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 59 of 82.
“They want the wealthy. Mr Chiam See Tong: So let us be sincere. If the Government wants to carry out a programme, it has manifestly to be seen to be doing really what it preaches. Now, about the senior citizens. I note that now senior citizens are defined as people who are 65 years of age. I have the understanding that, in fact, senior citizens are people who are over 55 years of age, and not 65. Is this in preparation, setting people's mind in readiness, for the extension of the withdrawal of the CPF from 55 to 65? Further, if the credibility of the Government is to be maintained, then it has to do something about the CPF. The Government has promised to return the CPF money to workers at age 55. Now it says that it is not going to return this money until they reach 60 or 65. The policy now is that it has been postponed for two years, Well, the people go along with the Government, they will wait for two years. But at the end of two years, is the Government still going to tell the people, "Yes, at the end of these two years, we are going to return you the money", or is it not? They have to make a stand. On this one stand alone, if the Government cannot come up with a clear-cut answer, then I am afraid it is going to be very difficult for the people to believe the Government. How are they going to go with you and build this vision for 1999? They must know. The Government must be sincere. If there is a problem, the Government must spell out the problem. What is the problem? Is it inflation, massive inflation, or is it because the funds have been tied up and cannot be released? Or what? The people want to know. I do not think the Second Deputy Prime Minister should laugh. This is a serious matter. $22 billion of the people's money are tied up.”
“Sir, may I not be permined to reply to the speeches?”
“Is it permissible for the Member to attack somebody who is outside the House, this candidate for Bedok?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Speaker: What is the point of order?”
“And so Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Address of Thanks to the President be amended by deleting the hill-stop after the last word 'Parliament' and adding in thereafter these words: 'but the House regrets that the Government's programme lamentably fails to contain any measures for the achievement of a free vibrant participating society, an objective accepted as desirable by the Government in response to the wishes of the electorate.,.,, Now, if the society we want is a creative, vibrant society, I hope the Government will soon table measures.”
“May I then very briefly talk about the other two institutions, and the first is the trade unions. It has been said, Mr Speaker, Sir, that a strong, independent trade union is a safeguard, is a security for the people's rights and their freedoms. Does the Government plan to strengthen our trade unions? Does the Government plan to free our trade unions, so that they can serve their traditional role as trade unions and not as lieutenants of the Government, to try and keep the workers in control? That is not the role of trade unions. Today, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have the Second Deputy Prime Minister, who is now the Secretary-General of the trade unions. The trade unions have become part and parcel of the Government. That is not the function of trade unions, to serve the Government. Then there is the free press. The press in Singapore is, I am afraid, a scandal. What is the Government's plan, proposal, policy, towards the press? Are we going to encourage an investigative press that will seek out injustices, that will seek out any wrongdoing and expose it fearlessly? Or are we going to have a docile press that will echo whatever the Government says? Mr Speaker, Sir (you have drawn my attention to the time) unless the Government is prepared to take these measures that I have tried to outline in the time that I have, I say to the Government: you will never achieve a creative, vibrant society. You will never have an open system of Government. It is merely lip-service. You have got to back it with deeds and actions.”
“They borrowed it from the Constitution of Guyana. But we do not have such a provision in the Constitution, even after its recommendation in 1966. The courts are the traditional protectors of the people's rights under the Constitution, and we should not deprive them of this traditional role in this country. Indeed, Mr Speaker, Sir, in some countries, the courts are extending their jurisdiction on the question of fundamental rights of the people.”
“' I shall be moving on to examine the role of the courts in all these. But there you have the ideal of justice. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have given Ministers extensive, wide powers, because it is convenient. I suppose the complexities of modern government demand that Ministers should have powers. At the same time, we have denied our citizens access to the courts from the decisions of the Ministers. It may be that there are some decisions which cannot go on appeal, but there are a number of other decisions which can go. And this is the danger that they point out, the grievance that a citizen will feel where a decision is made in a hole-and-corner fashion and he is not allowed to test it or challenge it. People's livelihoods are threatened by decisions made by the Executive. People deprived of jobs, their passports withheld. Should there not be some redress for our citizens whose rights are violated in such an arbitrary manner? I could go on about the Ministers' powers, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I must move on. The next institution that safeguards the rights and helps towards the maintenance of a creative, vibrant society is, of course, the courts. Mr Speaker, Sir, our Constitution has some fundamental rights, but may I say here that in the Constitutional Commission's Report, they recommended a number of other provisions which have never found their way into the Constitution as yet. As I have said (that was in 1966, and we are in 1985) they made an important recommendation. They said (this is the Constitutional Commission) that there should be a provision in the Constitution which gives every citizen a right to apply to the courts for the enforcement of his fundamental right, if it is threatened or has been threatened; and they even spelt out how the clause should be worded.”
