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 66 of 82.
“I pointed out, Mr Speaker, Sir, last year that this was an offence under the Companies Act. I said that there was the prosecution of someone two or three years ago for the same sort of thing and he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. Why is the HDB allowed to go on flouting the law? I know the Minister would probably say that it is because the HDB is a statutory board. But why should the statutory board be allowed to conceal its profits from its accounts? The other matter is the investment in MND Holdings. Again, as the Government Auditor --”
“" I understood, Sir, from the Minister way back in 1982 that the HDB was taking steps to revise its accounting system and they were calling in expert accountants to advise. It is now 1984. May we know from the Minister what progress has been made to switch the accounting to the desirable method that the Government Auditor is talking about, so that the public will know truly what the cost is to the HDB in the construction of the flats? It is perhaps after that that the Minister can be jubilant about the subsidies because, until the full facts are known to the public, it would be misleading to talk about subsidies and that the public housing is being subsidized to a great extent. I say this quite seriously. One can talk and hide a number of things. The other thing that I want to ask the Minister is, again, hiding the profits of the HDB. I raised this matter last year and I find it is repeated again this year. Obviously the HDB is not going to take any notice however much anything is said in this House. I am referring to the profits from its MND investment. You find, Sir, that at page 19 of the Financial Report 82/83, of the HDB, as at 31st December 1982, the unappropriated profit of the company, MND Holdings (Pte) Ltd, and its sub- sidiaries, was $145,303,294. At the end of 1981, it was something like $101,853,765. You will see that it has gone up considerably to $145,003,294 as at 31st December 1982. The HDB's share in this profit at 49.9% because the holding is 49.9%, works out to $72,501,647. So the HDB has this unappropriated profits from its investment in MND. And as the Government Auditor again points out, and which I did point out last year, this profit has not been brought into the accounts of the HDB.”
“I am sorry. I do not understand the Minister's intransigent attitude on this. Secondly, may I ask, through you, whether the Minister is now withdrawing his request made earlier about these two brothers? He said, "Well, if you write to me ...". Now, I understand from the Minister, Sir, that because these two men had been to their MP and they had come to me, they are not going to get any consideration. Is that really what the Minister is now wanting to say? That again would show a vicious attitude. Now, on my amendment, I am afraid that I am back on the question of the accounts of the HDB. No doubt the Minister may say that the Member is harping on it. But before I come to talk on it, may I say that I am very pleased to hear that the prices of the HDB flats will only go up by 22%. Sir, is it true that this is going to be an election year? But I would tell the Minister and the Government that they should not get too jubilant over this 22% increase because we still do not know, the public still do not know what is the cost to the HDB in the construction of these flats. May I carry on, Sir? We have the Auditor making the point which he has made now for, I do not know, how many years. I raised this in 1982. And he makes the point again: 'The Board is unable to follow the desirable method of deducting the cost of flats and land sold from the long-term assets in the balance sheet because the existing accounting system does not provide for the costing of flats and land.' So it is not me who is saying it. It is the Government Auditor. He says that your "accounting system does not provide for the costing of flats and land.”
“Thank you, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head T be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead TE-01 of the Development Estimates. Sir, this concerns the Housing and Development Board, Development Estimates. But before I come to talk about this, may I just very briefly go back to what we were discussing earlier which was what I wanted to say when the amendment was withdrawn. Mr Minister, you had then an ex Professor of Law sitting quite close to you and you could have asked him about this. As I have said, it was just a legal problem. But may I also say this to you, whilst as a general statement you cannot enforce them, but if they are infants and the contract is for their benefit, you can enforce it. You are giving them accommodation in an HDB flat. So if they do not pay the rent and if it is for their benefit, the court will enforce against them if they do not comply with the rules. As I have said, it is a problem which could be got over. What I do not appreciate is your intransigent attitude. That we will not entertain.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I move my amendment, may I raise for your ruling something on a point of order? I would like to know this. Several Members have sent in notices of amendment under a particular subhead. Should the Member whose name is mentioned first be allowed to withdraw it without the consent of all the other Members who have sent in notices of amendment? After all, every Member has sent in a separate notice of amendment. Mr Speaker, Sir, of course, we stand subject to your ruling, but I should have thought that the consent of all the other Members should be sought before the first Member withdraws his amendment.”
