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 61 of 82.
“What are we debating on? The welfare of the workers, are we not, under the Employment (Amendment) Bill?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I know you can, but what I would like to say is that -”
“Well, I am talking about how this Government looks after the welfare of the workers - Mr Deputy Speaker: But what has that got to do with Blair Plain?”
“The Employment Act regulates the welfare of the workers, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.”
“I am talking about the care and welfare of the workers, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, and they are workers with the Port of Singapore Authority.”
“But, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me say here that those workers in Blair Plain, before I became a Member of Parliament, were served with notices to vacate their quarters. They were told - no doubt they were given two years' notice - but they were told that they had to vacate them. And they were told that there was no obligation on the part of the employer.”
“what are the provisions here that go any way to guarantee them security of employment, security of tenure in their employment, that protect them against unfair dismissals? Nothing at all. All that we are left with are these marginal benefits given to the employees, perhaps to compensate for the benefits that are given to the employers by this Bill to arrange work schedules to suit them. Mention has been made about the 12-hour shift. What is the provision in this Bill that will stop employers forcing 12-hour shifts on workers? We must accept that employees and workers are entitled to be consulted. I have mentioned in my Budget speech here of the legislation in other countries and of the practice in other countries where workers sit on the boards of companies to regulate terms and conditions of service of the workers. There is nothing whatsoever of that in this Bill. I say, Sir, with regret that this Bill continues in the betrayal of the workers. One would have thought that this Government, having recognized the contributions that the workers have made, would have found it possible to compensate them and to thank them for their contributions; but nothing at all. All that we are left with are crumbs and pious appeals to the employers. I sos that even the tax collector is allowed now under this Bill to grab the whole of the employee's wages first if the employee owes the tax collector any tax. Sir, the Prime Minister, a number of times, has referred to my betraying the workers at Blair Plain and this, of course, is faithfully reproduced by the lackey press.”
“It is not a question of going to court. It is a question of providing it. The court has held that section 14 of the Act does not require the employer to hold any inquiry. He can still nevertheless dismiss an employee but the Ministry's intention was that the employer should hold an inquiry. With the court's decision, I should have thought that any Government concerned with the welfare of the -workers would have taken steps to put right the defect in the section which the Court of Appeal said there was. The Minister spoke about consulting legislation in other countries; I take it, enlightened labour legislation in other countries. Does he not know that there are in some countries statutes which legislate against unfair dismissals by an employer of his employee? The legislation provides that where an employer terminates the services of an employee for no good reason, the employee may appeal to a tribunal and the tribunal can order the employer to take the employee back into his service except where the termination is necessitated on the grounds of reorganization and it is not found possible to retain the employee in the employment. But in that case the tribunal can order the employer to pay compensation based on the years of service of the employee. Here we have no such provision for our workers. There is no security of tenure for our workers. They may work 15 years or 20 years with an employer and give devoted faithful service but before they can retire the employer may dismiss them. And all he has to do is to give them four weeks' notice regardless of the length of service that they have put in with the employer, or he can just throw at the employee four weeks' wages and say, "Leave immediately." So in what way is this Bill a big deal for our workers?”
“But then under that legislation, the employee was entitled to a month's notice and if he had worked for more than seven years he was entitled to two months' notice. Under the Act, irrespective of how long a worker has worked, an employer can give him notice of only four weeks and terminate his employment. That is all that he has to give. There is, under the Act, section 14 which provides that an employer shall hold a due inquiry before he dismisses an employee. I had spoken on this before. Under this section, the employer may dismiss an employee for .misconduct after due inquiry. One would have thought that that provided some form of security. for the worker. But the Court of Appeal has held that despite the provision in the Act requiring an employer to conduct an inquiry before he dismisses him, an employer may nevertheless dismiss the worker without any inquiry and only pay him the four weeks' wages which is required under section 10 of the Act where an employer terminates an employee's services. So although the intention of section 14 may have been to give the workers some security, some protection against dismissals, it did not achieve that effect because the Court of Appeal held that it was not mandatory and did not render a dismissal in violation of that provision nugatory. The dismissal was still valid and the employer was only liable to pay damages for the breach of contract. I had asked the then Minister for Labour whether he would consider amending section 14 of the Act to provide that where an employer does not hold a proper inquiry before he dismisses a worker, the dismissal shall be null and void and the worker should be reinstated in his employment.”
