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 58 of 82.
“Finally, is the Minister aware that this family was not informed at least, I am told, three hours after the officer's death? Is there any reason for this delay ? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not see the relevance of the supplementary question to the original one. VACANT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND PRIVATE APARTMENTS (Particulars) 3. Mr Yeo Choo Kok asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many hotel rooms and offices in commercial buildings have remained vacant or unoccupied since completion in the last 12 months; (b) how many private apartments and houses have remained vacant or unoccupied since completion in the last 12 months; (c) whether his Ministry will buy over some of these hotels or commercial buildings and convert them to public use such as government offices and welfare and recreation centres; and (d) whether the Housing and Development Board will purchase some of these vacant private apartments and houses and sell them to interested buyers under the public housing scheme.”
“Is the Hon. Minister aware that in the case of OCT Tan Peng Kian, his family had been given conflicting reports about the time of the death of this officer? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we are entering into the facts of the case, which I am very reluctant to do because the Coroner has not yet ruled. I would say that issues such as time of death are questions of fact, not of opinion, and they will be determined by the Coroner and by the police investigation, and that the SAF will abide by whatever the facts are as they come out.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware of those powers. Is the Minister aware that unless the Coroner knows who the potential witnesses are, he cannot issue a subpoena for them to attend b&ore him? The question is, will the military make available to him the full details of the investigation. Secondly, will the reports be made available to the parents at least? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Coroner works on the basis of a police investigation, which proceeds independently of the SAF investigation. He knows which witness he wishes to call. As I have stated, the report of the Committees of Inquiry and boards of inquiry are privileged documents, and they are therefore not given to anybody outside of the working agencies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I know whether the witnesses, if any, who are heard by these Committees will be produced before the Coroner? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the learned Member for Anson is aware of the procedures for Coroner's inquiries. The Coroner has the power to call any witnesses he thinks fit.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I enquire from the Minister of State whether the reports of the Committees of Inquiry, or are they Boards of Inquiry in these present cases, will be submitted to the Coroner? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the reports in this case will be from the Committees of Inquiry. They will not be submitted to the Coroner because they are not admissible evidence under the law.”
“They thought they could somehow buy off the electorate from electing Opposition Members into Parliament by the first-past-the-post system and deluding them into believing that what have been termed as second-class MPs will be just as good. Well, it undermines the whole system of Parliamentary Opposition and it is for that reason that I propose to object or to vote against the second half of this motion. I am not going to call for a division, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I would like it recorded that we are voting against the second half of this motion for the reasons that I have set out, not because of any objection to the gentleman taking his seat.”
“Yes, I accept that, Mr Speaker, Sir. I know that you are very anxious that we should finish by 1.00 o'clock. Sir, this motion is in two parts. We have, of course, no quarrel with the first part of it, which is, a purely declaratory motion that Mr Nair having failed to take his seat, that seat is now vacant. So I do not propose to say anything about the first part of this motion. It is the second part on which I wish to speak, and I understand my worthy colleague on this side of the House is also going to say something on this. Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope I will not be misunderstood when I say that we are opposed to this. When I say "misunderstood", I am saying that I hope we will not be misunderstood by the gentleman to whom this seat is offered. We have no objections to his occupying a seat in this House and indeed we think he will be a very worthy Member of this House. But my Party has from the outset declared its objection to this scheme of non-constituency MP seats, and it is because of that and not because of any objection to the worthy gentleman that I am here to oppose the second part of this motion. We say that this idea was born out of hypocrisy on the part of the Government. I was not here when the Senior Minister in the Prime Minister's Office gave a long sermon on the politics of hypocrisy. Let me say that if anything is an act of hypocrisy, this is; trying to pretend that the Government is really interested in building up a credible Opposition in this Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, this idea of non-constituency MP seats undermines, in my view, the emergence of a strong credible Opposition. And that, of course, was at the back of the Government's mind and its purpose in introducing this.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me assure you that I am not going to take up an hour. I will be very brief.”
“Answer the question? An hon. Member: Sit down!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister just answer the question?”
