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 60 of 82.
“I still have the Floor. I am not here to make innuendoes. I am asking questions and I say the House is entitled to this information; not the House alone but the people at large in Singapore. The information has not been given. The information is, how long has this officer been in active service in the Army? Secondly, has this got a parallel in any other army? Thirdly, I want a categorical answer whether he was promoted to advance his political career?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, am I, in this House, not entitled to this information? What is so secret about this that the information cannot be given in this House? It is not a question of making any innuendoes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister if he will be good enough to answer my questions. My question, I repeat, is how long has this officer been in active service in the Army before he was promoted, and whether this has a parallel in any other army? And if I may add another question to it, would the Minister say whether the officer was promoted so that he could be advanced in his political career, so that he could be appointed Political Secretary to the Minister of Defence? Was that the real reason for his promotion? The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Sir, as the former Defence Minister, may I be permitted to make some observations. I consider this supplementary question from the Member for Anson to be totally unworthy of a Member of this Parliament. He, by aided innuendo, suggested that the promotion of Brig-Gen Lee was motivated by unworthy considerations, such as a move to accelerate his career in the political field or by virtue of his relationship with the Prime Minister. I challenge the Member to make this innuendo outside the privileged walls of this House and we will see whether or not he will get away with a libel suit.”
“Would the Minister be good enough to say how long this officer had been in active service in the Army before he was promoted to the rank of Brigadier? And would the Minister be good enough to say whether this has its parallel in any other army in the world except perhaps in armies which have taken over from their colonial masters?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. If the resignation of the officer was known at the time the promotion was considered, may I ask the Minister what was the urgency in promoting him, if he was going to resign from active service in the Army? Is it not possible for him to have gone on the reservist strength and then be promoted through that, if he was found suitable for promotion? Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have explained, the promotion of officers in the SAF depends on a number of factors: his experience, character, contribution to the SAF. In the case of Col Lee Hsien Loong, he was found worthy of promotion this year by the Promotions Council, and he was accordingly recommended for promotion. I have no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Promotions Council. There was no need whatsoever to defer the promotion of a good officer who richly deserved to be promoted this year.”
“Dr Toh Chin Chye asked the Minister for Finance and Minister for Trade and Industry the number of companies that were liquidated each quarter from the third quarter of 1983 to the second quarter of 1984 in (i) the manufacturing industry; (ii) the trade industry; (iii) the transport and communications sector; (iv) the financial and business services; (v) the construction sector; and (vi) other services.”
“On a point of clarification, Sir. Is the Minister not aware that the Act says that the Minister's decision shall be final? Mr Teh Cheang Wan: Yes, I am aware of that. Still, if people feel aggrieved that the HDB has acted against the law, there is redress for the people. At this stage, I would like to say that because of the national interest and that 80% of our population are living in HDB estates, it is essential that the Government and HDB continue to study the needs of residents in this ever-changing social environment. Rules and regulations will continue to be made and implemented as a strong deterrent to those who act against the interests of the HDB flat-dwellers because they represent the majority. Those people who misuse their flats represent only a minority. We must prevent people from abusing the privilege of subsidized public housing. Mr Deputy Speaker: For the record, I feel I should perhaps inform hon. Members that any grievance for which the sole remedy must be by way of legislation cannot be discussed and debated on a Motion for Adjournment. In such a case the hon. Member would have to resort to other means. I would like this to be in the Hansard. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes past Seven o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS COMPANIES LIQUIDATED IN 1983-84 1.”
“Let me just mention that they can appeal to the Housing Board and they can appeal to the Minister. And any person who is not satisfied and who feels that he is aggrieved, he has recourse to the courts. We are ruled by law in Singapore. He can also appeal all the way to the Court of Appeal or even to the Privy Council, if he feels that he is aggrieved.”