“As a general statement, yes. First of all, it was never put to these persons that it was a legal problem because you can surmount it quite simply by getting their parents or someone else to enter into the agreement on their behalf. There you are, you shake your head and say, "We cannot do that." It can be got over if it is a legal problem. But you are saying that it is an HDB ruling and that they are not eligible and they cannot get over that problem. So it does not remain a legal problem any more. It becomes an inflexible HDB ruling. That is what I am saying. Because if it is a legal problem, you can get over it, Minister, quite simply. It can be got over. Are you prepared to get over it, or are you just going to hide behind it? That is my point all the time. Secondly, about the two brothers, as I mentioned, they are not in my constituency and neither are they married persons. These two have been living in this attap house, I think, in the area which has been acquired. They of course have parents. They have a mother who is living elsewhere but she is living with her other son and his family. The two of them have not been living with the mother. The two of them have been living for years, as I understand it, in this place which has been acquired. So I do not want to mislead you but the mother is not living there. But of course they have a parent. Why are these two brothers who have been living together not eligible to purchase a flat? 5.45 pm”
“Before you burst out in merriment, can you listen it out? A little knowledge is dangerous.”
“Sir, just two matters. It is about this person under 21 years. I may tell the House that even though he may not be qualified in law perhaps-- I do not know--but the Minister is quite right--that under the law you cannot enter into a contract if you are under 21 years because it cannot be enforced against you.”
“In this case, as you probably know, there was a little boy who lost his life because the contractor did not sufficiently safeguard the pit which he had left open and it was flooded and it brought tragedy to one of the residents. The mother was very very upset over the whole thing.”
“I do not know what arrangements you have got about the servicing of these lifts. Is it purely the concern of the HDB, or do you have contracts with the lift companies to service them? If you have, then the companies must be told to service them immediately. It is intolerable, where you have high-rise blocks rising up to 20 storeys, 18 storeys or 16 storeys, to have one lift out of use for two weeks or three weeks at a time. I have been told that in some of the blocks in my constituency the lifts have been out of use. I think you should do something about this. Finally, may I mention the proposed erection of the dustbin collection area in front of Block 136. I said "proposed" because it was proposed and work was indeed started when the residents wrote a letter to the Area Office. Even the Residents Committee wrote but nothing was forthcoming, and they came to see me. Then I took it up with the Area Office and also with the main office. As a result of that, work was stopped and the proposed use of the area in front of Block 136 as a dustbin compound was scrapped and I was told that the HDB was going to extend the existing dustbin compound area. They are grateful to you for that. But what I want to know is, how much was spent on this? And why were the views of the residents in Block 136 not taken or consulted before the HDB decided to put up a dustbin compound right in front of their block? These are the sort of things on which people feel pretty strongly, and I would ask that the Board should, as far as possible, take into account the views and wishes of the residents before any work is carried out if the work might affect them.”