“Yes. What does he understand by the freedom of speech? Is he saying that you can go out there onto the Esplanade or to an open ground in Singapore, get a few persons and tell them, criticize any policy of the Government? Are you saying that you can do that in Singapore today? Are you not aware of the Public Entertainments Act? You cannot do it, and you cannot even go to the court to enforce your right. So what is he talking about freedom of speech?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday we had a Minister of State making a long speech by way of clarification and I sought your ruling on that. And now I am told that I cannot even ask my questions.”
“No, I have not finished yet, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have not finished. Well, because the other -”
“Well, he says that we brought in all the fundamental provisions from the Malaysian Constitution into Singapore under the Republic of Singapore Independence Act. Is he really maintaining that? Because if he is, he is ignorant of the provisions of the Republic of Singapore Independence Act. There was one fundamental provision which was not introduced into Singapore. Let us not have any misleading in this House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not saying that there were no provisions in the Constitution. Was I not saying, unless the Minister did not hear me, that there were no fundamental freedoms in Singapore? Was I not saying that the Constitutional Commission appointed by this Government in 1966 had recommended adoption of certain provisions into the Constitution? It was not my recommendation. It was the recommendations of this Constitutional Commission, headed by the Chief Justice and by a Deputy, who was the then Speaker of Parliament. And the Prime Minister accepted that he rejected all the recommendations except for that one on minority rights. So, is the Minister not guilty of distortion in saying that I was asking in my speech adoption of provisions from the other Constitutions? It was the recommendations by this Constitutional Commission. And I particularly referred to the recommendation by this Constitutional Commission which provided that any person who is threatened with a violation of his fundamental right should be allowed to apply to the court for the enforcement of that fundamental right. Is there such a provision in the Constitution? The Minister simply glosses over all these things and, just what my Malay friends would say, was indulging in gasak buta. Is the Minister saying, I would like him to answer quite specifically, that in Singa- pore you have freedom of speech? Are you saying that in Singapore there is freedom from fear? Are you saying that in Singapore there is freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention?”
“I am aware of that, Mr Speaker, Sir. But I am saying that the Minister here is abusing his privilege in distorting what I tried to put across to the House in my speech.”
“Are you not going to allow me to seek clarification? Mr Speaker: You have already spent one whole hour in this debate. You have had your say for one whole hour.”
“I am going to put to him a number of questions. Whether he will clarify that. I say it is a monstrous distortion.”
“But, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have to clarify. You have allowed clarifications. Am I not to be allowed to reply to these monstrous distortions?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Minister was speaking before lunch, I thought it was understood that I would be allowed to take up some of his comments on my speech and I want to clarify that.”
“On a point of clarification. Is the Minister asserting that all the fundamental provisions have been brought down?”
“But we are talking about the policy of the Ministry of the Environment.”
“May I not ask the question now? May I know?”
“I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my question, The question is, "Was a survey taken from the residents?" I know you read out the recommendation of this Committee. The question is, "Did the Committee take a survey from the residents?"”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask a supplementary question, although not on food and hawker centres? Did I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that his Ministry was discontinuing the buildin of wet markets in new estates? If that is so, may I ask whether a survey has been taken from the residents as to their preference?”
“It is regarding the compensation that is paid to these farmers on account of their investment on waste treatment plant. I understood from the Parliamentary Secretary that 90% had accepted this. May I know whether they have been paid in full, the loss that they have suffered as a result of this investment, or are they only being paid a partial amount?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have any pig farmers in my constituency but may I ask a supplementary question. I am sorry. You have the Floor.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. I do not want to stop the Minister of State from continuing. But it is against Standing Orders. He said he wanted to clarify something but it would appear that he is making a long speech in reply to the Member. What is the clarification that he wanted to make?”
“What steps is the Ministry taking to see that the companies pay a fair wage to their seamen?”
“I was. Dr Yeo Ning Hong: The objective is to encourage them to earn higher salaries through higher productivity.”
“Now we have it. Is it the Government's intention to force our seamen to accept slave labour rates?”
“Do I then understand the Minister to say that the National Maritime Board does nothing whatsoever to find employment for Singapore seamen? Does the Minister know that our seamen are losing out to all the foreigners who come here because the companies can employ them at a cheaper rate? Yes, they can employ them cheaper. Is this what you do to your own seamen?”
