite easy to determine and determined in advance. So I do not know why there should be any need to go to the Compensation Board in those cases. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, unfortunately things are not always as easy as they seem. If we take over a piece of equipment and it is damaged or destroyed, or something happens to it -”
“I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that in peacetime, if it is necessary that we should requisition chattels from our people, they should be paid immediately. I understood from the Minister of State that this order may even be made for exercise purposes, just to see how efficiently things can be mobilized. All the more reason that payment should not be made months later, but that payments should be made immediately. 12.30 pm”
“We, who believe in parliamentary democracy or we claim to believe in parliamentary democracy, must honour that belief and we must allow Parliament to be informed and, as I said before, it is not Parliament, it is the people who are informed. Secondly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we come to the administration of this Act. Once the Minister brings Part Ill into operation, any person or persons named by him or by office to be the competent authority can exercise the powers given under Part III of this Bill. It says, "any person or persons by name or by office" may be appointed as the competent authority. There is no clarification in this Bill as to who this person or persons may be. In the UK Act, they are spelt out as to which person or persons may exercise the powers. Here, this is left at large. Is that satisfactory? I would ask that the person or persons who may exercise the powers be clearly spelt out in this Bill now so that we know who can exercise the powers and who cannot. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not understand why it is necessary, if it is in peacetime, for payment to be made cumbersome by persons having to make applications for payment to the Compensation Board. Again, since the UK Act has been referred to, may I ask the Minister of State whether he is not aware that in the United Kingdom, the practice is for payment to be made immediately at commercial rates. There should be no difficulty in determining what the rates are for hire of a vehicle, lorry, bus, have it whatever you want. So what is the difficulty about making payment at commercial rates? What is the need for the cumbersome procedure of a Compensation Board? I understand that in UK, the Compensation Board only comes into play during a time of war, and not in peacetime.”
“' We agree that if it is essential for the life of the community that certain requisite things should be requisitioned, so be it. But what we are concerned about is the sole discretion given to the Minister. I note what the Minister of State said that the Minister's order is subject to the President's sanction within seven days. The Minister of State said that the powers here are more limited than the powers in the United Kingdom legislation. Is he quite right on that? Because my understanding of the UK Act is that the Secretary of State for Defence is required immediately to report any order made by him to Parliament so that Parliament and the people of the country are informed of the need and the reasons for bringing the relevant Part into operation. What is more, that order will not continue for more than a month unless Parliament has, by resolution, agreed to its continuance for more than a month. So you see, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there the effective control is laid where it should be, with Parliament. And here in this Bill, I see no reference at all being made to Parliament. Should the people not be informed of the reason and need for the order? Should the people not be informed if there is a threat to their security? And what better place for them to be informed than in Parliament? So I would ask the Minister of State to say why it has been thought necessary to bypass Parliament in this very important operation, ie, the giving of drastic powers to the Minister. I should have thought that clause 2(3) should have read, "An order shall not be in force for a period exceeding 7 days (or 14 days) unless Parliament by resolution approves the continuance of that order." I would ask the Minister or the Government to give serious consideration to this.”
“There has been no quarrel about that, no doubt about that, in spite of many attempts by the Ministers on the other side to try and make out that we are less than committed. There has been no doubt about that although the Minister of State sometime ago, in a patronizing manner, said that the Workers' Party would now appear to be agreed on the essentials of defence. May I say that there has never been any doubt about that. But that does not mean that we do not question the cost-effectiveness of the measures taken by the Government or the powers that the Government proposes to exercise, even when it comes to a question of defence of the country and it is to this that I wish to address myself, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. This Bill does not, as I see it, make any distinction between a state of war in which the country is engaged and peacetime. May I know whether these provisions are intended to apply in a state of war? I should have thought that would not be necessary because the measures could be provided for by a special proclamation or order. If this Bill is intended to apply in peacetime, I am a bit concerned about the powers that have been given. Sub-clause (2) of clause 2 of the Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, gives the Minister - I take it, the Minister for Defence - power to bring into operation Part Ill of this Bill which relates to requisitioning of property and services and he may do that if it appears to him that, 'it is necessary for the securing of the public safety or the defence of the country or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for the conduct of exercises for any of the aforesaid purposes.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my Party has no quarrel with the principle of this Bill. We are second to none committed to the defence of Singapore. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!”