“This is the sort of thing which is making the HDB policy the object of ridicule from our citizens. They do not understand why the HDB adopts this sort of ruling and attitude. I can go on, but I would ask the Minister, "You look at all your rules and see whether they are perhaps outdated or completely irrelevant to the needs of the society today." There is another case. This is a person who has been asked to move because of resettlement. He and his brother were living there in the premises which has been acquired and they have been told to move out. He wants to buy a new flat but he has been told, "You and your brother cannot buy a flat." Why not? I thought the HDB ruling was that as long as there were two persons they could purchase a flat. Is that not so, Mr Minister? To be fair, this man has been offered a rental flat because he is being resettled. But he says he does not want a rental flat. He wants to purchase a flat. Why cannot they be given a purchase flat? I have, in fact, written to the Senior Parliamentary Secretary because I spoke to him over the phone and I hope perhaps he might have referred this matter to you, Mr Minister. Then I do not know why you have stopped building any more flats for rental. That is what I understood from you. I think there is a need for people who cannot afford to purchase flats. I certainly can see the need for it by the number of people who come and talk about this, and you yourself have spoken about the waiting list for rental flats. I wonder whether you can perhaps consider this again. If I may move on to other mundane matters. One of the things that I notice in my constituency is the continual breaking down of lifts. I am sure this must be a problem with a lot of other estates as well.”
“Sir, before I bring up the matters that I wish to raise, may I join the others - otherwise I would be thought to be very churlish - in expressing my appreciation and appreciation on behalf of the residents of Singapore for speeding up the construction of the HDB flats. Of course, Sir, it had nothing to do with the event that took place on the 31st October 1981. I am not suggesting that it had anything to do with it, but the construction of the flats has speeded up considerably after that and we must be grateful to the HDB for it. But there are other matters, as I said, on which I wish to talk about and if I may go through them as swiftly as I can. One is about the question of rental accommodation. I did ask some information about this and I had statistics from the Minister. Statistics are all right. They serve a purpose, but they must not be allowed to conceal hardships that do occur. I have had people who come asking me to get them a rental flat from the HDB and I have been told again and again that they would have to wait two years, or three years. These are genuine cases and I will tell you one case, Mr Minister, where the applicants have been told they are not eligible for a rental flat. And I find this somewhat surprising. This is a case of a married couple. They are both over 18 years and that is why they were able to marry. That is under our law - you must be over 18 years. But when they applied for an HDB flat to live together - they only wanted to rent a one-room flat - they were told, "You are not eligible because you are under 21 years." It seems to me to make nonsense really. You allow them to marry, and then you say they cannot live together because they are still under 21 years.”
“Sir, may I just make one observation as regards the reply given by the Minister. What I said about the Craig Road case is this. Before you pay the owners the enhanced compensation you should send your officers to find out from the tenants what the position is, because I think you owe them that obligation. You should ask them, "Is this true that you are all moving out now and you are moving out in fact?" Then after you are satisfied, you pay the owner the enhanced compensation. Then you are doing your duty to them, and I say you have a duty to them. That is all I am trying to tell you. Dr Koh Lip Lin: I thank the Minister for his detailed answer to my queries. I also thank him for his decision to reduce the TOL fee and his offer of assistance to those who have problems. I just want to add that I agree with him that the majority of the people who are reseftled have no problem. But there are quite a large number of people who have problems in adjusting to a new life after resettlement. If he is still not convinced, I can invite him to come to Nee Soon for a walkabout. I can assure him that there will be a very popular reception, perhaps as popular as some of the pop song stars mentioned by the Member for Henderson or the Member for Ang Mo Kio the other day. I am sure there will be many people who will come to see the Minister to air their grievances. With that invitation, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 3.45 pm”
“I know there is a court order and we do not know the circumstances under which the coun made the order but I understand it was a consent order. The Legal Aid Department was apparently acting for these people. I do not know how they came to consent to this order. But my point is simply this, that it was wrong on the part of the Ministry not to have made sure with the landowner that these persons who have been living there for years as legal tenants would be properly housed. It is no good just lefting the landowners collect enhanced compensation and leave the problem of the tenants in the Ministry's lap. You should not allow landowners to do this to you. You should not pay them enhanced compensation unless you are sure that they will, in fact, de facto give you vacant possession, not de jure. De jure means to give you a court order, because then you still have the problem of the poor tenants living there. I would ask you seriously to consider their plight and not just consider them as illegal work permit holders or whatnot, but persons who have a genuine grievance and who are entitled to the utmost sympathy and consideration from your Ministry. With that, Sir, I will withdraw my a mendment under Subhead TG-02.”