“I have warned against this danger and I would like to read, Mr Speaker, Sir, what was said very long ago, in 1926 I think, by the then Lord Chief Justice of England in a book, "The New Despotism": 'How is it to be expected that a party against whom a decision has been given in a hole-and-corner fashion and without any grounds being specified should believe that he has had justice?' That is worth taking note of, Mr Speaker, Sir. Following that, I think, there was another committee appointed, and this was in 1932, Mr Speaker, Sir, by Royal Commission, to examine into the extent of Ministers' powers. And this is published as Command Paper 4060, presented to Parliament in 1932, i.e. the UK Parliament. And this is what they say: 'Experience has also shown that in the course of delegating these very wide powers to Ministers, Parliament often entrusts them, or persons appointed by them, with the right and duty to take decisions which determine the rights of private persons and deprive them of their access to the courts of law. It cannot, we think, be denied that prima facie this involved an infringement of that rule of law which is a characteristic of the English Constitution.' Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that we claim in this country that the rule of law is a characteristic of our Constitution. The Committee refer to a statement of the ideal of justice, which was made by the then Lord Chancellor at a speech, and this is what the Lord Chancellor said: 'Amid the cross-currents and shifting sands of public life, the law is like a great rock upon which a man may set his feet and be safe, while the inevitable inequalities of private life are not so dangerous in a country where every citizen knows that in the law courts, at any rate, he can get justice.”
“If you are sincere, I tell the Government, about consultations with the people, if you are sincere about people participating in decisions, then you have to do something about procedures in this House. I would commend to the First Deputy Prime Minister that the Cabinet should seriously consider setting up a committee, just as it was set up in 1976 in the UK, to study a reform of the procedures of this House so that Parliament may become (i keep repeating, it is worth repeating) a -sounding board of the nation. Would the Government do that, or are we going to see Parliament relegated again to a more rubber-stamp? If you do, then you will find much greater dissatisfaction from the electorate. May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we do not need the Government to fire the imagination of the voters. Their imagination, has already been fired. It has been fired, Mr Speaker, Sir, because of what we in the Opposition have done. What the Government may do is to douse this imagination if it does not take any measures. So there is the danger. You do not need to fire the imagination. The imagination is already there. Our people are waiting, ready to take part in a society which will be meaningful, which will give them full participatory rights, and they want it. Are you going to give it to them? Now if I may move on to another aspect, and that is, the Minister's powers. I have again complained about this several times in the last three years when I was a Member of this House. In our statute books, we find in abundance Minister's powers - Ministers given powers to delegate and legislate, to make orders, decisions without very much control from Parliament.”
“I have complained in this House about the diffi culty that I have had in getting information from ministries. I will not go into all the difficulties because time is running out. The strength of these committees, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that they can take evidence from the public on any decisions of the Government. They do not, as at present recommended, pass Bills - that is still being dons by standing committees - but these select committees sit to take evidence from the public on any decisions of the Government or any actions of the Government, or any policy that is proposed by the Government. They can summon people before them. They can invite representations. So there you have Parliament speaking to the people and, as reported by the editor, of "The Commons Today", these committees do not just sit in Parliament House. They go out to the people. So Parliament is seen in action because the committee is a Committee of Parliament and it is just as much Parliament as the whole House is. They mention about a committee going out to a pub to take evidence from the people there and to find out the reactions on a matter that concerned race relations. That is the son of thing that Parliament should be doing if it is to be the sounding board of the nation. I find that there is no proposal at all in the President's Address or in the Addendum of the First Deputy Prime Minister of any intention on the part of this Government to strengthen the role of Parliament. Is it the intention of the Government that Parliament should continue as it had continued for 25 years when the Government dominated or had the whole House completely to itself so that Parliament was merely a rubber-stamp?”