“This was all introduced on the ground that it was necessary for the economy of Singapore because it was passing through a difficult period. There was the British withdrawal. We did not know what the future would look like and so the workers were persuaded to accept all these limitations on their rights and to put up with less favourable conditions of terms and service. They have put up with them and they have responded and played their part, as I said, in contributing to the economy of Singapore. As has been said by the last speaker, Mr Deputy Speaker, this proposed amendment to the Employment Act has been mooted for some time now. It was said that it was going to bring in a better deal for the workers or that is what they hoped. May I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that this Bill is a bitter disappointment. There are of course some provisions, crumbs thrown to the workers, in this Bill, which would appear to give the impression that they are getting some benefits but they are very marginal. A number of these provisions are designed to help the employer and that has been touched upon by previous speakers and I do not propose to go through them. The hope has been expressed that employers may not exploit the rights given to them under this Bill and under the Act and take advantage over their workers. But this Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is no great deal for our workers. May I touch upon three areas where, I think, it is sadly lacking. Mention has been made about giving workers security of tenure. In the legislation before the Employment Act came into force there was, as is provided in this Act, a period of notice that an employer had to give an employee before he terminated his service.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, we are debating amendments to legislation for a section of our population who have served us well. Sir, I do not have to remind Members of the House that they have served us well and they have contributed in no small measure to the prosperity that we now enjoy. This has been acknowledged year after year by even this Government in its Budget Statements. But all we have had is lip-service from this Government on the contribution made by the workers. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Employment Act was not the first piece of legislation that governed the conditions of work for our workers in Singapore, There was, before this Government took over the governing of this country, legislation and that legislation contained terms which were moria favourable to the workers than are to be found in the Employment Act. I remember, Sir, before the 1959 elections, at rallies addressed by the Prime Minister he was complaining about how the workers under the then legislation were being discriminated against in favour of the employers and how his Government or his Party when it came to power would remedy all that. As I have said before, this Government came to power on the backs of the workers, and the moment it took power it forgot its promise to the workers. And it began dismantling the provisions in the employment legislation and introducing legislation which militated against the welfare of the workers and their interests. There was this Employment Act which was introduced. Then there was the amendment to the Industrial Relations Act which cut down very severely the right of bargaining which was given to trade unions, the right of the trade unions to secure for their members better working conditions and better benefits from their employers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill has been introduced into Parliament to bring HUDC housing estates into line with private development where the responsibility for the maintenance of the common areas is vested with the management corporation and not with the developers. The distinction, however, is that in the case of these estates, the common property is still vested with the HDB unlike in private development where the common property will be vested in the owners of the flats. The Minister has given an assurance and I am sure it will be welcomed by all the residents of these estates that this Bill does not seek to impose on them any further obligations than what are already contained in their leases or their contracts with the HUDC. If that is so, I do not know why it was not possible for the Minister to have first sounded the views of the residents and allayed their fears on this Bill. After all, the number is not such a large number. As he says, it is only 2,700. The fear is that when these purchasers entered into the contract, the lease, with the HUDC, there were terms which were agreed between the two parties. There you have a contract between the HUDC and the lessees. Their fears are that this Bill seeks to violate the sanctity of that contract and vary the terms and conditions. If the Minister is prepared to give an assurance that there will be no variation whatsoever of their obligations and their terms under their contracts, I think it may go a long way to allay their fears. Will he do that?”