“Sir, I am sorry but it seems to me that the Minister has been rather flippant on the matters that I raised with him. But at the end he said that if there were individual cases of hardship and any Member wrote to him, he would give it serious consideration. I take it that invitation extends to me as well, Minister. But I like to clarify what I said with you, Minister. I am not being flippant overthese things. The man I spoke about is not on a work permit. He is a Singapore citizen. I thought I made that clear and I am sorry because the Minister was talking about work permit holders and illegal people coming in. I am not talking about them. So let us get rid of the idea that I am talking about illegal tenants and work permit holders. Then there are the families in Kampong Bahru. Again, Minister, they are not illegal tenants. They are not people on work permits. The only snag about them, as I said, is that the Ministry officials say that they came in after the cut-off date. They were there when the officials went round checking. The cut-off date is the date of the publication of the declaration in the Gazette. So they may not have been there at the cut-off date. But they came in good faith, bona fide. If the Ministry is satisfied that they came in deliberately knowing that the place has been acquired, then I can see some reason for excluding them. But if they came in bona fide, completely ignorant of everything, I think it is very harsh, Minister. So I will write to you about these persons and I hope you would give them consideration. As regards the Craig Road people they are not in my constituency, they belong to the Prime Minister's constituency - again, may I explain that they were not illegal tenants.”
“I am not talking about work permit holders.”
“Rules are made by us for our welfare and so they have to be changed if they are found to be working injustice, hardship, suffering on our people. I should like to know whether the Minister would answer these three questions.”
“What I find shocking is this, that the Ministry of National Development has paid the owner enhanced compensation so as to relieve itself of its obligation to the tenants. And then it says, "Well, we've paid the owner enhanced compensation. So we can't now give the tenants any premises." That seems to me to be scandalous. It is an evasion of the Ministry's responsibility to those persons. How did the Ministry come to pay the owner enhanced compensation without first making sure from him that the tenants who were living there would be adequately housed and that he would, in fact, give vacant possession, not just a court order, but that he would make provision for the tenants and would give vacant possession? As a result of the Ministry paying the owner enhanced compensation and saying it is not the Ministry's baby, it is his baby, you have families living on the pavement. Honestly, as I said, I find this a shocking and scandalous behaviour on the part of a Government to its citizens and to its people to whom it owes some obligation. Are they not entitled to be housed? Sir, I would like the Minister to consider this and let us know in this House today, first of all, whether his Ministry will accept squarely the responsibility upon it and not hide behind rules and say, "These are the rules. That man has got a court order. We've paid him enhanced compensation. So the rules say we can't do anything about the tenants." May I remind the Minister and the Government that rules are not sacrosanct but people are? Rules are made for people, not people for rules. And if rules work injustice, work inequity and are harsh, then rules have to be changed. They do not remain inviolate and immutable.”
“I wish to ask the same question about one or two other families in Miri Road. There we have a family of a father, mother and a little boy. They have been told that they are not eligible for resettlement because apparently they moved in after the cut-off date. But, as I mentioned pre- viously, the cut-off date was never announced by any notice put up in these areas. I know and it is no good telling me that it was in the Gazette somewhere. It was never brought to their attention when they moved in, and they have been living there. What are you going to do about them? Are you going to put them out on the street? I would like an answer to that. There is not just one family, there is one other family in Miri Road. They told me they cannot move, and I am afraid I have told them, "You don't move. You are entitled to be resettled by the Government if the Government is acquiring the land for its development purposes." So they are waiting to know what the answer will be. May I move on to another area which is not within my constituency, and that is, the Craig Road people? Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been some publicity about this and there was only recently an article in the Far Eastern Economic Review drawing attention to a man who is still squatting on the pavement. But what I find incredulous about this is that the Resettlement Department should hide behind the fact that the private owner of the property had obtained a court order to evict them. The private owner may not have a moral responsibility for the persons living in the premises. But I should hope that this Government and the Ministry of National Development have a moral responsibility.”
