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 6 of 82.
“May I ask why is the Prime Minister not obliged to give a reason to Parliament? Is he accountable or not accountable to Parliament?”
“I thought you would rule against it. Is the Minister, speaking for the Prime Minister, aware that when the Party first raised this question, the Prime Minister's reply was that Singaporeans could not be distracted from the grim tasks of recovering from the recession. That was the only reason given. He did not give any other reason. I know that on 6th July 1999, the Minister found lots of other reasons, but I want to know from the Prime Minister what is his new reason.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, at the risk of your ruling that the Minister need not answer this, may I know why the Prime Minister is not here to answer this question? After all, elections is his responsibility, and not that of any Minister. But my supplementary question is this.”
“If he is to be registered and to enjoy the same rights and privileges as a Singapore lawyer, and has the required practising certificate, should he not come under the disciplinary control of the Council of the Law Society, rather than the Attorney-General? Would he be required to pay the subscriptions that Singapore lawyers pay to the Law Society? I would like an answer to these questions from the Minister of State. But, as I said, it seems to me that suddenly we are opening the doors to foreign lawyers, and not necessarily the right kind of lawyers that we need in Singapore at the expense of our own local lawyers.”
“Are we going to place the same restrictions on these foreign lawyers who come in, requiring them to have degrees only from selected universities, and of attaining a certain standard in their degree before they are admitted? What about the question of whether they are to be resident in Singapore or not? Are we going to allow a foreign lawyer, who is not resident in Singapore, to apply for registration, and then to turn up in Singapore to do court work? That does not appear clear to me. It seems to me that we are unduly favouring foreigners at the expense of our own people. This, I suppose, is in line with the declared policy, that we have heard from time to time, that Singapore needs foreign talent, that we have not got the talent. I question that. It seems to me too easy a way out. And Mr Sin, may I say, rightly asked whether the expectations of transfer of expertise is not perhaps misplaced. How is this going to ensure, as he has pointed out, that the expertise will be transferred to Singapore lawyers unless, again as he says, Singapore law becomes the governing law? Is there any great expectations of that happening? And how will that happen by just allowing foreign law firms to go into joint law ventures or law alliances with the Singapore firms? The other concern I have is that after a foreign lawyer has been registered with the Attorney-General, he enjoys the same rights and privileges, including the right to appear in the courts on any matter, not just a case involving financial transactions. He is not limited to that. He is not under the disciplinary control of the Council of the Law Society, but he is under the disciplinary control of the Attorney-General. Why this differentiation?”
“The number of universities was cut down drastically and they were also told that they had to have a Second-Class Honours degree before they could apply to practise in Singapore. Hand in hand with that, action was taken to restrict the number of people coming out of the National University of Singapore to practise law. The feeling was that there were too many lawyers in Singapore and there was of course the other action taken to restrict the almost ad lib admission of Queen's Counsel to do work in Singapore. Courts were required to insist on greater requirements for the necessity for the admission of the QC before admitting the QC. But now, it seems to me that suddenly the Government seems to have a change of mind. This Bill seems to open the door, perhaps not the floodgates altogether, to foreign lawyers coming into Singapore, not only just to do offshore work but also to practise Singapore law. The Minister of State said they would not be able to appear in the Singapore courts. But as I read the amendment, if they are registered by the Attorney-General and if they have got their registration approved by the Attorney-General, then they can do whatever the Singapore lawyer can do under Part IV of the Legal Profession Act. That is how I read the Bill. If I am wrong, I wish to be corrected on it. But I see that to practise Singapore law the definition is to be able to do whatever the Singapore lawyers can do under Part IV and have the same rights and privileges, and of course the major right and privilege is the appearance in Singapore courts. So we are now opening the door to foreign lawyers coming in.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, much has been said and I do not propose to repeat what has already been said by the others. But before I begin my speech, may I also say that I am a practising lawyer but I have no pecuniary interest in this Bill, nor do I hope to have any interest in this. May I say that I am not very concerned or worried about the first part of the Bill which seeks to allow law firms to corporatise except to add that I personally regret the passing of a law firm which is a personal service rendered by the solicitor to a client into a kind of impersonal service and the practice becoming a business. But I suppose it is thought that in these days, the bigger the better. I am not sure that the bigger the better is right. I hear, quite often, clients or people coming to tell me when I see them outside, "Oh, we never get to see the lawyer who himself is handling our work. We are always delegated to somebody else in the firm or even the clerks.". Having said about the corporatisation of the local firms, may I say something about clause 15 which introduces a new part, Part IXA, into the Act, ie, allowing the entry of foreign lawyers into Singapore practice. It seems to me, speaking not on behalf of the big law firms, but on behalf of the smaller firms and especially those who do a one-man practice, that perhaps in the pursuit of financial excellence or wanting to become an international finance centre, we are sacrificing our lawyers to whom we have a duty. It is not very long ago, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that it was thought we had too many lawyers in Singapore and amendments were made to restrict Singaporeans who obtained their degrees outside from practising in Singapore by requiring that they had to hold their degrees only from selected universities.”
“Surely the Minister is aware that merely stating what the law is does not really help.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister regarding the withdrawals of CPF funds by Malaysian workers or employees who elect to go back. Is it not the position that a national from any other country is allowed to withdraw his entire savings and leave the country? Why is it different for Malaysians? If the fear is that they may return to work in Singapore again, having taken out their CPF, surely that can be overcome by a requirement - they either return whatever they have withdrawn back into the CPF fund or they be told that they cannot come and work in Singapore anymore. Why are we holding on to their monies?”