“What is more important is, would the Minister direct by administrative fiat that the police inform the members of the family of the person detained that he has been so detained and for what and when they could see him? Mr Speaker, Sir, I have known instances where families have not been told of the detention and they get alarmed about the disappearance of a member of the family for hours on end and then they have to go and start making the necessary inquiries. I think it will help if the police are told that if it is necessary to detain any person for more than 24 hours, the family is informed that that person is in their custody and for what reason. Would the Minister consider that? With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will sit down.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to repeat what I said when I spoke on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill about the undesirability of taking away the discretion of the court. But may I ask the Minister by way of clarification why is it considered necessary, where it is proposed that persons under 18 should be sent for corrective training, that there should be a minimum period of five years? I should have thought the object would have been better served if the court merely ordered corrective training, and the duration of the time spent in the reformatory centre, or wherever it is that he gets his corrective training, is determined by a board who can review the progress of the boy and then, if he is sufficiently reformed and he has acquired some skill, to release him, if necessary, on parole. That would be in accordance with the trend now in other countries, that the discretion should now be left, especially in the case of young offenders, with those who will have the care of them in the reformative homes. I would like to ask the Minister why it is found necessary that there should be a minimum of five years in a corrective training order. The other clause on which I would like to say something, Mr Speaker, Sir, is clause 4 - the extension of the period of detention from 24 hours to 48 hours. It was in the amendment to the Constitution and as a result of that we have got this amendment now. May I ask the Minister to take care that this does not become the rule. It should not be an excuse for the police to detain persons because they have got the power under this amendment to detain them for 48 hours.”
“I am talking about the man who was acquitted by a court of law.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your advice? The Minister asked me a question whether I knew of any persons who have been innocently detained and I said it was not my intention to bring up my cases. But as I was sitting there listening to him, there came to my mind a case and I think perhaps I should inform the Minister if he is not aware of it. Many years ago a man was charged in the criminal court with causing hurt to one no other than - I think he was then the President of the NTUC and who is now a fugitive. He was charged with causing hun to this man. He was charged in a court of law. The court dismissed the case against him, holding that there was no evidence on which it could find him guilty of the offence charged. But that did not prevent the police from picking the man up afterwards. He spent a good many years in Changi Prison when a court of law had found him innocent and the Judge had said that there was no evidence against him.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not my intention nor was it my intention to bring up the cases that I have been dealing with in this House. It is not my intention. But I say there is a grave danger. I have recognized that danger myself of innocent persons being detained.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. The Minister says, "Why don't you take it up?" I suppose he means, "Why don't you take it up to the courts?" But the Minister must surely be aware that there have been cases and because of the way the Act has been worded, it has been held that the courts cannot inquire into the detention. You made it so. Habeas corpus cannot run where the Executive has been given an absolute discretion and the freedom. Mr Chua Sian Chin: But have you brought the cases to the attention of the authorities concerned. If you have, would you name it?”
“What is your version? Mr Chua Sian Chin: Whatever law that we promulgate goes through Parliament and Parliament approves the law and then we apply the law without fear or favour. That is the rule of law. At the same time, the Member for Anson says that he is against lawlessness, criminals, secret societies and so on. I think he is quite hypocritical when he says these things. Because I have stated quite clearly in my address in moving the Second Reading of the Bill to extend the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act that we need these provisions. Otherwise, we will not be able to suppress secret society activities. Because of fear of reprisals by the victims, we will not be able to prosecute criminals, and drug traffickers by using the normal procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code. Do we want a rule of law or do we want a rule of drug traffickers and rule of secret societies? He quoted the then Minister for Home Affairs in 1961 who said that he would not detain -”
“But the danger is this, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when you arm the Police with these powers, they will find it easier to resort to them. It is much more convenient to use these powers given to them than to have to build up a case and to present it to a court of law. And so there is the great danger of abuse. There is also the danger of private quarrels being settled through this medium of the power given to the Police. Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1982, I spoke about the danger of the powers given under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the detention of addicts in the drug rehabilitation centres. I spoke of the danger of relying purely on the certificate of one doctor. At that time, I was told, "Oh, it is perfectly in order. We are satisfied about the adequacy and there is no need for us to provide any appeal." But I understand, Sir, and I was very glad to hear that after that debate steps were taken to see that there were at least two doctors who examined the drug addict independently of one another and certified that the man was a drug addict. As I said, I was very glad to know that after the protests that were made in the House when I raised it. So I would ask the Minister to consider whether it is not time to bring in some provisions to see that there is no danger of abuse by the Police or that it is not used as a convenient handle by the Police. And that persons who are detained are really guilty and that there is sufficient evidence against them of which they are apprised and of which they are given ample time to rebut.”