“All right, Mr Speaker, Sir. But I might not withdraw my motion on this. Sir, this question that I want to speak on now, that is, resettlement, has already been touched upon by two other speakers. We have heard from the last speaker about the statement made by the Prime Minister; it is not just the Prime Minister; we have heard other Ministers too mouthing these sentiments in their Sunday walkabouts when they are confronted by residents to whom resettlement has become a searing experience and who are wrecked with torment and anxiety. Sir, what I do want to ask the Minister is this. Does his Ministry and the Government accept in principle the responsibility to house people who are being rooted out of their homes? It is no good trying to equate yourself with the private landlord. This is a Government carrying out its programme, and in pursuance of that programme, it roots out people who have been living in their homes. Does the Government accept its responsibility to everyone who is living in houses in the area which the Government proposes to resettle to make way for new development? I should like to know that from the Minister. To me the answer is obvious. I have spoken last year on this subject and I touched upon the case of a man in my constituency in Anson in Kampong Bahru area. He has been denied any resenlement simply because, again we come back to the same question which I raised yesterday, his wife is not a permanent resident although he is a Singapore citizen. 3.00 pm So we go on, ding-dong. The poor man does not know what he is going to do. He works for the Ministry of the Environment. What I would like to know from the Minister is: what are you going to do about him? Are you going to put him out on the road, or are you going to house him when the time comes?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I ask the question now. Perhaps the Minister would like to give us these numbers at the next sitting of the House. MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL 1984 TO 31ST MARCH 1985 Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day] [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 2.41 pm Head T--”
“It must have been obvious to the Minister that we were talking about employment passes. Has he got the figures of employment passes issued to foreigners to work in Singapore?”
“(3) That the sum to be allocated for Head P be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead PA-01 of the Main Estimates.”
“No, Sir. Question put, "That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QJ-04 of the Main Estimates."”
“What is the Minister saying? Are you saying he has not been a permanent resident for the last 10 years? Is that what you are saying? Please be precise.”
“Well, 29 years. All right. But cannot the Ministry of the Environment confirm that he has been working with them for 29 years? So what is the question mark? He said that he only applied from 1975. I do not know about that. I say here that he told me that he had made nine applications for citizenship, and that on every occasion he had been rejected without any reason given. Are you saying that he has got another leg in another country? He told me that he could not go anywhere else. This is his place. Are you saying that he is entitled to go back to Malaysia? Well, let me know and then I will check with him. Ask Malaysia whether he will be received there. But please deal with it sensibly. 7.15 pm”
“Sir, the Minister has got the right letter that I referred to. Top marks for that. Now, you say, Mr Minister, that there is some doubt as to whether the man has been here for 30 years or there is some question mark. But I have said in that letter that he has been employed by the Ministry of the Environment (that is his information to me) since 1955. Surely the Ministry of the Environment must be able to confirm that with you. So what is this question mark? An hon. Member: 29 years.”
“It is not just on the basis of residence, that after a particular number of years, a person must automatically get citizenship. As regards the case, if it is the case referred to by the Member for Anson, yes, he has written us letters. This letter demonstrates the kind of approach which we must not adopt in granting citizenship. Let me quote from the letter that the Member for Anson has written. If it is not the letter, then I stand corrected.”