“It is really echoing what Mr Inderjit Singh and our Member for Hougang have asked. In view of the time taken, does the Government not think it proper and reasonable to inform the Malaysian authorities that unless the matter is resolved within a set period, the matter will have to be resolved by a court? There is no question that the matter has to be resolved according to law. So why are we dragging our feet? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a rare occasion, but for once I fully sympathise with Mr Jeyaretnam's sentiments. I agree with him. It is not a matter to be dragged on. We are pursuing it urgently, but I do not think it is helpful for us to make public announcements of deadlines and then bind ourselves. But we are not standing around. As Mr Jeyaretnam says, finally it has to be resolved in a court, if it cannot be resolved any other way. As the Prime Minister has said, this is not just a Malaysian court issue, but if there is no other way, it has to also go to the WTO. [Mr Jeyaretnam interrupted.] Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam can rest assured that the grass is not growing beneath our feet.”
“That was not what that officer said. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I am telling him the practice as we do it now. The other point is Mr Low Thia Khiang's comment about fairness. What is important is that if we have rules, for example, like setting up a community foundation, it is open to everybody to do it, not just PAP but Opposition parties. If you are unable to do it because of financial constraints, you should not say that there is no Rule of Law. Finally, Mr Chiam brought up some instances on the ground which he has lived with. These are, as he has said, not problems of the Rule of Law but how all of us handle matters on the ground to reach out to constituents. Original Question, as amended, put , and agreed to. Resolved, That this House (i) values the importance of the Rule of Law; and (ii) commends the Government for upholding the Rule of Law and ensuring that it is fully observed by all. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed. " - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes past Seven o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.”
“It is for the man-in-the-street, the public, to abide by, and of course the courts themselves to abide by it. But the Rule of Law is not just concerned with decisions made by the courts. The Rule of Law is concerned to ensure that the executive, that the Government is under law, just like any ordinary citizen. It is, therefore, no answer to say the courts are there to judge, we are not infringing the Rule of Law. It is a non sequitur completely. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Deputy Speaker, just a short rebuttal. First, I think I have to put on record that when I said that the Minister does not direct the Police what to do, it is not in relation to matters, all and sundry, but it is in relation to applications under the Public Entertainments Act when political parties are concerned. In other words, when an Opposition party applies for a PEL, the licensing officer will have to exercise his professional judgement as he is required to do under the Public Entertainments Act. He does not seek the approval of the Minister.”
“" May I tell the Minister of State and this House that in a proceeding in a court when I was charged along with the then Chairman for speaking without a permit, and we claimed trial and the licensing officer was called to give evidence for the prosecution, in answer to my question, he said, "Yes, I have been appointed under the Act to consider every application and to make the decision." But he said that there was a ruling that if any application is made by an Opposition political party, that application should be referred to the Ministry first. Of course, we had known that because previously, prior to that case, every time I rang him up he said, "Well, I am afraid that I do not know the decision yet. You have to wait. I will let you know when I get the decision." Well, that was giving himself away. So, there was an admission in court that applications from Opposition political parties were being treated differently from applications by other organisations or individuals. There, you have a clear breach of the Rule of Law that all persons are equal and no one is above the law. The final point, which I would like to make, is to underscore what Mr Chiam has said. The Rule of Law does not talk about how judicial decisions are to be made. That is something quite different. That is built up under the common law and there are rules of court. But what the Rule of Law says is that the executive cannot deprive anyone of his liberty or his goods without a specific law and observing in executing that law, the rules of natural justice. It is no answer to say we have the Rule of Law because we have the courts. We are not talking about the same thing. The Rule of Law is outside the courts. It is for the executive, for the Government, to abide by.”
“I do not want to keep repeating what I have already said. But may I just take up a few things which were not brought up in the amendment speech. The Minister of State said in his speech - I want to reply to him because I think I have already dismissed the others - as I understand it, that all are subject to the same law. This is what we want, equality, all subject to the same law. But he does not deal with the specific inequalities that we have shown that have happened in Singapore. I have mentioned the elections as an example and nothing has been said about that. I have mentioned about the purchases of the apartment. This, I have said, came under the second limb about all persons being equal under the law. All that the Minister of State can say is, "The Senior Minister and the DPM came to Parliament to explain the purchases." We have the Prevention of Corruption Act. We have section 8 in that Act which says that where any public official gets any benefit, advantage, favour from anyone who has any dealing with the Government, then he will be deemed to have got that benefit or favour corruptly. And we had here Ministers, not only Ministers, Judge and other public officers getting this benefit. The matter was not referred to the CPIB for investigation. But what was done was for the Prime Minister to take it into his hands and to appoint another Minister and somebody else outside to look into it. Where is the equality between the Ministers and anybody outside the Government? In their case, it would have been referred immediately to the CPIB for investigation. But it was not. That is one example where the law was not applied equally. Then he says, "Police do not take decisions from Ministers.”
“I want to reply to the comments made when I spoke.”
“May it be noted that I called for a division.”
“I call for a division. I want a division on this vote. Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang rose.”
“All right. Thank you. The speaker says that in a detention under the ISA, we have an advisory panel or board. Is he saying it has the same powers as a court of law? Does not the rule of natural justice require that a person should not be deprived of his liberty unless he is tried by a court of law and is found guilty on evidence admissible in a court of law? Does it or does it not say so in the rule of natural justice? And is this what happens in an advisory panel hearing? Are witnesses called to substantiate the Government's case? Is the detainee given right to cross-examine and call any witnesses? Is that what he is saying?”