“I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry should well consider whether the time has not come to provide for a more satisfactory hearing for the detainee. I would like to know what is the objection to this. If it is the fear of witnesses, I have dealt with that. You do not have to call the witnesses. You just call the Police officers. What is the danger of providing the man with something more than a mere terse statement? I think it is important, Sir, that we should also provide him with an appeal against the detention to a proper tribunal. The then Member for Farrer Park was referring to the tribunal under the then Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and now the Internal Security Act. There the tribunal is presided over by a High Court Judge. And he was comparing the difference between the Advisory Committee and that tribunal. I am not suggesting that it should be the same tribunal. But you should provide the man with some safeguards, that the evidence against him should be looked at by an independent tribunal. And who should have the power to determine whether the detention should be continued or not? The present provisions only provide for the Criminal Advisory Committee to make recommendations. And as I said, we do not even know what they write. I would ask the Minister to seriously consider whether the time has not come for us to try and revert, if not completely, to the rule of law but at least get nearer to it. This was intended, as I said, for secret society members and gangsters at a time when they were rife. It has now been extended and it has been used, for one, against drug traffickers, as the Minister pointed out, and also others.”
“When you want to deprive a person of his liberty, the least you can do is to tell him clearly, without any equivocation, what is it that he has done which warrants his detention and then give him the evidence that is in your possession so that he can answer it. As I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, the man appears before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee. He is not allowed to call the Police officers. He can call his own witnesses. But he cannot require the production of the Police officers who investigated the offence so as to put questions to them. As I said, he is given a terse statement. Then it is left to him and his counsel to try and find out by questions put to the Criminal Law Advisory Committee any details. In my respectful submission, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is wholly wrong that a detainee should be put to the task of having to ferret out what the charge against him is and the evidence against him. And then at the end of the proceedings before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee, he is taken away. The Criminal Law Advisory Committee reports to the President on this. But the detainee or his legal advisers never see this report or recommendation of the Criminal Law Advisory Committee. And the man may never know what the recommendation is, what the report is against him. This is a complete departure from all civilized norms of law. And the question we must ask ourselves is: is this really necessary.? As I said, I concede the need to combat crime but we must, Mr Speaker, Sir, guard jealously the liberty of the individual. And we must guard against any danger of an innocent man spending in prison, what is it, eight years, 10 years, as I say, it is indefinite now. There is no limit, the years that he can be detained in prison.”
“Then he is asked to go and make representations before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee as to why he should not be detained. As I have said before, this is a Kafta situation.You do not know what you are accused of. You do not know what the evidence against you is. You do not know what it is that the Police have against you and yet you are asked to defend yourself. It is a hopeless situation. And you go before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee. Although this Act says that the Criminal Law Advisory Committee can exercise the powers of a court to summon witnesses and to examine them, no witnesses are summoned before the Committee. I cannot, Mr Speaker, Sir, see why, if proceedings are conducted in camera, where the public are not allowed, why it is not possible for the detainee to have the case against him presented before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee by the Police officers who have investigated it. It cannot be said that the Police officers would be in danger of their lives if they came and gave evidence before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee. Because that is one of the reasons that was advanced - that witnesses would be frightened to come before the court to testify in case the criminal tried to seek revenge against them for having testified or given information. But that objection cannot hold for Police officers. So I do not know why Police officers should not be called before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee to set out clearly the case against the detainee so that he is given a chance to know what the case against him is, what the evidence against him is, and then to answer that. That is an elementary requirement of natural justice.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have, as I have indicated to you, experience in dealing with these matters. If I may inform the House, a person is picked up and detained by the Police acting under section 43 of this Act, and although the power that is given to the Police is detention for a maximum period of 14 days, or is it 16 days - it does not really matter - what happens is that, the Police very often re-exercise these powers at the end of the 14 or 16 days. They bring the man out of the lock-up or cell and then say, "We are arresting you again." So a man may find himself detained by the Police for longer than 14 or 16 days provided under this Act. Then when the Police have completed their investigations, and there would appear to be no time limit on them to complete their investigations, and all this time the man is detained under these extensions, the papers are sent to the Minister with the recommendation of the Police. Of course, the Minister is required under this Act, within 28 days, to refer the detention to a Criminal Law Advisory Committee. But there is no guarantee that it will be heard by the Criminal Law Advisory Committee within 28 days, more likely not. The man is lucky if he is heard before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee within six months of his detention. What happens before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee? The detainees is given a very terse statement. In many cases, he is not even served with the order of detention. He is given a very terse statement that he has been involved in activities of a criminal nature. He is also, in many cases, not told the times or the occasions when he is alleged to have been involved in activities of a criminal nature.”