“Why didn't you reply to this letter? Mr Teh Cheang Wan: The HDB will give a reply. I would like to mention that at present, not 60-70%, which the Member has mentioned, but nearly 80% of Singaporeans are living in HDB flats. In the broader national context, the HDB has to look after the interests of the majority of our citizens and therefore it is essential for HDB to institute rules and regulations to govern these flats, to prevent people from abusing the flats. For example, like using the flat as a gambling den, drug distribution centre or as a brothel or, worse still, as a centre for housing illegal immigrants. So it is essential that HDB must have rules and regulations to prevent the abuse of the flats. The HDB will not acquire any flat for no reason whatsoever if the people have not been abusing the flat. The Member talks about home-owners being at the mercy of HDB. This is entirely wrong. In fact, today, the lessees and tenants of HDB flats are strongly represented by their RCs, CCCs and by their Members of Parliament. In almost every case, whenever there is any compulsory acquisition of flats, the PAP Members of Parliament have appealed to the HDB, first, at the official level, to the Chairman of HDB. They have appealed to my Senior Parliamentary Secretary and they have appealed to me, fighting very strongly. I would only turn down the case when there is overwhelming evidence that the person has misused his flat or has been subletting his flat without authorization. I would like to repeat that our lessees and tenants have the strongest protection under the PAP Members of Parliament. Both the lessees and tenants, in fact, are not helpless, as the Member for Anson is trying to present.”
“Thank you. This is no way of encouraging them to feel that they have a stake in Singapore because we keep telling our citizens that they have a stake. But what stake do they have in these apartments which are ostensibly sold to them and of which ostensibly they are owners? They stand in peril of losing them at any time if the Board thinks they have in any way abused the provisions or the terms and conditions under which the apartments have been leased to them. Thank you, Sir.”
“I am saying that the Ministry should consider whether it is right that the Housing and Development Board should be, as it were, the prosecutor, the judge and the executioner in matters which, as I said, concern the lives of about 60-70% of our citizens. It is all wrong. I think it is only right that where the Board considers that it has a case for acquiring the property or turning the tenant out because he has abused the provision of public housing, that it should make an application to an independent body and that body should then determine whether there has been an abuse by the lessee of the provision of public housing. It is important that our citizens should be encouraged to feel that they are not at the mercy of the Government or a statutory board.”
“It may involve, and I am asking the Minister to consider this.”
“The suggestion may involve, but I am not proposing a change.”
“I am saying that it is time we gave them some rights by allowing them a proper appeal to a tribunal. Mr Deputy Speaker: Would you say that it has to be done by means of a change in the legislation?”
“To add insult to injury, the Act says that where the Board exercises these powers, the compensation to be paid shall be determined by the Board and that the compensation pays no regard whatsoever to the market value of the apartment at the time that the Board re-acquires the apartment. I said there was a safeguard provided in the Act which was illusory and this is the right of appeal to the Minister. The tenant or the lessee is not given the evidence upon which the Board exercises these powers. He does not know how the Board got the evidence. He has got no power of challenging this evidence. He is merely told something and then he is asked to appeal against it. It is a hopeless situation for the tenant or the lessee. I was talking to a Danish journalist sometime ago and he was surprised that the lessees have no representation on our Housing and Development Board. He said that in Denmark where there is such a board, the purchasers of flats are represented on the board. He thought that it was strange that they do not have representation whatsoever on the Housing and Development Board. I think it is high time we considered protecting our lessees. I call them lessees because they are not really owners of these flats. They do not have a freehold interest but only a term of years. I think it is high time that we set up a tribunal. This afternoon we proposed setting up a small claims tribunal to protect consumers. What about a tribunal?”
“But if one looks at the instances for which power is given to the Board to re-acquire, one finds that they are for trivial reasons and which can hardly be called an abuse of public housing. For example, Mr Deputy Speaker, you find in the Act a power given to the Board to re-acquire the property if the owner has someone staying in his house, not as a tenant, but as a guest for a few days or for a month, because the Act says that if a lessee has an unauthorized occupier, the Board may exercise the powers. Is it really necessary that we should control the lives of all these people to this extent? Do they have no rights? Should they be at the mercy of the Housing and Development Board? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think it is time we realized that even though these people are living in houses provided by public funds, they have some rights. We should not treat them merely as recipients of charity. After all, they are paying for these apartments and they are not cheap, whatever the Minister may say about it. I cannot see any reason why they should be treated as though they are recipients of charity and that the tenure of their occupation should be dependent completely on the decision of the Board which may be arbitrary. Even on the death of the tenant or the lessee, the apartment may not devolve upon the next-of-kin or the personal representative because you find in the Act that the Board may refuse to grant permission. And if the Board r&uses to grant permission for the transmission on the death of the tenant or the lessee, then the property vests in the Board.”