“Sir, instances like that only go to show that we are not perfect. There are things you can do to improve, but certainly we are living in a country where the Rule of Law is supreme and we have to commend our Government for it. We do value the Rule of Law and we hope that Singapore will continue to have the Rule of Law and good governance and keep Singapore in the eyes of the world, almost heaven.”
“He had to face the law. Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Exactly. That is my point, Sir. That where you have a Rule of Law, a country that has respect for the Rule of Law, it is not whether the system is perfect or not. Nobody says our system is perfect. But it is what we do when there is a breach of the Rule of Law, and governments get knocked out. Actually Reagan did not get knocked out, but that is another story. Governments get voted out and they get imprisoned if they have very blatantly broken the law. So as far as I am concerned, the Elections Commission, the absence or presence of it, does not equal Rule of Law. So we have done what we could. The Government has done what it has to do to make the Rule of Law well respected among Ministers, civil servants and all parties that uphold the law in Singapore. Mr J B Jeyaretnam has got some complaints about how the newspapers deal with his Party. Sir, the last time I checked, the editors of the Straits Times and Zaobao had not occupied the Istana yet. They are not the Government. They should not be brought into this debate which we are now debating, and that is, that we commend the Government for upholding the Rule of Law. Sir, I must add that perhaps if you were to look at another way of summarising what we mean by the Rule of Law, it is that the Rule of Law is a situation where laws are fair and transparent and predictable, as Mr Chiam has cleverly put it, in a moment of inspiration perhaps. I do not think that we have problems with this, and I do not think Mr Chiam has problems with this. He has one instance, and I believe that instance came about from a misinterpretation of what the law and the policy said, and so I think he should be better informed now as to how that law or that policy was applied.”
“Perhaps he forgets that even in a country like that, we have got Presidents who have been taken to task for breaching the Rule of Law. The Iran contra affair during the Reagan's years is one example. And President Nixon had to resign because of another breach of law.”
“Out of political control. Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat: Out of political control. Out of the hands of the political masters, he says. He forgets that if the Police are not accountable to anybody and if they are not checked by anybody, then it will be a Police state beyond what he can imagine. It will no longer be Rule of Law. At least, under the political masters, the political masters are subject to checks, and there are very clear checks. One is that the courts can say, you are out of order, you cannot do this. And the courts have done that, as I have said. Two, every five years or less, they go to the ballot box. And if they have systematically abused the law and the system, they would not be elected, they would be chucked out, and we have not seen that happen yet to the People's Action Party. So I do not believe that the population thinks that there is a blatant disregard for the Rule of Law. Mr J B Jeyaretnam thinks that an Elections Commission would solve all these problems. Perhaps he thinks that with an Elections Commission, the Workers' Party would be a ruling party. I do not think so. The people finally decide, whether it is an Elections Commission or not. But the Elections Commission is not the cure because, if it was, as Mr Wong has pointed out, then there are many countries that have Elections Commissions - they should not be having the problems they are having. And we have got examples recently on this. Mr J B Jeyaretnam would, I am sure, say that the United States of America is a prime example of the Rule of Law. I would say that if he thinks so, and I know he has said this in not so many words before, that the country is a prime example of the Rule of Law.”
“May I, by way of clarification, put two questions to the Minister. Is it or is it not intimidation for the Prime Minister of the country to come and tell voters that if they vote for the Opposition party, his Government will deny them everything? Is it or is it not intimidation? I told him that a Queen's Counsel is of the view that it is intimidation. Will he answer that question? Secondly, is the Minister aware, perhaps he does not bother to read anything that the Workers' Party put out, that the Workers' Party had a manifesto outlining all the areas of Government and outlining the Workers' Party's proposals and programmes? If he has not read it, it is not our mistake. Of course, the papers would not give it prominence but do not make an accusation that we did not have a programme or a manifesto. I will produce it to you and will you please produce to us the manifesto that the PAP put out during the elections. Was it in a book form, a comprehensive one, containing all the policies that will be implemented, the programmes of the party? I have not seen anything. So will he please let us have that and I will give him mine.”
“But if they were a threat and they have not cooperated and told us everything, they will be detained. As a result, of the four cases, two have already been released because they have been level with the Internal Security Department and have recanted. They have explained their role and now they are no longer a threat and therefore they were released. The other two are still being detained because they have not been fully honest with us. The other point that he talked about is police investigation. Mr Jeyaretnam is a lawyer. I am only the Minister overseeing a department of police officers. If they have violated the law, Mr Jeyaretnam, who has represented many cases, would have won them, would he not? But I am sure of the results of that. All I know is that when police investigates, they follow the rules and the law. They go to the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General sanctions it before it goes to prosecution. The success rate in prosecution is pretty high. But that does not mean that every case prosecuted will be successful. The court has, from time to time, found it justified that either the case was not properly investigated or there was no case and therefore threw it out. That is the Rule of Law in application. We must look at it, as Mr Jeyaretnam says, in perspective, take the whole picture. But, unfortunately, he could only say, "Look at the whole picture", when in effect he only looks at the tree. That is the unfortunate part and very painful to me.”