“' As I said, there may be times when drastic powers are necessary. And I see this Government recognized, in 1959 it would appear, that these powers should only be of a temporary nature. At that Reading, I see that the then Member for Farrer Park, who is now on the High Court Bench, raised a caution about the powers under the Bill, under the Ordinance then, and he was concerned about the persons who might be wrongly detained under these powers. He said, there were perhaps not very many, "There may be just one in a hundred", he said. But he thought that even in that exceptional case, that person should be given the opportunity of presenting his case with a view to determining whether or not the detention had been right. Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst, as I said, I can see the need for this sometimes, I would like to know from the Minister, when he comes to reply, whether he thinks the need which brought on the introduction of these powers in 1958 for the first time and which were enhanced in 1959, still applies, the need still exists. As I said, the Minister then was referring to lawless gangsterism, fights between secret society gangs. Is that situation still prevailing in Singapore, or does the Government find this a very convenient handle to detain persons who are not guilty of secret society crimes but of other minor crimes? Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has referred to in-built provisions to safeguard, I suppose what he meant, against the danger of innocent persons being put away for many years, stretching perhaps to more than five years, 10 years. I do not know. It will be interesting when we have these figures. But, as I said, the whole thing, the process, is a departure from what the Americans would call "the due process of law".”
“When I asked this question about persons under detention - I think it was in 1982 - I was told that there were, I stand corrected, at least more than 1,000 persons who were detained under this Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, without any trial, without any Court having found them guilty in the first instance. I would like to know what the numbers are now, whether they have increased. What I would particularly like to know is how many of them have been in prison for more than five years. I know of cases where they have been in prison for more than five years. I would like the Minister, if he can, to give us the figures of persons who are detained under this Act, particularly of persons who have been detained for more than five years. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may draw the attention of the House to the speech that was made in 1959 after this Government took office, when there was an amendment to this Bill. The amendment was to increase the period of detention from six months to one year besides making other provisions in the Bill. The then Minister for Home Affairs said this [2nd September 1959]: 'I would like to stress that it is because of the present date of gang lawlessness that the Government is seeking these additional and exceptional powers contained in the Bill.' It goes on to say, noble sentiments: 'This Government, like any democratic government, does not wish to lightly deprive the individual of his liberty by executive action nor for that matter for a longer time than is absolutely necessary. But when we are dealing with unruly and unprincipled thugs and gangsters and because of the terrorism they have spread, the ordinary process of law is inadequate to deal with the crimes and misdeeds committed by them.”
“There was a proviso to that Bill in 1958 which said that no person may be detained under any Order for more than two years from the first making of the Order. In other words, you could only extend the order for a further three times, six months at a time, and two years was the maximum. Now, this limit on the detention of persons for a maximum of only two years under the Act without any trial was taken away in 1960. By then the present Government had taken office. The position now is that there are persons, who have been detained under the provisions contained in this Act, who have been in prison for much longer than two years. There has been a deprivation of their liberty, of their freedom, in circumstances which have completely negatived the rule of law. The Constitution provides and the constitution, as I have said, in all civilized countries provide, that no person shall be deprived of his liberty unless he has been found guilty by a competent court of law. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish the Minister had given us some numbers of the persons who are at the moment in prison detained under this Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. I think the term "Temporary Provisions" is a misnomer. It should be perhaps "Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act". It is a wrong use of the word "temporary" for a legislation which has been with us since 1955. But, as I said earlier, the intention then was that these provisions should only be for a temporary period of time. But, of course, the Government that succeeded that has found it very useful to retain these provisions.”