“He talked about Coketown and about the hard-hearted, hard-headed businessmen who controlled that place. He said they would have considered the good Samaritan a bad economist. For them there was no consideration for human needs, no consideration for human feelings, sufferings, everything was in terms of money. And this is what we are becoming. Let me say to the Minister and to the Government that the worth of an individual - please, I am quite serious about this - is far greater than all the millions of dollars. That is true. Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I have been given three guesses. One guess would have been sufficient. Here, the point raised by the Member is that citizenship should be given to permanent residents who have been here for varying periods of years. Now, we have given citizenship on the basis of residence to many persons, most of them ordinary persons from all walks of life: in 1981, 4,600; in 1982, 3,200; in 1983, nearly 1,500. But the Government cannot accept the proposition that we must grant citizenship to all permanent residents in Singapore merely on the basis of the length of time that they have stayed in Singapore. There are almost 130,000 permanent residents in Singapore. If we were not judicious, if we liberally granted citizenship just on the basis of residence, we would not be looking after the interest of Singapore. Residence is only one of the criteria. We have to look at other qualities. Many permanent residents possess citizenship of another country. We have to look at that factor. We have to look at his roots. Are his connections with another country stronger than Singapore? Is he keeping a leg in nother country at the same time? And so on. Many factors have to be taken into consideration.”
“Due consideration is given to the applicant's character, his family circumstances and his ability to well support himself and his family.' That is again a lot of verbiage. In reply I said, "Tell me, has this man been convicted? What is wrong with his character?" He has been working with the Ministry o the Environment for 33 years now. What is wrong with his character and his ability to support himself? He has only been supporting his family for the last 20 years. He has not been a burden to the country. So is he not able to support himself? Why is he not an asset to this country if he has given all these years of service? Sir, I do not want to go on and on. I get tired of this. But we see in the press, "Foreign workers can come here. After five years we will give you citizenship, my dear chaps." What do you think these people feel, people who have lived here for 30 years, 33 years, and who are denied citizenship? As a result of that, they have to pay high hospital charges. If they get HDB flats, they have to pay high rents. How do they feel? They feel thoroughly cheated about the whole thing. It is not just a few people. There are hundreds of them like this. Why do you go on denying citizenship to people like this? I have got another case in my constituency of a man who is a citizen, who has lived here, but his wife is not a citizen. She cannot even get permanent residence. It is really sickening the way the needs of the people, the poor, the working class who need to be helped, are completely ignored while we pander to people with money. I said yesterday to the Prime Minister's remarks - "If you have capital, we will let you come in." As though capital was the only thing that ever mattered. Sir, I do not know whether you have read "Hard Times" by Charles Dickens.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QJ-04 of the Main Estimates. Sir, here I am going to talk about - have you guessed? It is about the delay in granting of citizenship. [interruption]. Yes, yes, I am tiresome because I talk about the rights of individuals, You find it very tiresome. But let me carry on. I have only got 10 minutes on this. Sir, may I make it quite clear that this morning the Ministry of Propaganda publications which come in the guise of news- papers have tried to make it out that yesterday I was talking about non-citizens, foreigners, was distorting the whole picture. I was not talking about foreigners. I was talking about permanent residents who have lived in this country for 30 years or so and who have no country to go to. So I am not talking, for the last time - and I hope whoever is reponing takes note of that - I am not talking about foreigners. I am talking about people who have lived in this country, who regard this country as their home and they are non-citizens because you refuse to give them citizenship. Sir, again we will be told what the law is. May I tell the Minister that I had a letter in reply to a query about a man who had been working with the Ministry of the Environment. He had been in Singapore since 1951, which makes it 33 years. He has got no other country to go to now. He has been employed by the Ministry. When I wrote about him, and I kept pressing for the reasons for refusing it, I had this reply: 'Besides fulfilling the constitutional requirements, an applicant for citizenship must be an asset to society and will not become a liability to the country.”
“If you want to know the constituency, it might embarrass the Member of Parliament here. Ask the Minister of State and he will tell you the name. He is not a fictitious man. He is trying to suggest that the man is involved in international drug activities or counterfeiting. That is what he is trying to suggest. But he gives himself away because I said the Immigration Department has said that he can have an emergency certificate or certificate of identity to go. So you are letting him go. But he does not want that. He wants, what he says, is his right - an international passport. So what is all this nonsense about "we would not let him go."”