“What I would like to know is: does the Board grant any relief in the case of tenants who are unable to pay their rents? Or does it, regardless of the consequences to the family, throw them out because they are unable to pay their rents? The Act would give the Board the power and I have myself known of cases where the Board has thrown people out because they have been unable to pay the rents. Indeed, when I asked a question in August 1982 of the persons who are debarred from applying for HDB apartments, the Minister's answer showed that persons who had been thrown out of their flats for non-payment of their rents and who did not clear these arrears would be debarred forever from applying for HDB flats again. Well, that shows a complete heartless attitude and a lack of appreciation of the difficulties that may be encountered by families. I would like to know what is the policy of the Board as regards people who are unable to pay their rents. What about those people who are on public assistance? Does the Board still require them to pay he rents due to the Board every month or are they given any relief? Moving from them to others, those whom we call owners of HDB apartments, but who are really not owners. They would appear to be pure occupiers of these flats at the pleasure of the HDB. Turning to them, one finds in the Act that the Board has powers for a variety of reasons to re-possess or to re-acquire the flats or the apartments from these owners. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I can well conceive that there may be situations where the right of public housing has been abused, that the Board should re-acquire the properties.”
“Here is a purchaser who, according to the writer, inadvertently leaves something blank in the form and he is told that, "either you pay $8,750 immediately and in addition to that you can only get the keys a month later or the sale of the flat to you will be withdrawn and you will have to reapply and go down to the bottom of the line and wait for another five years." As she says in her letter, the husband really had no choice. That is the sort of situation in which our people find themselves under the mandate that we have given to the Housing and Development Board. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if one looks through the Act and the sections in the Act which give the Board the various powers, you find that the Board can evict tenants who fall into arrears with their rent. And I am here, first of all, talking about monthly tenants, those who have not purchased their flats but are living purely as monthly tenants. I think mention was made when we were debating the Report of the Committee on the Problems of the Aged about people who are unable to pay the rents of HDB flats. What I would like to know from the Minister is: does the Board evict in every case a tenant who has fallen into arrears? Because there may well be situations where a tenant through no fault of his may be unable to pay the rent due to the Board. The simplest case is where the breadwinner in the family is taken ill and I know of one case in my own constituency where the man has had an accident, had his leg amputated, and he is out of employment, and has been out of employment for the last six months. It is in these situations where the family may find it very difficult to pay the rents. There are other situations. I could go on but I do not have the time.”
“I say helpless in spite of the provision provided in the Act for an appeal to the Minister. I propose, I hope in the time that is available to me, to show that this provision is really illusory and it is very limited. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I illustrate what I am saying by a letter that was written to the papers on the 2nd of August this year, not very long ago, by the wife of an intending purchaser of a flat from the Housing and Development Board. She wrote saying that her husband had applied in July 1979 for a 5-room flat. And in completing his application form, she says he had inadvertently failed to complete a box in that application form which required the applicant to state whether he was living in a rented flat or in a purchase flat at the time he made the application. She says it was pure inadvertence. Well, that is her letter. Then in 1984 the man was told he could get the flat for which he had applied way back in 1979. But when he went to collect his keys, apparently he was told, "Oh, in 1979 you left this little box uncompleted and therefore you now have to pay a fine, equivalent to 10% of the purchase price of the new flat that we are selling to you. Not only that, you will have to wait a month before you can get the keys of the new flat." I do not know what has happened to this particular case. I have not seen any reply from the Ministry or the Housing and Development Board to this letter, So I really do not know what has happened. That is the sort of situation I am speaking of.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have claimed this right to speak on the motion for the adjournment on the powers that have been granted to the Housing and Development Board under the Act and the manner of the exercise of those powers by the Board. Sir, in raising this question may I say that I am not in any way belinling what has been done by the Housing and Development Board under the Government in providing housing for the people. But may I perhaps in passing point out something which has been acknowledged by the Government that after 1981, particularly 31st October 1981, the construction of public housing has speeded up considerably. But I shall not, of course, claim any credit for that. I do wish to say that I am not belinling what has been done, but it is with the powers that have been granted to the Board and the exercise of these powers that I am concerned. As Members are well aware and all of us in Singapore are aware, about 60% or 70% of our population are now housed in apartments built by the Housing and Development Board. Therefore, the writ of the Housing and Development Board runs into all these families that are housed in the apartments and they, as I say, comprise about 60% to 70% of our population. Sir, was it in the last century that a philosopher wrote about the State becoming a leviathan and the citizens being helpless against the monster that has risen. We have in the Housing and Development Board, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a veritable leviathan, because if you will consider the powers that have been granted to the Board under this Act, the Board has now the power to exclude people from their homes, to throw people out of their homes and the residents are helpless against the exercise of these powers by the Board.”