“If he says he has a QC's opinion that what we did the last time was a violation of the law, then the right place to take it to is to the courts, apply to the Election Judge and take up a petition. That is the way, if he really believes in the Rule of Law. What else can it be, if he believes in the Rule of Law? To take a gun and shoot people, like he says? No, certainly that is not the way to do things. The matter is really this. Over these years, people have seen the PAP. They have compared the PAP with all the other parties and they know that the PAP has delivered and that is why they elected us time and again. If we tell the newspapers, "No, you cannot summarise the issues, and you cannot report the eve of polling day speeches.", Mr Jeyaretnam's complaint will be, "Why is there a blackout? Why are you blacking it out and not telling people what the programmes are?" If you do not have a programme, there is nothing for the newspapers to publicise. We have a programme and therefore the newspapers publicise us. That is certainly not our fault. Does the ISA violate the Rule of Law? I think both Mr Simon Tay and Prof. Chin and my Minister of State have said no. The Constitution itself says that Parliament may make any law that ensures national security. If that is against the law, take it up in the courts, unless Mr Jeyaretnam says we cannot trust our courts. Is he saying that? If so, say so. Call a spade a spade. Do not mumbo-jumbo and say all kinds of things and not get to the point. We had four cases of ISA arrests which were mentioned to this House when the question was asked by Mr Simon Tay. We do not just keep people unnecessarily. If they are no longer a security threat they will be out. There is no reason to detain them.”
“If they bluff the people and cannot deliver on their promises, they will be out very fast, like the SDP MPs. They could not perform and they were out. That is the reality. So despite his long years of experience in politics and some years in this House, he is not realistic. That is the unfortunate part of it. So the half-an-hour when I was there sitting and listening to him is a very painful exercise. It is painful to me because listening to him we hear the same thing over and over again. The man has not got out of the past when the past is long past. What we have now is the present going to the next millennium, and we are talking of the Internet world. But if he operates by the old system and thinks in the old way, he will never progress. Certainly, he will not. Does he mean that by having an Elections Commission it will do wonders to the Workers' Party? I doubt it. Look at some other countries where they have Elections Commissions. What have they become in some of them? In fact, I do not think the system has run very well in some of them, despite whatever systems they may have. Our Election Department runs a small outfit. Every four or five years, and now with the Presidential Election works, we get the people in the civil service to support and help as Returning Officers, etc. That is the kind of structure we have over the years and it has worked. If he says that it is intimidation because we offer people a programme and that the Election Department is unfair because they are not in charge, there is one route for him, that is, to take it to the courts on an Elections Petition.”
“1971. Mr Wong Kan Seng: 1971. What has changed in the Workers' Party since? What new people are there? Of course, Mr Low Thia Khiang is a rare find. But that is a rarity in the Workers' Party. What else do we have in the Workers' Party? What sort of people do they produce? Where are they election after election? Look at the People's Action Party in 1971. Look at the people we had in 1971. How many of them are here except Senior Minister? Who else? 1976? A few more are still around. But every term we have got new people because we are able to attract them. Because we are inclusive and able to accommodate all views and take them into account and that we have to stay relevant in order to gain the people's support. That is how we have got here. It is not because of anything else. It is only because of the programmes and manifestos that we have. At every election we say, "This is the People's Action Party wanting to serve you again. This is what we will do for you if we are in charge." What is wrong with that? It is the job of every political party to win the election, including the Workers' Party, SDP, SPP and SP, and what have you. But the unfortunate part about it is that apart from the People's Action Party, none of them has any concrete programme to offer the people. When the PAP said, "If you vote for us, this is what we will do.", Mr Jeyaretnam says, "This is intimidation." Is it? But Mr Jeyaretnam is not a political novice. He is supposed to be an experienced Secretary-General of the Workers' Party since 1971, for almost 28 years. This is the reality of politics. Every political party everywhere in the world has a political programme for the people. When they are in charge, they implement them. If they do their jobs well, they will be re-elected.”
“Do that afterwards. This happened after the Court of Appeal in 1989 decided it would no longer follow its past ---”
“But, as I said, you do not just look at it at one instance, two instances. I could go on and explain in detail, but I do not think I will have the time for that. The way Police investigations are carried out violates the Rule of Law; not informing arrested persons of their right, denying them counsel once they are taken into custody for up to three weeks violating the Rule of Law. Yes, you can, of course, say it is necessary. Our police have to investigate, our police have to stamp out crime. So we have got to give them these powers. Let us say we do not want the Rule of Law. For us, it is more important that our officers have the power to get criminals out of the society and, similarly, with other powers of the police. The amendment ignores the realities in Singapore. It does not look at the situation in Singapore but seeks approval or approbation because Singapore is such a good place. Everyone is happy. Well, that is questionable. But it ignores the realities, because we have got this result. It does not matter about the means. But the means are important. It is not just the end. It is the means which will justify the end, not the end that will justify the means. The other constant theme of Mr Simon Tay and even Prof. Chin is, "Go to the courts, go to the courts." But that is to miss the whole point of the argument. Does Mr Simon Tay know that with the amendment to the Internal Security Act, the courts are now precluded from inquiring into the merits of the detention?”