“The Committee, after several sittings (I think they went through 68 sittings), came up with ways and means to improve Parliament, and I quote: 'to exercise effective control and stewardship over Ministers and the expanding bureaucracy of the modern state for which they are answerable and to make the decisions of Parliament and Government more responsible to the wishes of the electorate., You have it there, Mr Speaker, Sir, "to exercise effective control and stewardship over Ministers." When 1, speaking in March last year on this, said that Parliament was not exercising any control here, the then Leader of the House said, "Where does it say in the Constitution that Parliament exercises control over the Government?" As I said in a letter to the Straits Times after that, which was not published, the then Leader completely ignored the whole constitutional convention of parliamentary government. The Committee's main recommendation, Mr Speaker, Sir, was that departmental committees of the House should be set up to examine every policy of the Government and to examine decisions of the Government, and that the departmental committees be given powers to summon Ministers to appear before the committee and to explain and to justify their decisions, and the committee would then report to Parliament. It was also recognized that that was the only way in which Parliament could be informed effectively, that Members of Parliament would be better able to discharge their duties as Members if they were fully informed on all matters that concern the electorate, the citizens, the voters. The trouble in Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that there has been a control on information being made available.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there was dissatisfaction felt in the United Kingdom that Parliament was perhaps abdicating its role because of the complexities of modern government, and there was widespread concern about Parliament's abdication of its role. So the Government itself, in 1976, in the Queen's Address, proposed wide, sweeping measures to bring about reform of parliamentary procedure so that Parliament may scrutinize Government decisions, may call Ministers to account, and be given the powers to do this effectively. They appointed a Procedure Committee following the Queen's Speech after a long whole-day debate in Parliament. The Committee came up with its Report. It was called the Procedure Committee Report and, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the House of Commons Report 5881 which was submitted to Parliament in 1978. The Committee stated its belief and it is worth noting the belief of the Committee: That the balance of advantage between Parliament and Government in the day-to-day working of the Constitution is now weighted in favour of the Government to a degree which arouses widespread anxiety and it is inimical to the proper working of our parliamentary democracy.' Mr Speaker, Sir, I pause to say that in Singapore the working of the Constitution is weighted in favour of the Government to an alarming degree, and that is the reason why it has caused more than widespread anxiety in Singapore, resulting in the results we saw on 22nd December, 1984.”
“He says, "the main task of Parliament is still what it was when it was first summoned, not to legislate or govern but to secure full discussion and ventilation of all matters." And it is in this sense, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we speak of Parliament as being the custodian of our liberties. Our liberties are not just protected by preserving them in the Constitution but more so, Mr Speaker, Sir, by ensuring that Ministers always have to explain and publicly justify their policies and actions. The question is: Do we, this Parliament, function as the sounding board of the nation? Or do we function merely as a rubber-stamp of the Executive? If we want a vibrant, creative society, there is only one answer: Parliament has to function as the sounding board of the nation. Parliament must not only talk for the people but must talk to the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, in March of last year in an Adjournment Debate I raised this question about the efficacy of Parliament, and the then Leader of the House said: [Hansard, Vol. 43, col. 4661 '... we have been reporting to ourselves for years. Why should we report to you (meaning myself]?' Mr Speaker, Sir, may I tell the Member for Tanglin (now that he is no longer Leader of the House) that he missed the essential point. When Ministers come to Parliament, they do not just report to Parliament or to the Opposition. They report to the people. That is the great thing about Parliament - you are reporting to the people, you are justifying and explaining your decisions to the people, not just to the assembled company in Parliament.”