“Sir, on a point of order. I do not think we have a quorum in the House.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I by way of clarification say that the Minister seems to have completely missed the point. I am sorry but he has missed completely the point of my speech in this House on this Bill. He talks about HDB building this and building that. I was not talking about HDB building this and building that. I was talking about the Land Acquisition Act and that is quite specific. Land may only be acquired for a public purpose and may be acquired for a statutory board for its own undertakings. The Board, I take it, is not going to operate the petrol station. The Board is going to give that land at an exorbitant price to a private company to operate the petrol station. That is not one of the purposes for which land may be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. I am saying that quite seriously and I am saying that you are misusing, as this Government has misused a number of Acts, legislation. The Government is misusing the Land Acquisition Act if it now allows the Board to sell land to oil companies after having acquired them for a public purpose.”
“" I think the only decent thing to do in such a case would be to return the land, if you do not need it, to the owners so that if an oil company wishes to build a petrol station on that site, they can approach the owners. I say this is positively amoral, if it is not a complete misuse of the powers given under the Land Acquisition Act. 5.33 pm”
“The example that the Minister referred to of selling the land to oil companies cannot, in my view, come within the ambit of section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act. It may, I suppose, in loose language be said that an oil company, which is developing the land by erecting a petrol station, is using it for a public purpose. But that is not what is intended by the Land Acquisition Act when it gave the power to the President to acquire land for a public purpose. One must not forget, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that when land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, it is acquired, at the moment, at the price prevailing in 1973. That is, even if the land is acquired after 1973. The point is this. These lands were acquired from the owners at prices which were far far below what they are today. They were acquired at a pittance. Now we find that the Board may not need these lands or some of these lands which have been acquired from owners at a pittance and the Board proposes to sell these lands to oil companies, not at the price that they bought from these private owners - I am sure that cannot be the case - but at the prevailing market prices. That, to me, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is a complete misuse of the powers of the Land Acquisition Act. Not only it is a misuse, I think it is positively amoral that you should acquire private land saying that you need it for a public purpose, construction of flats for the citizens, and then suddenly say, "Well, we don't really need this land. We are now going to give it to an oil company so that they can put up a petrol station.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am indebted to the Minister for clarifying the expression "any other land belonging to the Board." As I understand him now, it includes land which has been acquired for the use of the Board under the Land Acquisition Act and may also include land acquired by private treaty. I should have thought that most of the Board's land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act but be that as it may. Sir, as the Minister has said, clause 2 now extends the power of the Board to granting loans to purchasers of land acquired by the Board for a specific purpose under the Land Acquisition Act and he cites a case in point would be for the development of the land as a petrol station. In my view, it is a complete misuse of the Land Acquisition Act if the Housing and Development Board is now allowed to sell land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act to oil companies to be developed as petrol stations. Under the Land Acquisition Act, section 5(1) of the Act says: "Whenever any particular land is needed - (a) for any public purpose; (b) by any person, corporation, or statutory board, for any work or an undertaking which,in the opinion of the Minister, is of public benefit or of public utility or in the public interest; or (c) for any residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the President may, by notification published in the Gazette, declare the land to be required for the purpose specified in the notification." Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, you will see from the tenor of that section that the power is to be exercised only when the land is needed for a public purpose or where a statutory board requires it for its undertaking and that undertaking should be of public benefit or of public utility or in the public interest.”