“Sir, as I understand the Minister, he would appear to suggest that this poor man - An hon. Member: Who is the man?”
“It would appear it is not only me who is finding Ministers dense. Even the Member for Telok Blangah finds it difficult to get his message across to the Minister of State. To come back to my point. Do you want me to spell it out in words of one syllable? You say - you had better take it down, all right - that you can withhold passports if the man is convicted. Well, has this man been convicted of any serious crime? You say that his passport can be withheld if investigations are pending against him. Are you saying that investigations are pending against him? If so, let us know what investigations are pending against him. Are you saying that he is threatening the security of Singapore by going out on a business trip? If so, would you tell us how he is threatening the security of Singapore? It is this sort of thing that I am protesting about. Try and understand what my complaint is all about. My complaint is that you do not deny a citizen his right arbitrarily and then hide behind mumbo-jumbo and say, "All for national security, pending investigations, convictions." Deal with this man's problem. So would you please, Mr Minister, tell us, so that I can tell this man, if he comes to see me tomorrow, what the position is because he wants to leave on the 16th. And you say, Mr Minister, that you have only withheld passports in a minority of cases. Let me tell you this. Even if you had violated one man's right, that is bad enough. It is not quantitative. One man's right is just as precious as the right of a million people. Let me tell you that.”
“Why did you lie? Prof. Jayakumar: The point, however, is in that Asian Wall Street Journal, the person whom he is referring to was not given any employment pass after the newspaper article appeared. He had an employment pass well before the Asian Wall Street Journal article appeared.So that is a point which needs to be underscored.”
“Now the people have to bow for every little privilege to this Government. But I believe firmly, may I tell the Members of the House, that I believe firmly in the rights of the individual, and if we can safeguard the rights of the individual then we will safeguard the rights of society. I have said this before and I am sure the Minister, or whoever is going to reply, must know about this. It is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13. Then there is Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I thought we were signatories to these, these talks about the rights of the individual to leave his country and no restriction to be placed on his right to leave and to return. So may I know from the Ministry under what provision of the law has this poor man's right, to leave with an international passport because he wants to travel to a number of countries, been withheld?”
“So he came to see me. He thought I might be able to do something. He is a Singapore citizen by birth and he has served his national service. He is now a businessman and he has applied for a passport, he tells me, to go abroad on business. The Immigration Department told him, "You can't have a passport. We can give you an emergency certificate of travel." The man does not want an emergency certificate of travel. He wants a passport, an international passport. The Department was not going to listen to him. So he came to me. I wrote - this was on the 19th January - to the Department. On the 21st of January I got a reply saying, "the matter is receiving attention." We have not got any reply yet. It is still receiving attention, it would seem. The man came to see me again because he is anxious to go away on his business. I wrote to ask what was happening to the man's application for a passport. Then on the 12th March, the Department writes "The matter is still under consideration. You will be informed of the result as soon as it is known." Well, here is a businessman and he wants to leave Singapore. I think he said he wanted to leave on the 16th March. Here, the Immigration Department is taking it upon itself to withhold issuing a Singapore citizen his passport. May I know under what provision of the law does the Controller of Immigration withhold issuing a passport to this man? I know, I am tiresome. I keep raising about the rights of people. I know this Government does not believe in the rights of citizens. It thinks that everything that a citizen has is a privilege granted by this Government for which the people must bow three times, just as we did during the Japanese Occupation when we lined up before the flag, looked eastward and bowed three times.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, under this Head, I wish to raise the right or the provision of the law under which the Immigration Department withholds pass- ports from Singapore citizens. In January of this year, somebody came to see me and he is not from my constituency. He has come from another constituency to see me. If Members would like to know why he came to see me, he said, "It would be no good going to see my MP. The answer will be, "It is Government policy, lah. We can't do anything." An hon. Member: Is he a non-citizen? 6.30 pm”
“I could be difficult. I could have asked for a Division, but I won't.”