“I propose, Mr Speaker, Sir, now to examine how we can bring about the open government and the preservation of the rights of our citizens as human beings so that there will come about this creative vibrant society that we are all agreed should be our aim, a society where each citizen is proud to belong to it because he knows that he has his rights, he knows that he will be protected, he knows that he will get his remedies if they are violated or threatened, and a society where each is for the other in a caring, concern for one another, and a society where the government is made accountable for every decision that it makes, concerning the people and their lives. The first of the institutions, Mr Speaker, Sir, is of course Parliament. And Parliament, more than anything else, secures to the people that government is conducted openly, that government decisions are not made in a hole-and-corner fashion but are made openly so that the public may have access to the reasons and the background for the decisions. Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament is an institution of the people. That is an obvious statement and it was set up so that the task of governing may be done through Parliament. Parliament itself does not govern. It is the Executive that governs. But the important thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that the governing is done through Parliament. Parliament should be, as Mr Lloyd George, a one-time Prime Minister of the United Kingdom observed - Parliament should be the sounding board of the nation. It is where the views of the people come, where the government brings its decisions and where they are tested against the views of the people. It is the sounding board of the nation. If I may quote from the book, "Thoughts on the Constitution" by another constitutional writer, Mr Leo Amery.”
“That was 1966, Mr Speaker, Sir, and we are still waiting for a new Constitution based upon these proposals of the Constitutional Commission that was appointed in 1966. May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that your predecessor in office at that time was the Deputy Chairman of this Constitutional Commission. It was chaired by the Chief Justice. They say this, in paragraph 20 (so it is not me who is saying it; it is the Constitutional Commission): 'In this present era a notion is the sum total of all its citizens. In a nation, under a democratic form of government, each and everyone of its citizens is entitled to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, the enjoyment of which is protected by law and the enforcement which can be obtained from the Court whom Judges are independent of the Executive.' They then go on to say: 'in return for the protection afforded to him of the enjoyment of these rights and freedoms each citizen owes a corresponding duty not to exercise any of these rights and freedoms if by so doing he unjustifiably prejudices the public interest or the rights and freedoms of other citizens.' It goes without saying that where you confer a right there is a corresponding duty. And I am sure our citizens will not be lacking in recognizing their duties if you confer on them their rights. And it is important that not only that the rights be conferred, but that there be safeguarding of these rights once they have been conferred, and there should be remedies where there has been a violation or a threatened violation of these rights of the people.”
“" Mr Speaker, Sir, we have inherited from the time that we were under the colonial government a restriction on the freedom of speech. Is it necessary to continue this restriction? We do not need any more feedback machineries. All we need is to allow our citizens to say what they wish to say, of course, within the limits of the law. There is the law of libel, there is the law of sedition. To criticize the government, to take it to task openly outside. The trouble, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that once you set up, as it were, a consultative machinery and you stage forums, you would only hear the things that you want to hear. People must be left to their own to say what they wish to say. The trouble in Singapore is that everything is over-controlled, over-regulated. The Government apparently thinks that our people cannot do anything unless they have a Minister in charge; even to the extent of arranging football league games or matches, they must have a Minister. Let us not insult our people. They can do it very well on their own. I seem to be spending too much time on this fundamental right, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I, because they are very important, refer you to one paragraph of the Report of the Constitutional Commission in 1966. Mr Speaker, Sir, after we came out of Malaysia in 1965, the Prime Minister was all euphoric about investing our citizens with their rights. He was going to have a new Constitution, everything was going to be spelt out, there was going to be fundamental rights, Singapore was going to be a model country for the rest of the world to take note, and so he said he was going to appoint a Constitutional Commission which would listen to representations and then come out with a Report and then there would be a new Constitution.”
“That seems to me to be the problem - to get our young people to take pride in the society that we have built for them and to be ready to contribute in their own way to the building of the society. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have studied the addendum to the first objective outlined in the President's Speech which, as you know, Mr Speaker, Sir, talks about the character of the society, and it is on that that I am speaking this morning, and I find neither in the President's Address nor in the addendum anything at all, nothing about the steps, the measures that this Government has, or plans to take, to achieve this creative vibrant society. In place of that, all we have is a lot & wishy-washy thinking, Mr Speaker, Sir. In his addendum, the First Deputy Prime Minister says 'we will have this and we will have that' and it goes on ad infinitum. The question is whether you are going to involve our people to build a society to their liking, to their satisfaction because that would appear to be the first objective of the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, a vibrant creative society is one where its members live to the fullest dignity as human beings. An individual cannot live in the fullest dignity unless he has certain fundamental rights and freedoms which are protected and can be enforced if they are violated. So may I commend to the Government that the first requirement is a restoration or investing our people of their rights as human beings. Mr Speaker, Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister in his speech to the community leaders reported on the 10th of February, 1985, speaks about the machinery for consulting the people. I was asked by the press what I thought about this, and my reply was, "let's not have any more machinery. What is needed is freeing, liberating our people.”