“Will the Minister accept that he has seriously misled this House?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, has the Minister forgotten that when I spoke in this House on the Adoption of Children (Amendment) Bill, I asked the Minister for the number and he said that he would try and provide the number? Secondly, would the Minister agree that he seriously misled this House when he told this House that: '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.' The Minister now says that the -”
“He has answered it. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, would the First Deputy Prime Minister say how the provision of $10,000 which is to enable the HDB to get rid of its houses, would enable the children of these poor families to be better educated, if he says, and quite rightly, that the only way to lift them out of this poverty is through education?”
“Do I then understand the First Deputy Prime Minister to say that the Government is resigned to poverty in Singapore? Does he not think that the duty of any socialist government is to commit itself to the eradication of poverty? Am I to understand that this Government does not propose to commit itself? Secondly, may I ask the First Deputy Prime Minister, when he says that education is the key, what steps the Government is taking to provide better education for the children from these poor families? Would the Government consider my suggestion in this House in the debate on the President's Address to give child allowances to children from these poor families who are in primary schools or secondary schools so that they could better their education in the schools by the provision of more reading books and other aids?”
“Sir, does the First Deputy Prime Minister appreciate that he has not really added very much more to what was said by his junior Minister, the Minister of State for Defence and Trade and Industry, when he spoke at Guild House sometime ago? Would the First Deputy Prime Minister say whether the Minister of State was speaking on behalf of the Government when he said that the eradication of poverty must remain a mirage? Is this Government resigned to poverty in Singapore for a section of its people?”
“I have not smeared. I am asking questions.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thought this would come up, without the Minister attempting to answer or reply to the points that I made. I do not know when Ministers of this Government will learn that they have a responsibility and a duty to lay bare all facts on any decision made by the Government and which is questioned in this House. There is no question of any smear or innuendo, unless the Minister has a guilty conscience about it. All we have to do is to ask him a question and he has got to lay bare all facts. There is no question of any smear or innuendoes.”
“Are you wise in tossing overboard fixed, settled values which are part of our culture, of our ethos, for principles and theories of government espoused in the West which are not part of our culture, not part of our system?, It is perhaps unfortunate that the Prime Minister, after exhorting the generation to decide wisely, did not go on to spell out, in that one hour that he had, what were the values that his Government was advocating for our people as a society. As I said, he seems to see it as a choice between Asian values and Western values. Well, I do not see it like that. The Prime Minister went on to say that the battle was on for the minds of the younger generations. The Prime Minister was right that this is a question of great importance, of great magnitude, at the moment. What are the values that we wish to adopt as a society? Because the Prime Minister did not go on to ask the questions and to give the answers in his speech, I called a press conference after that, and I posed a number of questions. The press did not carry my questions when they reported my press conference. So I wrote to the Straits Times a letter on the 4th March 1985 asking what I thought were pertinent questions, asking the Prime Minister if he would answer them. That letter never saw the light of day in the Straits Times. Instead, I had a letter to say, "We are very sorry. We can't publish your letter but please keep writing", or something like that. May I say, in passing, that I have another letter which has gone to the Straits Times and which has not yet seen the light of day. Probably, tomorrow I will have another letter saying, "We cannot publish your letter but please keep writing."”