“Will you listen to me?" and see what response you get. The detention under the Internal Security Act is not answered simply by saying that we may need it. It is justified. The question you have to answer is: does it or does it not violate the Rule of Law? The rule, as I said, was propounded in the 13th century when the Barons said, "No one will be deprived of his liberty except by the lawful judgment of the court." Is it or is it not a violation of the Rule of Law? It is no good arguing that it is necessary because you want to keep Singapore safe. If you want to keep Singapore safe, then shoot all criminals. Then perhaps people may not take up to crime. Have summary trials, summary justice, then Singapore will be absolutely safe. But is that what we want in Singapore? So we must look at the picture as a whole. Does detention without trial violate the Rule of Law? Do not just say that it keeps Singapore safe, we will not have any trouble. Let us be honest and say, "No, in Singapore, we do not uphold the Rule of Law. We don't think the Rule of Law really is necessary for our society because we want to keep Singapore safe. So we are going to give our Ministers arbitrary power to keep Singapore safe." Then, at least, the world will know that we are being honest, that we are not interested in the Rule of Law. We have our own way of doing things. But if you keep saying that we observe the Rule of Law, then you have got to ask the question: do we? And if you examine the record of this Government, certainly from 1965 onwards, you will find that this is a Government which, through its Ministers, through its civil servants, especially the law enforcement agencies, has violated the Rule of Law. I have mentioned the instances.”
“The New Paper thought that it would go one better. It tabulated, for the benefit of the readers, what they would get and what they would not get, depending on their choice. Vote for the Workers' Party, you would not get this, you would not get that, etc. The Parliamentary Elections Act says that on polling day itself, there shall be no campaigning, there shall be no intimidation, there shall be no forcing of voters and yet, the papers blatantly carried all these on polling day. Was any action taken against the papers? Is that a violation of the Rule of Law or not? And yet, we are asked to commend the Government for upholding the Rule of Law and ensuring that it is fully observed by all. I selected the elections because that is the starting point, the main foundation for ensuring that there is a democracy, a properly elected government ruling the country, a government elected by the people with complete freedom to choose their representatives without any fear, without any constraint. Did the Cheng San voters have that freedom? Will you please try and answer that? You have the Prime Minister, not the PAP official. You have the Prime Minister because he was already Prime Minister on nomination day. There was no question that he would be the Prime Minister. He went there and he said this. So what freedom of choice did the Cheng San voters have? Let us be honest and ask this question. Here is the Prime Minister telling you, "I am going to withdraw everything from you." What is more, he told them, "If you vote for us, you'll have a hot line to me. You'll have a hot line to two Deputy Prime Ministers." I have been telling some of the Cheng San voters, "Why do you not ring up the Prime Minister? Ring him up and say, this is the hot line, Mr Prime Minister.”
“In the front page it said, "PM to voters - all or nothing". And he said, "You vote for the Workers' Party, you would not get anything. Even what you have in the way of any benefits will be taken away from you. But if you vote for us, you will have what you have got and you are going to get more. But if you vote for the Workers' Party, upgrading will cease, you may not get your MRT, trains will not stop here, you would not get your LRT, you would not get your new town, your children may not get good places in schools." If that is not intimidation, I would like to know what is intimidation. That was his threat, all or nothing. We referred this matter for an opinion to a Queen's Counsel in London and he said it was clearly an intimidation and in breach of that section under the Parliamentary Elections Act. PM told the voters that if they did not vote for the PAP, they were going to lose everything. But that is not all. On election day, when the law is that no one, other than the voters, the candidate and his agent, will be allowed into the polling centre, we had the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister driving in, shaking hands with voters queuing up to vote, and going beyond that into the area where they were casting their votes, watching over them. That seemed to us to be a clear breach of the Parliamentary Elections Act which said that no one, other than the voters, the candidate and his agent will be allowed, besides of course the election officials and the police officers to keep the order. If that is not a violation of the Rule of Law, what is it then? May I also refer to the publication by the papers. The Straits Times carried it on their front page. I have no doubt that the Chinese newspapers also carried the same message on their front page.”
“The Opposition parties, I remember, asked for it in the 1970s. Have we got an Elections Commission? No. The elections are run as though it was a matter for the Government, and Government alone. It is run on the decree of the Prime Minister in whose Ministry the Elections Department is put. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 5.50 pm So, where is the Rule of Law there to ensure equality to all parties to contest the elections? Straightaway, you have a fundamental breach of the Rule of Law. When you, on your own, decide to re-draw boundaries just because an Opposition has gained a foothold in one constituency, you decide that you will bring it in, put it with other constituencies, ad nauseam change boundaries to ensure that the Opposition is kept out of Parliament. So, that is a glaring instance of a violation of the Rule of Law. And then when it comes to the actual conduct of the elections, I am surprised that no attempt is made to try to answer what I have said in my speech. I mentioned about the conduct of the Government Ministers during an election campaign. Have Members here forgotten how the Government won the constituency of Cheng San? The Parliamentary Elections Act has a provision which says that any elections won by intimidation or bribery of voters is illegal and can be set aside on an election petition. What took place on 1st January 1997? The Prime Minister came to Cheng San, held a rally and he had only about 2,000 people in front of him and what did he say? Did he say, "You vote for the PAP, we are a better party, the Workers' Party cannot be trusted?" That is all in the rules. What did he say to the voters? Please look it up. It was next day headlined in the Straits Times. I will come to that. That was another violation of the Rule of Law.”