“How is the Government proposing to bring about a creative, vibrant society which the Government accepts should be the desirable aim of us in Singapore? Whilst the First Deputy Prime Minister speaks about the creation of a creative, vibrant society, I find somewhat different the Prime Minister's speech at the Tanjong Pagar Community Centre New Year Gettogether which was reported in the papers of the 25th February 1985. To the Prime Minister, it seemed all that mattered was disciplining of the society. Society cannot, as I understood him, progress unless everybody was disciplined and those indisciplined were punished. And he says, "Well, you know, how hard we can punish." The Prime Minister was quoted as having said that the problem for younger Singaporeans was how they could be galvanized to go up and stay on top. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that that is the wrong diagnosis. It seems to me, in the first place, to be a very materialistic and selfish motive to set before the younger Singaporeans, before the young of our country. And that is partly the cause for our present discontent, the materialistic self-acquiring philosophy that this Government has preached from 1959. I would commend to the Prime Minister and to the Government that the problem is not trying to persuade Singaporeans to go to the top and stay on top. I do not think that Singaporeans, the young Singaporeans, are all bent on that, as it were, the rule of the jungle. As I see it, Mr Speaker, Sir, the problem that this Government will face over the next five years is how to persuade or convince our young people in our midst that in the Singapore society they can live their lives to the fullest dignity as human beings.”
“And he was warning the government in that country that there would be social unrest unless the full democratic rights of the citizens were restored to them. I am not here to warn the Government of social unrest but I would urge upon the Government to take that seriously. These rights are universal rights, recognized now by all countries all over the world. They have become fundamental and universal for the wellbeing of every human being wherever he or she may be, whether it is Singapore or Timbuktu. Secondly, the voters were saying, Mr Speaker, that government should be conducted openly, that decisions of the GoVernment are seen by the public to have been made upon due reason, due causes, and Ministers are made to publicly justify their decisions. And they, of course, ask that they should be heard, that there should be adequate consultation with the people before any decisions are made. Mr Speaker, Sir, after this message, the signal, as the Prime Minister called it, from the voters, we have had a number of statements from the Ministers of the Government trying to pacify our voters and promising them that the Government would take note of their wishes and would implement measures to bring this about. We have had the First Deputy Prime Minister speak at a meeting of community leaders on 8th February and which was reported in the Sunday Times on 10th February. These are his words: 'So we have got to try and fire the imagination of Singaporeans so that there is a now creative environment, there is a new vitality to take us through the next 25 years.' And it is about this now creative environment, the creative vibrant society, that the First Deputy Prime Minister says will be the objective of the Government that I propose to examine.”
“What the citizen and the electorate will mind is when he or she feels that his rights or her rights as citizens are being deprived, when they are not given their full rights as citizens of the country. Nobody is going to complain about austerity if austerity is necessary provided everyone is given his rights or her rights and all are treated equally. So we come back to the question of the rights of our citizens in this country of ours, whether the Government's actions in the past, for the last 25 years, had been one of a violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens, a neglect, a criminal neglect of their rights as human beings. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, the voters were saying much more than what the Prime Minister acknowledged. They were saying that they want their fundamental rights and freedom as human beings in this place, let alone as citizens. I do not propose to detail all the rights of which they have been deprived over the last 25 years. I have in this House, Mr Speaker, Sir, over the last three years since I entered it in December 1981 complained again and again about the violation of these rights and I do not propose to go through them again. I need only say one, and that is even on the question of a personal right as marriage, it would appear that some of our citizens still have to get the permission of the Government before he or she can marry. This is a personal right. So our citizens were saying through the ballot box that it is time that their rights were recognized, their rights as citizens, their rights as human beings, were recognized by this Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, only not very long ago, the Opposition Leader of a country not very far from here was also calling after their elections for the restoration of full democratic rights.”