“He can't answer. Is that so. Well, all right, in that case I would not withdraw my amendment. Amendment accordingly negatived.”
“No, Sir. The point is, I want to know whether we are ever going to get answers to these questions. I have asked three questions. Am I going to get answers to these questions?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, honestly the Minister is all at sea over his answers, He says we broke a condition of the permit by assembling the children in front of my office. Well, as I said, where does he expect us to assemble the children? On the roof? Or what? In the air? Honestly. I wrote and asked the Police which void deck did we use? Which car park did we use, in the sense that the cars could not park there? Of course, the children had to walk if they were going to process. They had to walk through the car parks. How do you expect them to walk? In the air? How ludicrous does one get. So the position still remains, and I would like to know now from the Minister whether the Police had received a written complaint from the HDB Area Office. If they have received a written complaint from the HDB Area Office, I would like to see it. Then I will deal with the HDB Area Office. But the point remains, Here we have this other procession organized by an RC member and the Minister for Home Affairs glibly says, "an RC member acted in ignorance of the law, he did not know that he had to have a permit before he could hold a procession in Singapore." That has been dinned into our ears since 1959. As soon as this Government came to power, "no procession, my dear people. You have got to have a permit first.'.' So, will you please try and answer the questions instead of indulging in shibboleth. Answer the questions. Where do you expect the children to assemble? Have you had a written complaint from the HDB? Third question is, why didn't you prosecute the other party?”
“Of course, you have the name. You are confused.”
“The man who thought he might win the elections in October 1981.”
“Sir, are you going to allow a Minister to defy your ruling?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister perhaps forgets what he has just said. He is talking about convictions, convicted, and he knows very well that we were acquitted on three charges. There was one on which we are appealing. The other three acquittals, the AG is appealing, And there was another case where we were accused of selling or distributing pamphlets, that is also under appeal. So what is he talking about if he is not referring to those cases?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is time you should rule on these things, with respect, That is a matter which is going up to the High Court.”
“Answer the question. Mr Chua Sian Chin: Will you keep quiet before I can answer? I think this is atrocious. He says with a hypocritical stance that he sympathizes with the Police officers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know how many officers, but there are one or two officers in the Commercial Crimes Branch who are engaged for a full 24 hours a day, it would seem, trying to probe, "to find out whether the Workers' Party has been guilty of any offence in all its activities. Not only that, we have got, I think, two DPPs in the AG's Chambers who are working full-time as though there is nothing else for them to do. I say that this can only bring the administration of law and justice into contempt and ridicule. I would like to ask the Minister whether he is aware of this particular situation.”
“So I wrote back and said, "Please tell me what is the condition we breached?" Then they said, "Oh, you used HDB void decks." We never came near the void decks. The question is: was there any complaint from the HDB? Then I wrote back and said, "Look, what is the condition we breached? Tell me." Now they go away from void decks, they go away from car park areas, and they say, "Oh, you used the grass patch in front of your office." That letter only came recently. I might have to ask whether we have to have a permit before we can even stand on the grass patch in front of my office. I sympathize with the OC of the Queenstown Police Station who was put into this dilemma of having to deal with this problem. He should leave it to the Minister to reply to these questions. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, this sort of interference will only bring into ridicule and contempt the administration of the law and will reduce respect in our people for the Police Force, if they see that the Police are partial, are made to be partial for a ruling party or even for the Government. There is a lot to be said for the practice in some countries for the conduct of the Police to be taken away, as it were, from government and put under watch commit- tees so that they are accountable to a committee of citizens. I will give all the details of this incident to the Minister if he wants them later when I hear from him. I say this to the Government: do not use the Police to do your dirty work for you. If you want to fight the other political parties, do it clean. Come and fight them in the hustings, in the elections.”