“Do you require all ships registered in Singapore to get their seamen through the National Maritime Board?”
“I see that the Minister refuses to answer the question. I do not know whether he has been obtuse or is just being stubborn about it. Does the Minister not know, I repeat, that some years ago the practice was to require companies, who have registered their ships in Singapore, to get their seamen through the National Maritime Board who would then allocate men from their register on to the ships?”
“The question is: was there not a practice some years ago allowing Singapore seamen to be on hand at the National Maritime Board so that jobs could be found for them?”
“Is the Minister aware that some years ago the National Maritime Board provided a waiting room for Singapore seamen who were without jobs to wait to be called up if any employers wanted seamen on board their ships?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister talks about overfull employment. Is he aware that more than a thousand of our Singapore seamen have been unemployed for as long a period as a year or more, and are still waiting to find employment on ships?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my question was more specific than that. I would ask the Minister not to content himself with saying our policy must be to encourage companies to employ Singapore seamen. May I know specifically from him what steps his Ministry is taking to see that Singapore seamen find employment, particularly on ships that are registered under the Singapore flag?”
“Would the Minister outline to the House what steps, if any, his Ministry is taking to ensure that Singapore seamen find employment on ships that call at Singapore?”
“Would the Minister please answer my question? I have been very patient with the Minister. My question was, if I may repeat it: was the then First Deputy Prime Minister speaking for the Government when he said that "more drastic measures had to be taken"? If that is the intention of the present Government, may I know whether that is the intention of the Government, and if so, what other measures do you propose to take?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this was certainly reported in the Straits Times on the day after Nomination Day, and it was headlined "Dr Goh Keng Swee's press conference in the car park."”
“I see that the Hon. Minister is reporting a nil result although the Unit has been functioning, as I understand, from January 1984. May I ask the Hon. Minister whether the then First Deputy Prime Minister was speaking for the Government when he said at a car park on Nomination Day that if the graduates did not respond, the Government had to do something drastic. I would like the Minister to tell us whether it is the Government's intention that something drastic has to be done and, if that is so, what measures is the Government planning in its task of getting graduates to marry one another. The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. Could the Member please let me know the exact quotation and where was the statement made?”
“I asked for results. Would the Hon. Minister say how many graduates have married from the time the Social Development Unit began its functions?”
“I understood the Minister to say that the costs borne by these participants vary from 15% to 100%. Is he now saying that all those who go on cruises or on holidays organized by this Unit bear the full cost of these cruises and holidays?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, another supplementary question. I see that the Minister is not going to answer my earlier question. Notwithstanding that, I have another question. Would the Minister say what functions and activities have been organized for these graduates, particularly whether they have been sent on cruises or on holidays and, if so, where?”
“My question to the Hon. Minister was: does he not accept that every expenditure of the Government must be laid before Parliament? My question, I repeat, is: does this appear in the Budget for 1984-85?”
“Does the Minister not accept that every expenditure should be laid before Parliament?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my first supplementary question for the Minister is: was parliamentary approval obtained for this expenditure of $294,411.72? I have tried to look through the Budget for last year, and if the Minister says parliamentary approval was obtained, would he direct me to where this expenditure is contained in the Budget? Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I see no necessity to obtain specific parliamentary approval for this expenditure.”
“On a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir. If the Member is alluding to me, he should get his facts correct. What I said, and I have said all the time, is that it is wrong for the trade union to be at the beck and call of the Government, not that it should not be associated with a political party. Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I will come to that point later. The Labour Party draws its funds from the Trades Union Congress. In the United States, the AFLCIO, which stands for the American Federation of Labour Congress of Industrial Organizations, is also closely related to the Democratic Party. When the Labour Party is in power as a government, is it not also closely associated with the Trades Union Congress? So what is wrong, may I ask, for the PAP to be closely associated with the NTUC and form a symbiotic relationship?”
“It is not $220, not $20, not $220 million. It is $22 billion. One billion is 1,000 million, and that is, $22,000 million. That is a staggering sum of money.”