“Bring it up later. Of course, having more than a two-thirds majority, the Constitution can be amended at any time. That is why it is absolutely essential in any democratic society that the ruling party should never have more than a two-thirds majority if it wants to have a stable democratic government. It follows without any explanation. Otherwise, it becomes a tyranny, a tyranny by the party which controls Parliament and, of course, we know the situation in Singapore. From 1966 to 1981, it was an entirely PAP Parliament. There was no one from any other party in Parliament. So it was a one party passing laws - yes, strictly following the Constitution, the procedure - but ignoring the fundamental rules of natural justice and saying that they are abiding by the Rule of Law when they passed a Bill, that it has been passed in accordance with the Constitution. That is not compliance with the Rule of Law as the Privy Council tried to point out. After 1981, Parliament continued with a majority of PAP members. And this is the great drawback in Singapore and the one on which the PAP has capitalised, and that is, they go to any length to keep out any Opposition building up in Singapore. That in itself, to me, is a flagrant violation of the Rule of Law. I will illustrate what I mean by just making reference to the way the elections were conducted. Elections in Singapore are all one-sided. The field is not an even playing field. It will be idle to pretend that we have an even playing field in Singapore when it comes to elections. I have said this before, in many countries, particularly in the Commonwealth countries, that elections are the responsibility of an independent body, that is, the Elections Commission. Do we have an Elections Commission in Singapore?”
“Of course, Parliament, which is controlled almost entirely by Members of the Government party, can pass any law according to the Constitution. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Clarification, Mr Speaker.”
“All right. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am obliged to you. I have no quarrel with the changing of the word "recognises" to "values". I see that the amendment underscores the importance and the need for the rule of law. I have no objection to that. But I am surprised that thereafter he goes on to amend the rest of the motion by asking this House to commend the Government for upholding the Rule of Law and ensuring that it is fully observed by all. It appears to me, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this amendment ignores the realities in Singapore and tries to shut them out and just look at what Prof. Chin wants people to look at. But we have got to be honest and look at the realities in Singapore. If we look at the realities, can we then commend the Government for upholding the Rule of Law? I am obliged to him for his observation that the debate was somehow hijacked by concentrating on instances, rather than looking at the whole principle and whether it is being applied. It is like you are not looking at the wood but just simply looking at one or two trees there. But if you want to commend the Government for upholding the Rule of Law, you have got to answer a number of questions and ask whether the Rule of Law has been observed in the situations that are being looked at. Prof. Chin again raises, but was already said by Mr Simon Tay, that the laws are properly enacted, passed by Parliament, subsidiary legislation is made under the authority of the parent legislation. We all know that. But the point is, as the Privy Council pointed out in the judgement of Ong Ah Chuan that even an Act of Parliament may violate the Rule of Law if it is completely contrary to the rules of natural justice.”
“Then you will give me an opportunity later.”
“Do not put words into my mouth. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Well, you have done that before to me. Sir, the other point is that our law enforcement agencies take a professional, no-nonsense approach in tackling crime. Mr Chiam does the police a disservice. The police do not take orders from the political masters. The police exercise professional judgment in whatever they do. Mr Low, for example, has been quoted in the Straits Times where he said that he finds no reason to say that Government departments discriminate against ---”
“He says that he took a certain position as regards judicial review under the ISA, in the light of the fact that there have been recent detentions, he is prepared to re-consider his earlier opinion. This means that he does listen to what transpires in this House, what Government has to say in explaining why certain Acts are necessary and why certain laws are necessary. But not so Mr Jeyaretnam. This is what he does. He takes specific instances and then he puts them all in a very alarming manner, as though the Rule of Law is something that does not exist in Singapore, as though there is a systemic problem with the Rule of Law. Let me say that that is not the case. Even then, the instances that he cites are all based on erroneous interpretation, both of the law and, in some instances, of the facts. It is just like what transpired earlier on in this House when he challenged the Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology saying that if we clamp a person's car, we are punishing him, we are punishing an innocent person. I am quite surprised with that. Surely Mr Jeyaretnam must know that this is not an innocent person. He has been summoned to court for a parking offence. He does not come. And then a warrant of arrest is issued against him and he also does not comply with the warrant. So he is cocking a snook at the law. He is not complying with an order of the court to appear. And so you clamp his car, not to punish him, but to inconvenience him, to ensure that he appears before a court. This is not judicial punishment which, of course, will be unconstitutional.”
“Just sit down. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: He would like that. But he has held the floor for one hour. So I think I should do, though not quite likewise, but at least take some time to show up his motion. I would say that instead of this House moving this motion, this House should commend the Government for ensuring that all in Singapore observe the Rule of Law. I went though the Hansard. He may not have gone through the Hansard, but I went through the Hansard, the compilation of all our debates. And I can tell this House that since he first entered Parliament in 1981, until 1986, and then after he re-entered Parliament in 1997, he has raised all these points before. Indeed, since 1997, he has filed innumerable questions for oral answers, Committee of Supply cuts and several motions, not less than 10 motions or so, including about six main and two adjournment motions covering topics that have been covered today. I am sure he would remember our previous encounters in 1997 when we talked about the need to set up a commission of inquiry to look into the rights of accused persons, a commission of inquiry to look at whether or not our defamation laws ought to be changed, respect for the Judiciary, and we had long debates. That is why when I prepared for this motion, I wanted to see whether there is need to do more. Because if there is a need to do more, I will do more. But alas, hearing the NCMP out for one hour, I think he has said nothing new. As Mr Simon Tay said, he picks on instances, areas. He does not see the big picture. I think he is coloured by the fact that he has been around a long time. He does not see the big picture, especially of what is new, what has transpired in Singapore over the last 10-15 years. I applaud Mr Tay.”
“I did not do that. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: All right. He probably went through his files or his diary to see what points he raised. But he did not read carefully the replies that were given, because he has raised all these points before. I was very diligent in trying to see what new points I could counter. Whether it is, for example, rights of an accused person, right to counsel, right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, or our preventive detention laws, the Internal Security Act, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act, or other matters such as Ministers' actions at the last general elections, or purchases of flats at Nassim Jade and Scotts 28, or the need to hold a by-election, whether or not they are unconstitutional, all these have been debated, all these have been answered. So I do not think I want to prolong the agony of this House by going through the points one by one.”