“It may include land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I speak on this, may I ask the Minister by way of clarification, two questions and then when he has answered them, may I speak on this. First of all, would the Minister say what exactly is comprised in this "any other land belonging to the Board"? Is this land which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the Board and which the Board now does not propose to use for the building of flats or is this other land acquired otherwise than under the Land Acquisition Act? The second question is this. Planning permission to develop has been obtained under the Planning Act. Does this contemplate the Board obtaining planning permission for the land that is being sold or is it the intention that the purchaser should obtain planning permission and the Board would sell the land to him when he gets the planning permission?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I clarify my objection to clause 22 of the Bill which I do not think has been adequately understood by the. Minister? I was not merely campaigning for a reporting of all the proceedings next day in the papers. What I was saying was that, as he knows, all proceedings in any court are open to the public and there is a reason for this. That is because the person who is presiding knows that he is being watched by the public. This is well recognized. They serve as a watchdog, on behalf of the litigants or the public interest because the public have an interest in the administration of justice. And this Small Claims Tribunal is doing just that, trying to do justice between two competing parties. That is why I said I cannot understand why the public should be excluded. I can understand some people having reservations about their cases being published in the papers. That can be done by a direction that the papers do not publish certain reports or names of parties or any evidence. But why exclude the friends of the claimants from attending the court and watching the proceedings?”
“A legal officer may not be an advocate and solicitor.”
“In any case, the rules will provide for the process of appeal. He has referred to clause 21 and pointed out that corporations and the Government may be represented by an employee or, in the case of the Government, by a public officer. I am afraid his interpretation is wrong. It is true and it says in clause 21 that a party to a proceeding before a tribunal, if it is the Government, a public officer may present the case. He has concluded that a legal officer can represent the Government. But he has failed to see that this is subject to subclause (3) which says: 'No party to any proceedings before a tribunal shall be represented by an advocate and solicitor or agent, whether paid or otherwise.' 4.15 pm”
“In any case, I would like to draw Members' attention to the fact that clause 35(2) provides for rules to be made to regulate and prescribe the procedure to be followed on appeals. So the authorities making these rules will no doubt bear these points in mind when the necessary rules are drafted. May I now go on to the points raised by the Member for Anson. I am glad that, for once, he has supported a Bill moved by the Government and his points also are noted. He has commented that confining the jurisdiction of the tribunal to disputes concerning sale of goods and services is rather restrictive. Why not other categories of disputes? As I have said, this is experimental. We will have to see how it works and, with experience, we could consider extending the categories of disputes. But I am not sure whether the example that he mentioned, that is disputes between neighbours in flats, is the kind of dispute that should be brought to the Small Claims Tribunal. Instead of advocating that, he should note that we have Residents' Committees throughout Singapore. We have campaigns of good neighbourliness and courtesy. So perhaps he should come forward and support these campaigns if he is really interested in reducing the incidence of quarrels between neighbours. Going to court may only aggravate the relationship between neighbours. He has asked why is it in clause 13 the record of a tribunal is so brief that it would make the Appellate Court's task more difficult. The answer to that is that the more lengthy, the more comprehensive notes and grounds of decisions which have to be made by the Small Claims Tribunal, will of course lead to more delays and will take up more time on the pan of the Referee concerned and it will make the proceedings even less informal.”
“Informality, the absence of legal representation, the absence of strict application of rules of evidence and so on favour, not the corporation, but the consumer. But let me say that this is new. We must see how it works. If experience shows that it is being abused, then let me give him the assurance that appropriate steps will be taken to make sure that it will not be allowed to be so abused. May I go on to the comments of the Member for Jurong. I have taken note of his points which are similar to the points raised by the Member for Boon Lay. He has also asked whether we should exclude claims by particular partnerships and corporations. There i.s no immediate need to so exclude such claims. He has asked whether we should put a limit to the number of claims that are brought by parties. It may not be necessary to have this restrictive provision for one can envisage a situation where a particular consumer or consumers have been in an unfortunate position of suffering repeated misfortune at the hands of unscrupulous traders and corporations and such a restrictive provision would be to their disadvantage. On the point raised by the Member for Jurong on the provision of appeals, as he will see, the provision in clause 35 provides for appeals on very narrow grounds: '(a) on any ground involving a question of law; or on the ground that the claim was outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal.' Sir, these are very restrictive grounds and, in fact, if you look at clause 36(2), even on appeal, the High Court may not reverse or vary any determination made by a tribunal on questions of fact. So I do not think that this is a provision that is going to undermine the claims brought by consumers in the Small Claims Tribunal.”