“We know of countries which have departed from the rule of law. For example, in the last war, in Great Britain they had the emergency regulations which departed from the rule of law, which provided for special powers to be exercised by Ministers and the Government. But that was confined to the emergency that the country was facing and once that emergency was over, those powers were no longer invoked. They were, in fact, repealed. So I am not saying that you should not resort to powers that depart from the rule of law but I say it is at best a necessary evil which must be carefully guarded and must not be allowed to become a rule of law. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister quite rightly pointed out that this Bill had its First Reading in 1955 before this present Government took office. At that time when it was introduced in 1955, there was no provision for detention without trial. But as I was looking through the proceedings in the then Legislative Assembly, it was clear it was designed to deal with what they thought was the lawlessness at that time and statements were made that it was intended to last only for a short period of time and it was hoped that the Bill would not have a longer life than three years. That was the time limit that was given to this Bill when it was first introduced. Then in 1958, again before this present Government took office, there was the provision for detention introduced into the Act. It was introduced for the first time in 1958 providing for detention. But that provided for detention of persons for a period of six months at a time. It, nevertheless, contained a provision for any Order made for the detention of any person for six months to be extended for further periods of six months at a time. But there was a very important qualification.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I speak on this Bill may I again say that I have appeared for persons detained under this Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act before the Advisory Committee. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, like the other two Bills that the House has just considered and passed, is concerned with crime, the prevalence of crime in Singapore, the need to combat it and to take adequate measures to deal with it. As I said before, and I say it now, I have no quarrel over that and I certainly welcome the taking of adequate steps to rid Singapore of unnecessary crimes. But this Act, Sir, has in it provisions which depart from the rule of law. The rule of law is that no person may be deprived of his liberty, be incarcerated in prison unless he has been tried before a competent court or a tribunal and has been proved guilty on competent evidence adduced before the court or tribunal and the tribunal has found him guilty thereof. That is the rule of law and that is the rule that is observed in all civilized countries which seek to observe the rule of law. The provisions in this Act, there is a part devoted to them, depart from the rule of law and are a negation of the rule of law. It may be necessary at times of emergency or in times of lawlessness to depart from the rule of law. But this departure from the rule of law should not become a permanent feature of any society. To do so would be to undermine the rule of law itself because it proclaims our lack of confidence in the rule of law and in the courts which are here or in any country to maintain the rule of law. So this is important. That if you wish to depart from the rule of law, it should be for good valid reasons and it should be for a temporary period of time.”
“There is no such thing as subordinate courts there.”
“Because at the moment the courts can still resort to the Probation of Offenders Act and put an offender on probation where his age and the offence require it.”
“not to pass the minimum sentence provided by the Legislature in any case where the court thought it fit, where the court considered that the minimum sentence was perhaps too excessive in the case of the particular offender or in the case of the offence which he is found to have commined. That might be a saving and I would ask the Minister to consider that because, as I said, you cannot generalize about sentencing and say "all and sundry" regardless of the age of the person, the circumstances in which the offence was committed and his temperamental background should receive the same punishment. He might have something wrong with him - temperamentally, psychologically. It is wrong to generalize and to say that a uniform sentence must be passed on all and sundry who is found to have committed the offence. I would ask the Minister to consider whether he would agree to include such a provision in this Bill now, giving the courts still the discretion in cases where they find it necessary not to impose the minimum sentence and, if necessary, requiring them to state the reasons. And if the Public Prosecutor is not satisfied with that, he can still take it up to a higher court. In this way, you bring the courts into the administration of justice and allow them to discharge their role and recognize their importance and their part in the administration of justice. May I just refer to a matter that was raised by the last speaker, Sir? I do not want to usurp the Minister's reply to that. He was talking about youths of 16 and 17 years. We have the Probation of Offenders Act and I hope it is not the intention of the Government to take away the power of the courts to use the Probation of Offenders Act even where minimum sentences are provided by law.”