“We should require the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau to get a court order before a person is detained, present the evidence to the District Judge or Magistrate and let the District Judge or Magistrate decide whether, on the medical evidence presented he is satisfied that the person is a drug addict requiring treatment, to make an order for detention. That is the provision under the Mental Disorder Treatment Act and we should take that over into the Misuse of Drugs Act. Then about the arrests that I mentioned, that is, the second violation. It is, as I said, the law that an accused person must be told the reason and the charge for which he is arrested. It was declared so by the House of Lords many, many years ago in what came to be known as the Christy Lynskey case. But in Singapore, persons are just picked up, not told the reason, that alone the charge. They are just told, "Follow me or come to the CID or the CNB." And if they ask why, he is told, "You will be told there." That is a violation of the Rule of Law. You are interfering with that person's liberty without any legal justifications. Even a minute's interference of the person's liberty is unjustified unless the law allows it. And similarly, with search warrants. There was the recent case and the Minister of State replying to it said, "Oh, yes, but the Misuse of Drugs Act provides." Yes, I know it does.”
“David Marshall who was a passionate believer in the Rule of Law and a believer in the freedom of the individual however added a safeguard. He introduced a court or tribunal of three persons to whom an appeal may be made by the person detained and who may release that person if the tribunal was not satisfied that it was necessary to detain the person. But the PAP, when they took over, and the great champion of personal liberty when Mr David Marshall was in power - the Chief Minister of the country - did away with that provision appointing the tribunal and reverted back to an advisory panel without any power to release. The power is only necessary in emergency times when there is a real threat and so we do not need it any more. Let us for once realise that it is a violation of the Rule of Law. Let us be honest and repeal it. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act again was a temporary measure. It was passed to deal with the threat from secret societies in those days. I remember I was a District Judge in those days having to record statements from persons who had been detained under this Act or Ordinance in those days. A lot of them were later released after the statements were recorded and it was established that they were perhaps not members of any secret society. So that was a temporary measure and we do not need that now. But now it is used for lots of other reasons. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, my suggestion is that there should be proper safeguards.”
“There are many other violations and, equally, my recommendations are only just the beginning, ie, recommendations of the steps that the Government must take immediately to establish the Rule of Law. Now, if I may move on and as quickly as possible try and explain why the Internal Security Act violates the Rule of Law. Under the Act, as I have said, it is just the Minister, and there is no way of checking the Minister's decision, who decides to make an order detaining a subject, depriving him of his liberty, completely contrary to the rule of natural justice and the fundamental principle that all men are free. The Constitution itself provides for a situation when this right may be restrained and, that is in Part XII of the Constitution, that is when there is an emergency, when there is a determined group of people resorting to unlawful means to bring down the Government and the society. The Constitution says in that situation, you have to pass an Act of Parliament and then you can restrain their liberties and restrict them. Are there any other conditions? And that was the case when the British passed the Emergency Regulations. Under the colonial government, Emergency Regulations were a purely temporary affair, designed to deal with what they thought and saw as an immediate threat to the country from people who were determined to break down the Government and create trouble in the society. So they brought in the Emergency Regulations and they were purely temporary, three months at a time and they had to be passed and renewed. After we took over, we retained that power under the Public Peace and Security Ordinance (PPSO), giving the power to the Government.”
“Secondly, repeal the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. That also is not necessary in our society today. Both these Acts may be convenient to the Government. But that is not the criterion, that is not the test. The test is the people's liberties. It is important to preserve the people's liberties. I do not ask the Government to repeal the Misuse of Drugs Act. But I think they should have another look at the Misuse of Drugs Act and see whether it contains sufficient safeguards against unfairly depriving a person of his liberty. Fourthly, I would urge the Government to consider amending the law relating to public meetings and processions. This comes under the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly so as to give full weight to the Article in the Constitution. Fifthly, repeal the provisions in the Housing and Development Act which empowers the Board to evict people without having to take them to court. The Housing and Development Board acts as the accuser, the Judge, the executioner. It is unheard of. But in Singapore, we have had this for some time. Sixthly, I am seriously suggesting to this Government that the police force should be taken out of political control. It should no longer come under the control or direction of the political masters. And likewise, I am proposing that the CPIB be also removed from the control of the political masters. I shall, if I have the time, expand on all this a bit more. But it may not be possible. The list of examples I have given of the violations in Singapore is, by no means, exhaustive. I could add a lot more. But I have tried to pick out what I thought were the very major serious violations of the Rule of Law.”
“And under this, I have about four heads, and that is, the blatant violations during election time by Government and Ministers to secure the victory of their party, the ruling party, including intimidation of voters. There you have clearly the law not evenly applied as between one party and another. Then we have the case not very long ago where it was seen that the law was not evenly applied. The purchase of apartments in Nassim Road and Scotts 28 by Ministers and public officials. I shall explain why I say that also seems to imply that some persons are more equal than others. Of course, I shall explain that. But let me assure the House, in case an attempt is made to assert that I am suggesting corruption, I am not. All I am saying is the law should be evenly applied. Then we have the disparate treatment of Opposition political parties in their applications for licences to hold their activities or conduct their programmes. I will explain that if I have the time. And finally, we have the just recently concluded instance of the President's election. I shall explain why it is a violation of the Rule of Law and violates particularly Article 12 of the Constitution. If I may move on and say what I think should be done as a priority by this Government. And we said this before, we are approaching the end of the century, we are approaching the end of the millennium and we keep talking about the 21st century. These steps have to be done immediately before we go too far into the 21st century. And I am commending to this Government that they immediately take the following steps. One is to repeal the provisions in the Internal Security Act providing for detention without trial. They are absolutely no longer necessary for our society in Singapore. They are an open sore.”