“The answer to that is yes, as can be seen from the wording of clause 5. As to the specific example he gave, I think, I will be prejudging the jurisdiction of the court if I were to say yes or no. But obviously questions of poor workmanship and defective materials supplied, I would certainly expect, would come within the scope of clause 5. As regards his question as to whether this will cover claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship, the answer is no, because the provision in clause 5 talks of contract relating to contract for service. There is a distinction between contracts of service and contracts for service. So it would not cover the kind of disputes he mentioned relating to employer-employee relationship. The next point that he raised relates to the prospect of claims being brought by traders or suppliers - this is also a point raised by the Member for Jurong - the answer is yes. It covers both sides, claims by the consumer and claims by the trader or supplier. The point raised by the Member for Boon Lay as well as the Member for Jurong was not that persons who r&use to pay for goods or services should not be subject of any kind of proceedings in any tribunal. I believe they were expressing a more general concern as to whether this tribunal would possibly become a subject of abuse by traders resorting to debt collection. The answer to that is, as of now, traders and suppliers have access to the High Court and the Magistrates' Courts and even with the passage of this Bill, their access to the normal Courts would not be barred. As to whether they will have any special advantage in going to the Small Claims Tribunal will remain to be seen. The whole structure of the scheme is such that the advantage will really be with the consumer.”
“May I move on, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to clause 36 which deals with the powers of the High Court on appeals from the tribunal. Perhaps I should have mentioned clause 35 first that an appeal to the High Court is provided under this Bill "on any ground involving a question of law." But, Sir, if you look at clause 36(2), you find that the High Court, on hearing an appeal, may not "reverse or vary any determination made by a tribunal on questions of fact." Again, the Minister must well be aware that determination on questions of fact may well be questions of law. There is the question as to whether a finding of fact is a perverse finding and that is a question of law whether it is a perverse finding or not. So there would appear to be a conflict between these two provisions in the Bill. One says that an appeal can be made to the High Court on any ground involving a question of law but the clause following it prevents the High Court from reversing or varying any determination made by a tribunal on questions of fact which may well be questions of law. I would ask the Minister whether he would give consideration to that. Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the three Members who have expressed their support for the Bill and I have taken note of all their specific points. I shall also cause the records of these proceedings to be sent to the officials of the Judiciary who will be drafting the relevant rules of the tribunal so that they can be advised of the points raised. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I touch on some of the points raised by the individual speakers. The Member for Boon Lay asked the following question: besides disputes arising from the sale of goods, whether it would also cover the rendering of services. He gave a few examples.”
“It may also be salutary if some of these cases are reported in the papers where there is shoddy work by a contractor or shoddy articles or goods sold by a company and that is reported in the Press. So what is the need, may I ask, for excluding the public, and by that the Press, from proceedings before a Small Claims Tribunal? Clause 25, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, says: 'A tribunal shall not be bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks fit.' Sir, it is easy to run away with the idea that the Evidence Act and the evidentiary provisions make any hearing technical, stylized, formal and difficult. But it has been found through experience, not just over a few years but over centuries, that the laws of evidence serve a very useful purpose. The rules of evidence have been designed to see that justice is done between the parties and that a Referee or Judge who has to decide between competing claims decides on the evidence that is presented by both parties and does not go outside the evidence presented by both parties. These are safeguards for the administration of justice and therefore I am not very happy to see that the tribunal is excluded from this restriction which is imposed on any tribunal or adjudicator. I can understand the tribunal being given a little more latitude but I should have thought that the tribunal should, in making its finding, make it on the evidence that is presented before it and be bound by the evidence that is before it. In that way you have a greater chance of doing justice between the panies rather than leaving it very much, as it were, in the bosom of the Referee for him to decide what should be the result of the dispute between the two parties.”
“I can understand and I think it is desirable that advocates and solicitor should be excluded from this tribunal. But I do not understand why a consumer, a person who feels he cannot himself adequately present his case, should not get a friend of his to present the case for him. There are people who are unable, not through any fault of their own, to present their case adequately. They may not know what are the salient points, the evidence that should be presented. And it may be of assistance to people who are placed in that son of situation to have a friend to present their case for them before the Small Claims Tribunals. The common law right is that if you cannot do anything yourself, you can appoint an agent to do it and I do not know why we should cut down on this right of a person to present his case through an agent, provided of course this man is not a professional agent who charges fees. If the tribunal makes sure of that and this man is there merely as a friend, I do not see what objection there can be. I find clause 22 mystifying, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. It says: 'All proceedings before a tribunal shall be held in private.' May I know why proceedings before the Small Claims Tribunals should be held in private? As the Minister knows, one of the safeguards in the dispensation of justice, and this is dispensation of justice, adjudicating between two competing parties, is that it is open to the public and the public are there, who have an interest in the proceedings and they, as has been said, are watch-dogs of the proceedings before the tribunal or the court. The public have a purpose and a use in being admitted into courts and tribunals. I cannot understand why the proceedings before a Small Claims Tribunal should be held in camera, and the public excluded.”