“We have come away from the time when we had lay magistrates on the Bench. Now all our magistrates, right down to the lowest magistrate, are trained lawyers, having gone through a course at the University or elsewhere to qualify themselves for entry into the Legal service. So I do not think we need Worry too much about what Lady Wootton said in 1963 about the Judiciary not being well informed about penology and other sociological subjects relating to the need to deter criminals. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill, besides enhancing the punishment, takes away the discretion that is, as has been said and I say it again, traditionally vested in the courts. It is, may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, wrong to generalize about sentences because no two offences are committed in exactly the same way and no two offenders are ever the same. There are a variety of ways and a variety of individuals and, as has been said, the sentence must not only fit the crime but must fit the offender. So it is dangerous to generalize. This Bill, which now asks the Legislature to fix minimum sentences for a number of offences, would suggest that we have no confidence in our courts and, I think, regrettably, that would be a wrong interpretation that we may give to the public. We should affirm our confidence in our courts to administer justice according to the needs of the society as they see it, and I am sure our courts are aware and alive to the needs of the society and the dangers to the society. We must not pretend that the Courts are not aware of that and only the Legislature alone is aware of it. The courts are, as I have said, one of the organs of government. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would be happier if there was a provision in this Bill which still gave the courts the power, the discretion, .”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps I should likewise, as the previous Member has, first of all, declare my interest, if it can be deemed to be interest. I am an advocate and solicitor and I have defended criminals in the courts. But I have no personal pecuniary interest in this matter. Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Minister has said in his speech, the object of the Bill, and I am not quarrelling with it, is to deter persons who may be inclined to take up a life of crime. As I have said, I am not quarrelling with that, and I think it is an important duty of the Government to make it not worth the while for persons to take up a life of crime. But, as has been said, in our system of government, Mr Speaker, Sir, the administration of justice and the enforcement of the law is left to the courts and sentencing is a very important part in the administration of justice. It is not right that the Legislature should take on for itself this important duty in the administration of justice. The Legislature is there to provide the laws and their administration should be left to the courts. It should not be the Legislature's object to encroach on what is the courts' domain in this respect. As I have said, the administration of justice is the courts' function and sentencing is a very important part. In fact, it has been said, quite rightly, that sentencing is perhaps more difficult than determining whether a person is guilty or not. The Minister referred to a lecture given by Lady Wootton way back in 1963. We are now in 1984, 21 years on. She referred to magistrates who had not had any instruction in penology or education. Of course, she was referring to the lay justices. But in Singapore we do not have lay justices. We have trained lawyers.”
“Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I wish to clarify with the Minister the reason that he has now advanced. Really it is no reason at all. We have heard from him for the second time. It is a repetition of what he said earlier that this mode of entry was provided when there was no Law Faculty in Singapore. We have heard this earlier. So it is mere repetition. He went on to say that a number of these articled students would not have qualified for entry into the University. That may well be. But surely the answer would lie, would it not, Mr Minister, in this. If you think that the requirements for articleship should be raised or tightened, you could do that and even raise the standard of examinations that are set. The answer would not lie, as I see it, in throwing it out altogether. That way, you are closing the door to some of our people. They would not complain if you raise the standard and say, "If you are going to do articleship, you have got to pass these exams. We'll allow you but we are going to raise the standard." But I have not heard any complaint that the standard is low. As I understand it, the standard is something that has been set by the Board and persons who have gone through articleship have not shown themselves to be any less capable than those who have qualified through the University. Has the Minister had any complaints that persons who qualified through articleship are less capable than those who have gone through the University? So I really cannot see that that is any reason at all. The reason remains in what he said earlier - that this was something that we provided in days gone by. But the need is still there for some people. Why take it away? What is the great objection to it? I still have not heard the objection.”