“The Government for a moment was stunned by the results displayed over the last elections. It had spent $18 million of the taxpayers' monies to show off what it had achieved for Singapore over the last 25 years. The Prime Minister, it would appear, was so disturbed by the results at his press conference that a foreigner, Mr Speaker, had to tell him that he should relax and that the end of the world hadn't come because his Party had lost 12% of the votes. I am surprised that the Prime Minister was so disturbed. He should know better. He should know that governments come and go but people survive and continue. Now, what was the signal that the voters were sending to the Government through the ballot box, the most democratic method of selecting government? The signal that the Prime Minister acknowledged was that the voters wanted a less austere and open government. Mr Speaker, Sir, that was an acknowledgement by the Prime Minister that the voters were saying that a lot of Government activities, Government decisions, had been made in a hole-and-corner fashion, that Government decisions had not been explained, had not been justified before the electorate, that they had been left without any consultation before important decisions affecting their livelihood were made by the Government. And I shall, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the course of my speech examine what is involved in being an open government. The other thing that the Prime Minister acknowledged was that the people were complaining about the Government being too austere. I do not think that the electorate mind any government being austere, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“If it pleases you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose in the time that is allotted to me here to examine any specific issue of the Government or its programme, but I propose to spend my time examining what the last Member said was involvement of the people in the decision-making processes of the Government, something which has been noticeably lacking over the last 25 years since the present Government took office in June 1959. And it is to that that my amendment will be directed. Mr Speaker, Sir, we this Parliament, the Sixth Parliament of our country, meet in an air of expectancy. The electorate, who we are privileged to represent in this House, expect a great deal from this Parliament. There is a general air of expectancy. I was asked a number of times before today about this sitting of Parliament and sensed the eager expectation of the people to see what would be the Government's programme and what would be said in Parliament on it. Now, this expectancy, Mr Speaker, Sir, arises, I need not remind Members, from the results that came to light on the night of 22nd December 1984 when the last General Elections were hold. For the first time since 1959 when this Government took office, there was a significant swing away from the Government towards the Opposition parties. People were clearly expressing their discontent, their dissatisfaction, with what had gone on for the last 25 years. And this result evoked comments overseas. They were saying that Singapore had come of age, that the Singapore people had matured and were showing that they were politically able to take charge of their country's affairs. And, of course, Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst the results were greeted by our Singapore citizens and the electorate, it sent shock waves through the Government.”
“Well, would you rather that I move my amendment, Sir?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, having listened to the Member moving this Motion for the Address of Thanks, I find myself much in agreement with the comments that he has made about the Government's record and its actions over the last 25 years. Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment to the Motion, and I propose to move that at the end of my speech, if I may, but with your permission, may I hand it now to the Clerk. Amendment handed in.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, as it were from the other side of the House, give you my very sincere and hearty congratulations on your election. We have heard from the Leader about your long reign in this House, but I, Mr Speaker, Sir, have only been under your rule for three years after I entered this House in December 1981. But may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that during that short time of three years you have gained greatly my respect and admiration for the charm and tact which you brought to bear to this high office that you have hold with such esteem and honour. It has not always been easy for you and sometimes it has been made trying, and my only hope is that I did not contribute in any way to your trials. Mr Speaker, Sir, it only remains for me now to wish you another very pleasant four years in office. 3.33 pm”
“Does the Minister not realise that he has a duty in this, Keppel being a company in which the public are interested, their monies invested in it, it is a government-owned company. Does the Minister really think that he can get away without making any statement?”
“If it was true, why decline comment? Mr Speaker: Let us go to the second Question. Mr Jeyaretnam. KEPPEL SHIPYARD (Acquisition of Straits Steamship shares) 2. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Finance and Minister for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the acquisition by the Government company, Keppel Shipyard, of the shares in Straits Steamship.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not talking about the circumstances in the Philippines. What I want to know is what were the circumstances that prompted Singapore to supply this information? Secondly, may I know why his Ministry declined to comment on this when they were asked on the 14th whether this was true? Why conceal it?”
“Is the Minister really so obtuse that he does not understand questions directed at him? The Second Deputy Prime Minister (Foreign Affairs) (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Obtuse questions will obtain obtuse answers.”
“Would the Minister answer the question, Is it the usual rule for his Ministry to supply information to governments every time a national of the country passes through Singapore? I asked that question and he has not answered that question.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am here to ask questions, not to answer questions. It is for the Ministers to answer questions here. Now, the Minister keeps saying "in the light", but what was compelling in this "light" that made it necessary for the Singapore Government to give this information?”