“I see that it need not consist & the evidence that is given before the tribunal, but simply summaries of the facts as determined by the Referee during the hearing of the claims. As has been pointed out and I would echo that, this would make the task of an appellate court much more difficult, and I do not know why the Referee is not obliged to keep, perhaps not a full record of the evidence given before him in these hearings, but at least a summary of the evidence, not as determined by him, but a summary of the evidence as given by the parties and the witnesses before him. Perhaps the Minister might like to consider whether an amendment should be made to sub-paragraph (b) of sub-clause (2). The other clause on which I should like to say something is clause 21, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Mention has been made by speakers before me that this perhaps puts the parties on an equal footing. But, as the Minister pointed out, and it is in the Bill here, the Government, if it is a party to a dispute, may be represented by a public officer and the public officer may be a legal officer from a Government department or from the Attorney-General's Chambers. So it will be open to the Government at any time in any proceedings before the Small Claims Tribunals to send a lawyer against a consumer presenting his own case. Equally, Mr Deputy, Speaker, Sir, when you come to consider a body corporate, especially if they happen to be big companies, they may send one of their employees, a member of their staff, who is perhaps legally trained or even if he is not legally trained, he is well able to present his case on behalf of the company against a consumer who may not be trained to the same level as the person presenting the case on behalf of the corporation.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to welcome this Bill and to give my support to it. I was a little disappointed when I saw this Bill that it restricted disputes that may be tried by this tribunal, the disputes between, as the Minister said in his speech to consumers, purchasers of goods from suppliers and between users of services and suppliers of those services. I wonder why opportunity was not taken to give the tribunal jurisdiction in other areas of dispute. I understood the Minister to say that this Bill is an experiment and with the passage of time, perhaps consideration will be given to increasing the jurisdiction of the tribunal in other areas of disputes, small disputes that is. I do not know the number of cages between consumers and suppliers of goods on the one hand and the consumers and suppliers of services on the other hand that is at the moment before the courts. I do not myself think that there are a great number but I do know that there are a great number of cases, small cases, that clog the courts at the moment and cases where it will be desirable to move away from the stylized formal hearings that the courts accord, to a more informal resolution of the disputes. I am thinking particularly of disputes between neighbours in HDB flats. I know myself of cases that come up before the courts daily, small little disputes between neighbours over things broken or fights. Perhaps consideration should be given to setting up a tribunal, if it is not to be the same tribunal as this, to try those sort of disputes as well. With that, may I pass on to certain clauses of this Bill. Sir, reference has been made by a speaker to clause 13 of the Bill which sets out what the record of the tribunal should be.”