“As I asked him earlier, is there a dearth of our own people practising as advocates and solicitors in Singapore that it has become necessary to bring in foreigners into this country? And what is worse. Whilst you open the doors to them and say, "Come along everybody", you are cuffing down on your own people, few though they may be in number, who seek to enter this profession. And you say, "You cannot do that. Go into the University or go to England." I thought this Government was interested in enabling our citizens to acquire the necessary skills and talent. This is a recognized method of acquiring this skill and talent. So may we know from the Minister, what are the great objections that have been advanced by the Board of Legal Education? He says the Board has given reasons for the discontinuance of this mode. May we know what are these reasons? I would ask that I be allowed to come back once I have heard the Minister on these reasons for the proposal to discontinue this mode of entry. So far we have not heard anything. 6.52 pm”
“Why is it necessary to cut down on our own people who wish to be admitted to this profession whilst opening the door to everybody outside Singapore? The Minister spoke about this mode of entry being adopted at the time when there was no Faculty of Law in the University and the only mode of entry was by going to England and qualifying oneself there as a barrister or as a solicitor. That is true. But not everybody can gain entry into the University's Faculty of Law. There may be good reasons. They may not be able to afford the fees. Secondly, they may have reached an age when it is not possible for them to enter the University and do a full-time course there. So this provided a convenient method of entry into the legal profession for those who are desirous of so doing. They could find work with an advocate and solicitor, be paid for it, and qualify after they have served their period of articleship. Why is this Government taking away this provision from our own people whilst favouring the entry into the profession of foreigners? Is it not discriminating against your own people? They may be few in number. But why? What is so very objectionable against this mode being continued? We have not heard of any detailed objections to the continuance of this mode of entry into the profession. May I ask the Minister: is it the intention of the Government that, with the amendment, as I have said, foreigners should be freely admitted? He says we are short of talent and it is the policy of this Government that professionals should be freely admitted. Is that the intention of the Government, to the detriment of our own people?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I understand the Minister, the purpose and the object of this Bill is to attract into Singapore lawyers, I suppose, from all over the world, who have qualifications which may be acceptable to the Board of Legal Education. May I ask the Minister why is this necessary? First of all, I suppose I should have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am a practising advocate and solicitor but I have no personal pecuniary interest in this Bill. But let me say that I am an advocate and solicitor. May I ask the Minister: Is there a dearth in Singapore of persons qualified as lawyers that it has been found necessary to open the doors to all and sundry who have the qualifications that the Board will approve? I see by section 9 of the Act, which is the section empowering the courts to admit advocates and solicitors into Singapore that: 'The court may in its discretion and subject to the provisions of this Act admit as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court - (a) any qualified person under the provisions of this Part; (b) any Malayan practitioner under section 13; (c) any articled clerk who is duly qualified under the provision of this Part.' It seems to me that with the widening of this qualification clause, at present contained in the definition section (section 2) of the Act, the door is open wide for anybody, provided he has the acceptable qualifications, to apply to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor of Singapore. It would seem to favour foreigners. But what I cannot understand is the cutting down of admission into this profession of our own people through the medium of articling themselves to advocates and solicitors. This is now possible, as the Minister pointed out, under sections 19 to 25.”
“Division, Sir. The House divided: Ayes, 50; No, 1; Abstention, 1. Ayes Ayes (contd.) Abbas Abu Amin Othman bin Haron Eusofe Ang Kok Peng Ow Chin Hock Chai Chong Yii Rohan bin Kamis Chandra Das, S. Saidi Haji Shariff Chau Sik Ting Seah Mui Kok Bernard Chen Selvadurai, P. Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Sia Khoon Seong Chin Harn Tong Sidek bin Saniff Ch'ng Jit Koon Tan Cheng Bock Chua Sian Chin Tan Keng Yam, Tony Dhanabalan, S. Tang See Chim Fong Sip Chee Tay Eng Soon Goh Chee Wee Teh Cheang Wan Goh Chok Tong Teo Chong Tee Ho Kah Leong Wan Hussin Zoohri Ho See Bong Wan Soon Bee Jabbar, M.K.A. Wong Kwei Cheong Jayakumar, S. Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Koh Lip Lin Yeo Choo Kok Lai Tha Chai Yeo Ning Hong Lau Ping Sum Yeo Toon Chia Lau Teik Soon Lee Chiaw Meng Lee Yiok Seng No Lee Yock Suan Jeyaretnam, J.B. Liew Kok Pun Lim Boon Heng Lim Chee Onn Abstention Ong Teng Cheong Hwang Soo Jin Question accordingly agreed to. Bill read a Third time and passed. PARLIAMENTARY MEMBERSHIP BILL Order for Second Reading read. 6.34 pm”
“I am being denied my rights. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."”
“I claim a division, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have our Standing Orders.”
“Well, on the whole contents of the Bill; the principle of the whole Bill.”
“But I am allowed to speak on the Third Reading of the Bill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to speak now, on the Third Reading of the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker: You intend to speak on the contents specifically?”
“If you are denying me any say in this House, I will sit down.”
“Well, I was heard on the amendment that I moved, but not on this Bill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, surely I should be heard.”
“I moved an amendment to the question, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.”
“No. I claim a division, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“I claim a division, Mr Deputy Speaker. An hon. Member: Don't waste time. Mr Deputy Speaker: Would you like a show of hands?”