“Does the Minister not realise that his answer does not really reveal anything? He is getting clever at this game. Would the Minister say what was the reason? Does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs pass on information to other governments every time one of their nationals passes through Singapore?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I understand the Minister to say the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had informed the Philippines Government, may I ask whether the Philippines Government or any agency made a request for his information and for his movements to be monitored?”
“Would the Prime Minister not agree that this plan, as he seems to admit, would be unique to Singapore, another first for Singapore? And since it departs from any other constitutional theory of government, it should be put to the people rather than to Parliament. And if it is to be put into practice, there should be a referendum on this.”
“Secondly, does the Prime Minister not think that these proposals are perhaps unique to Singapore or will be unique to Singapore? And may I ask him again, what constitutional theory has told him that this is possible?”
“Again, may I ask the Prime Minister, he seems to be suffering from the same malady as his Ministers, would he answer the question? Does he consider that these reserves are the special property of the People's Action Party?”
“Would the Prime Minister explain the significance of the remarks that he made at the National Day assembly that any new government - and I see that the Prime Minister is having nightmares of another government taking over - would he explain the significance of the remarks that the government that takes over should not have access to any reserves that it itself has not accumulated? Those remarks can only be significant if one assumes that the reserves so far accumulated are the special property of the People's Action Party and no other government may touch them.”
“Does the Prime Minister consider that the reserves that his Government has accumulated (and credit to them for that) are the special property of the People's Action Party?”
“Would the Prime Minister be good enough to say, considering what he said in this House in the July sitting that one must not tinker with the Constitution too often, when did he have this brain wave, after the July sitting and before the August 9 National Day? And if he did have this brain wave, did he consult any constitutional experts or advisers about this brilliant plan of his?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I still invite the Minister to refer to the section. I should be very pleased to see what the section says. The other two questions are these. First, does the Minister really think that the levy had to be raised or imposed so as to restrict the number of foreign maids coming into Singapore? Does he not think that it is a specious answer? Is there no other way of controlling the entry of foreign maids other than by imposing a levy? Is the Minister really suggesting that work permits are being issued ad lib to everybody who cries for one foreign maid? Are there no conditions restricting the issue of work permits for foreign maids? I would ask the Minister to think carefully about these questions. Does he not think his answers are specious? Secondly, may I ask was this levy imposed because it was another source of revenue for the Government? And if so, why does the Government need this money, and is it not another tax?”
“Would the Minister be good enough to refer to the section in the Regulation of Employment Act which says hat the Government may impose a levy? Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I know that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. But in the case of a person who is legally trained, I think that cannot be an excuse.”
“Does the Minister not appreciate that the fact that I had not raised it in 1982 does not make my question now invalid or untenable? Would the Minister please answer: where is the legislative sanction for this levy on foreign maids?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have three supplementary questions but I wish to ask them one at a time. The first question is: would the Minister say whether parliamentary sanction was obtained for this levy on foreign maids?”
“Would the Minister say whether he has made any inquiry, whether through his Boards of Visitors or through his officials, and if he has, will he make public the report of this committee or Board that inquired into it?”
“Would the Minister appoint a committee to inquire into the conditions at the Woodlands Home for the Aged before the outbreak of cholera and the causes that led to this outbreak?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister answer the question that was asked of him by the last Member, and that is, how long have the lavatories been not functioning properly in this Woodlands Home for the Aged before the cholera outbreak was detected? Secondly, has the Home adequate staff to cope adequately with bedridden patients, people who are unable to take care of themselves in their bowel movements or their habits, or are they just left to look after themselves?”
“Do the Minister and the First Deputy Prime Minister not realize that it is only harmful to the Administration if these details are not made known to the public?”
“Do the Minister and the First Deputy Prime Minister not realize that it is not a question of them assuring that everything was done perfectly, properly? It is a question of the public being told, so that it is seen to be done properly. That is one of the first principles of public administration and of justice.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, you, as the Speaker may disallow any question if you thought it was improper, and I have not heard you disallowing the question. I am asking the question whether the Minister will allow a Committee of this House to look into this promotion, to see how many other officers were passed over.”