“That violates the Rule of Law. And when I say about freedom of speech and assembly, of course, I am also referring to the freedom of the newspapers to publish - the freedom of the press. That is part and parcel of the freedom of speech. Sixthly, denial of reasons for executive decisions and shutting out appeals to the courts. As I shall say, now in almost every Act, one finds this denial of reasons for decisions and not allowing any recourse to the courts. Seventhly, the restrictions on the right to travel in Singapore, the impounding of passports without an order of court. When I come to illustrate, I shall, of course, refer to the case of Mdm Teo Siew Har whose passport was detained for several months for no reason at all under the law. Then we have the eighth on the list - the power given to the Housing and Development Board to throw out lessees or tenants without having to take them to court. That is, if ever there was one, a clear violation of the person's rights and the Rule of Law. Then we also have the suspension and cancellation of people's licences by executive officials, and I have in mind, of course, the licences of taxi drivers, without a proper judicial inquiry. So you have in Singapore an abundance of power exercised by the executive through its officials which offend the Rule of Law. That is the first limb - that no one shall be arrested, deprived of anything, except under the law. Now, if I may come to the second limb - the equality of all persons under the law, and as Prof. Dicey says, from the Prime Minister down to the constable they are equal under the law. No one is more equal than another under the law. The Prime Minister is not more equal than a postman or a collector of rubbish.”
“The first on my list of the examples of violation of the Rule of Law is, of course, as has been asserted by us many a time, the arrest and detention of persons without trial purely on the arbitrary power invested by Parliament albeit, on the Minister. A person in Singapore can be detained without trial under the Internal Security Act, under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and also under the Misuse of Drugs Act, although some justification may be found for the detention under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The second is the arrest by police officers and other law enforcement officers without informing the subject of the charge. It is absolutely important under the Rule of Law that a person's liberty should not be deprived. He should not be deprived of his liberty, or in any way restrained unless he is first told of the law under which that can be done, and why it should be done. Also incidental to this is the searches - search of a person's house carried out by the Police and other law enforcement agencies. There again a citizen is entitled to insist that any search of his house be strictly in accordance with the law. Thirdly, the denial of the right to counsel - denial of the right of arrested persons to counsel and to visits from families for a period of time. Fourthly, there is the denial of bail by the courts even without adequate reasons. I am referring to the often heard request from police officers prosecuting to ask for a remand in Police custody when the accused is first produced in court. As I said once before, usually that request is granted without any inquiry, and I shall explain why it violates the Rule of Law. Then the one which we the Opposition have often raised - it is the fifth one - the denial of the freedom of speech and assembly.”
“I said there was no question about it, because it blatantly disregarded the fundamental rules of natural justice. The then Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Chua Sian Chin, in replying asked: "Is the Member trying to say that the Internal Security Act is not law? It was not passed properly?" There you have the misconception. Even an Act of Parliament can violate the Rule of Law. It can violate the Constitution and that is specially provided by the Constitution which says that any Act which is inconsistent or contrary to the Articles of this Constitution shall to that extent be void. And further by Article 162, it enjoins the Government and the courts to modify, alter and interpret Articles in any law so as to comply with the Articles in the Constitution, if that law seems to conflict with anything in the Constitution. So it is no answer to say, "Oh, we have the law, and that is it." The question is whether that law itself violates the Rule of Law as understood through the centuries. That is the main question. I think I have said enough to try to define what we are talking about when we say the Rule of Law is supreme and what is meant by the Rule of Law. I must now proceed without any further delay - I see time is running on - to list what I see to be the instances or examples of the violation of this fundamental principle of the Rule of Law in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, after I have listed them, I shall proceed to set out what I think the Government should do immediately, and then return back to this list of violations to try and explain how they violate the Rule of Law.”
“Lord Diplock, delivering the judgment of the Privy Council said this: "In a Constitution founded on the Westminster model and particularly in that part of it that purports to assure to all individual citizens the continued enjoyment of fundamental liberties or right, references to law in such context as 'in accordance with law', 'equality before the law', 'protection of the law' and their like, in their Lordship's view, refer to a system of law which incorporates those fundamental rules of natural justice that had formed part and parcel of the common law of England that was in operation in Singapore at the commencement of the Constitution. It would have been taken for granted by the makers of the Constitution that the law to which citizens could have recourse for the protection of fundamental liberties assured to them by the Constitution would be a system of law that did not flout those fundamental rules. If it were otherwise, it would be misuse of language to speak of law as something which affords protection for the individual in the enjoyment of its fundamental liberties and the purported entrenchment by Article 5 of Articles 9(1) and 12(1) will be little better than a mockery." So law is not just the Acts passed by Parliament but the fundamental rules of natural justice that have been accepted and become part and parcel of the common law and which, as they say, and which I have been saying, was the law in Singapore in operation before that. I was talking about the misconception. And it comes to my mind that sometime in the 1980s when I was in this House, there was a debate on the Internal Security Act. I said then that the provisions in the Act providing for detention of persons under an order of the Minister was a blatant negation of the Rule of Law.”