“If the employees do not find their working conditions comfortable, of course, their effectiveness and productivity will also decrease, so that the employer will also be adversely affected. Therefore, the employer would not be looking for trouble for himself, by finding fault or cavil with the employee just to discomfort the employee. The employer and the employee are just like a pair of hands, left and right hands, of our body. So, with cooperation if the employer has good business, he can make more money. I believe every employer will then be willing to give more reward to the employee. So the crux of the matter is usually due to the different views on the same matter. Perhaps the employer thinks that this is enough. But the employee says it is not enough. So it is a matter of degree. Therefore, we should pay attention to this point. As regards wages, whether it is sufficient or not or whether it is right or wrong, it is all in our conscience. If an employer is so stingy and puts all his profit into his own pocket and does not care for the welfare of his employee, then his company will not succeed. Singapore is an open society, and many of our employers come from different countries. If they cannot have a foothold and make money in Singapore, they might as well wind up their business and go elsewhere. Therefore, what we are discussing today namely, the Employment (Amendment) Bill, is to meet the requirements of the day. Therefore, we must base our discussion on the interests of our nation and the interests of our people. Sir, I fully support this motion. 7.47 pm”
“They spoke on behalf of the workers, expressing the concern that employers might make use of certain provisions of the Bill as an excuse for taking certain measures disadvantageous to the workers. But I would stress that our society is a free enterprise society. The employer and employee are in the same boat. We can describe the employer as rather the helmsman and the employee as a member of the crew of the boat. They should cooperate with one another and forge towards the same direction so as to achieve greater success. I myself can be described both as an employee and an employer. Living in this society, each one of us often has different roles. Therefore, our perspective should be an all-rounded ons. It should be comprehensive. We should view the perspective from the point of the general interest of the whole society, the whole nation. We should not be like the Member for Anson who wastes so much of our time, particularly at this time when normally people take their dinner. The air-condition ing here is rather cold and so, having spoken, he has gone out; perhaps he has gone for his dinner. He has been harping on the same tune, trite repetitions, in his verbose utterances. We should know that Parliament represents the general interest of the people of the whole nation. When we speak here we must speak with a broad vision on the premise that the interest of the nation must be uppermost. We should not be partisan in our attitude in this respect. We should not presume that every employer is bent on exploiting the worker. In fact, in a free enterprise society, the employer of course wants to make money.”
“If we peruse the local dailies, we will be able to know in depth the determination of our workers in preparing themselves to achieve further progress in the years ahead, and I am convinced that the purpose of introducing this amendment is no other than for the upliftment of the conditions of our workers and also for our Singapore society as a whole. As the issues that I intend to raise have already been touched upon by my colleagues from Boon Lay and Aljunied, I do not wish to cover the same points again. I only hope that great care must be exercised in the initial implementation of these amendments in order to gain the confidence of the workers; that the workers are convinced of our sincerity to further uplift their working conditions, because our workers comprise those who are not so skilled, with inadequate education, but who are already advanced in age and who may find it difficult to adapt themselves to new situations and who may require a longer time to absorb these amendments. These amendments have to be explained to them to enable them to grasp the full implications and thus encourage them to strive even harder in order to progress. Although the NTUC has organized and conducted courses, classes, such as BEST and others, I feel that this can be dons more successfully if the full support of the employers is forthcoming. I support this amendment. Hopefully, we can achieve even more rapid progress. Thank you. 7.42 pm Mr Chai Chong Yii (Bukit Batok)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first of. all, let me say that I support this Amendment Bill. Just now several Members have spoken in full agreement with the objectives of the Bill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, as I have said, this Bill sadly lacks any provisions for the security of tenure and against unfair dismissals and it is a poor Bill after so much promise to the workers. Thank you. 6.35 pm Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang)( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, listening to the speech by the Member for Anson, I felt very upset. The impression I got is that our Singapore workers are proscribed, suffering, miserable, impoverished, oppressed and only puppets of employers. And he also alleges that the services promised to the workers are only lip service. Where is his sincerity when he refuses to listen to the true explanations, which I am going to tell him, by leaving the Chamber? Most deplorable. Several of my colleagues and I daily are involved in the activities of the workers and trade unionists discussing from time to time, outside of office hours, ways and means to enhance their working conditions, not just as workers only but, more than that, as citizens and as one community heading towards the same direction. However, the Member for Anson persistently refuses to accept the truth and, as I am no orator, I do not wish to pursue the matter further. What I wish to stress to him is that he should open his eyes wide and see for himself the living conditions of the workers in Singapore, be it at the workplace, their home or wherever they may be. Look at the food they eat, their comfortable life at home, how their children are attired and also their level of wages which they have been getting today. There is no need for me to elaborate the true living conditions enjoyed by our workers today.”
“That was said in support of my argument - that the whole Bill is a let-down and a betrayal of the workers. Not only this, but the Employment Act -”
“I am sorry, if you do not see that, then I am afraid I cannot do anything about it.”
“And I am talking about a section of the workers, how they were dealt with.”
“We are dealing with legislation for the workers, are we not?”
“Yes, I am not contravening - Mr Deputy Speaker: We are honourable gentlemen, and I would like to see that we conduct our business in an honourable manner, please.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am afraid you are restricting my right to speak in this House.”
“He may not be here, but it is not a different matter.”
“Because I have been accused of letting them down. I want to show -”