“We have heard from the First Deputy Prime Minister, after the elections, of the machinery that will be set up to provide feedback to the Government and to provide dialogue. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have had two weeks in this House but we have not had very much time to examine the values, and my fear is that, after this debate, we will perhaps abandon the search for values. If past experience is anything to go by, Sir, after the Budget session, Parliament does not meet again for the next three or four months. But debate cannot just be centred in Parliament. Debate must take place outside Parliament, and this is where I want an assurance from the First Deputy Prime Minister. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here to reply to this because he has brought this starkly into focus, when he replied to my amendment. I want to know whether enough opportunities will be provided for this dialogue in our search for the values for our society. It is because of the importance of determining what values we cherish for our society that 1, in my speech on the Address of Thanks to the President, dwelt not on any particular programme or policy of the Government, but directed my thoughts to spelling out what I thought should be the values for our society. The Prime Minister replied to that at length. I am afraid, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not have the Hansard with me, but I have with me the Straits Times for the 2nd March which reported his speech at some length. On the front page, the Straits Times says "The young face crucial choice". And then it quoted: 'I am asking the younger generation to ask themselves what makes Singapore work.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I make no apology for detaining Members for another half an hour after a long and arduous sitting of this House. I say I make no apology, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because of the importance of the matter that I wish to raise, and that is, of course, the first objective outlined in the President's Address to this House on the 25th February. The first objective set out in the President's Address was "to reach an accord on the character of the society people desire, and involve the young in working towards its achievement". Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have had two weeks of debate in this House where we have examined various programmes of this Government. But superimposed and standing over all programmes and policies of the Government is the one important question, and that is, the character of the society people desire. Put in other words, Sir, the values we cherish for our society in Singapore. It is on the values that we hold as a society in Singapore that we then decide on the various programmes and policies. So the values for us as a society must come first. There must be agreement on the values of our society. What are these values to be? Are they to be Asian values or are they to be Western values? I shall be referring to the Prime Minister's speech in reply to the amendment I moved to the President's Address. He seemed to see it as a contest between Asian values and Western values. It will be my endeavour to show that he is wrong in seeing like that. The question remains, what are to be our values for us as a society? So I bring this up this evening, Sir, to urge that we devote our attention to finding for our society the values that we cherish for our people.”
“If you take all the parliamentary committees to be appointed, the number of Members will come to around 50 and we can justify one Member of the Opposition on one of the committees. It is our intention to have either one or perhaps even both in one or two committees of Parliament. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 95, appoints the following as members of the Committee of Selection:- Mr Chua Sian Chin Mr S. Dhanabalan Mr Lee Yiok Seng Mr Lim Boon Heng Encik Sidek bin Saniff Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam Dr Tay Eng Soon. ADJOURNMENT TO A DATE TO BE FIXED (Motion) Resolved, 'That at its rising today Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." - [Mr S. Dhanabalan]. ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is a motion for the appointment of the Committee of Selection under Standing Order 95 of the Standing Orders of this House. This Committee will then proceed to nominate Members to the other committees. Sir, I am aware of the provisions of the Standing Orders relating to committees of Parliament and that committees should reflect as far as possible the balance of Members in this House. I have raised before, the non-appointment of the only Opposition Member in the last Parliament to any of the committees of the House, I am aware that it may be interpreted in another way. But I maintain that under that clause, the committees of the House should, if it is at all possible, reflect the composition of the House. This House is no longer composed of just Members of one Party. This House is now composed of Members of three Parties. I am not saying that there should be a Member from each Party on each of the Committees. But I do say that the committees of this House should include at least one Member from the Opposition Bench. That would be a fair way of interpreting that Standing Order and implementing this Government's now stated intention not to try and obstruct the Opposition but to allow the Opposition to work together in trying to find solutions for our people. I would propose, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that one Member from the Opposition should be included on the Committee of Selection. Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are aware that we now have two Members of the Opposition in this House. They form about 2,2% of the House. The Committee of Selection has seven members, apart from the Speaker. I think 21/2% of seven makes not even one-quarter. However, Sir, we are intending to take into account, the points made by the Member for Anson.”
“Sir, may 1, by way of clarification, ask the Minister whether it is not possible to ask the Social Welfare Department to refer a case, where a foreign child is involved, first to the Immigration Department?”
“May I ask the Minister a question on the appeals to the Minister? He has told us that the Ministry receives representation from the employers once an appeal is received from an employee. Does the Ministry communicate to the employee the representations made to the Ministry by the employer, so that the employee may be able to answer them? My understanding is that nothing of this sort is done. That is why I say an appeal to the Minister is an exercise in futility. The poor worker does not know what representations are made by the employer to the Minister. And on what grounds the Minister has refused to intervene?”
“Yes. I know of several cases where the company has just thrown workers out by offering them this four weeks' wages.”