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 69 of 82.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in introducing the Bill, the Minister said - I hope I have heard it right - that the construction industry was in need of upgrading, or being made more efficient, if that was what he was implying. I am surprised to hear that coming from the Minister. After all, he has been the Minister (I do not know for how many years) in charge of, largely, Construction in Singapore. There seems to be something wrong if after all these years we are still very much, shall I say, backward that we need a Board now to upgrade the construction industry in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, what I want to question is, even if it is admitted that the Construction industry does need upgrading or made more efficient, whatever you may like to call it, why do we need to have another Board? We seem to have a penchant for creating boards and committees. I see by clause 6, subclause (5): 'The Board shall pay to the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and other members of the Board such salaries, fees and allowances as the Minister may from time to time determine.' That is just salaries of the members of the Board. What about the salaries of the staff and the administrative costs? Do we really need a Board for the purposes of the Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir? After all, we have other Boards at the moment which had been set up, I would have thought, precisely for this purpose. If he will examine section 11 of the Bill, or clause 11 I should rightly call it, he will find under that: '11.-(1) The functions of the Board are - (a) to promote the development, improvement and expansion of the construction industry;' Well, very laudable. But why do we need a Board for this?”
“There is no definition of the categories of persons who should be excluded from taking effective control or having a substantial holding in a bank. I would like the Minister, perhaps if he can, to try and elaborate on this. Against whom is this provision intended? Who are these undesirable persons that he has in mind? Because, as I said, it catches everybody - Singapore citizens and outsiders as well. Secondly, I am sure the Hon. Minister would agree that even in banking we must bring in the democratic process. As I said, the Authority would appear to be the sole judge. Does he not think that we should provide an appeal from the Authority if the Authority unreasonably refuses to give approval to any intended arrangement? What is the danger in providing an appeal from the Authority, say, to the court, for the court to determine whether the reasons of the Authority are reasonable or not? The new sections 14A, 14B and 14C do not require the Authority to give any reasons. There is no reference to the Authority being required to give reasons. Should the Authority not be required to give reasons where it refuses any proposed arrangement sought to be entered into with a bank by any person in Singapore? In the same vein, Mr Speaker, Sir, clause 8 (the proposed new section 27A) talks about banks acquiring shares in companies. If you look at the proposed subsection (2), it says:- 'The Authority may approve the entering into the agreement with or without conditions or may disapprove it without giving any reasons.' Again, may I ask: why should the Authority not be required to give reasons? Should the Authority not be asked to give reasons where it refuses to give its approval to any agreement submitted to it? That is all I have to say, Mr Speaker, Sir. 3.50 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I really rise on a point of clarification from the Hon. Minister. I am concerned with clause 5 of the Bill which, as the Minister has pointed out, introduces three new sections to the Banking Act. The Minister has said quite rightly that the sections do not bring in a total prohibition against persons acquiring an effective control or even having a substantial holding. He has said that it is intended to prevent outsiders taking control of the domestic banks. These new sections do not just apply to foreigners or outsiders. It is intended to apply to Singapore citizens as well. And the Minister then went on to amplify that by saying that it is intended to prevent undesirable persons from taking control or having a substantial holding in the bank. The question, Sir, is who are "undesirable persons"? I see that the arbiter of this is the Authority. Are we to understand that it is left entirely to the Authority to determine whether an applicant, a person who proposes to enter into an agreement, is desirable or undesirable? Following on the last speaker's remarks, one would assume that somebody who is perhaps associated with an opposition party may not be a desirable person. Is that the criterion by which we are going to consider applications? [Interruption]. Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what I have heard from Backbenchers there. Would they like to repeat? I would like to answer them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister not aware of a resolution that was passed by the Petroleum Workers Industry Union and which they were asked to revoke?”
“Is the Minister aware that there is unhappiness among some unions about this Government forcing house unions on them? Because in many cases they are left without effective leadership in the house unions.”
“May I again, Sir, with your permission, ask the Minister to give me a specific answer to a specific question, and that is, whether the willingness of the workers is determined by a secret ballot taken from the workers or not. May I have an answer to that question - is a secret ballot taken? Prof. Jayakumar: The answer to that is, "Yes, a secret ballot will be taken." But the answer must also depend on the constitution and rules of the union concerned.”
“A supplementary question, Mr Speaker, Sir, for the Acting Minister. Will the Minister state whether the promotion of these house unions has been brought about for the benefit of the companies and the employers, or is it designed primarily for the benefit of the workers? Secondly, as I understood the Acting Minister, it is not being forced on the workers. Would the Minister say whether, in every case before a house union is promoted, a secret ballot is taken of the workers to find out whether they would rather have a house union instead of an industry or allied trade union?”
“He has no objections. Thank you. OWNERSHIP/RENTAL OF HDB FLATS BY SINGLE PERSONS 5. Encik Abbas Abu Amin asked the Minister for National Development if he will ask the Housing and Development Board to allow single persons to continue to rent or own HDB flats when the nucleus family no longer exists because of the death of the only other person forming the family nucleus.”
“We are now getting some straight answers from the Minister. He says that if I tell him what I want to know, then he will consider giving me a reply. What I want to know from Interpol is: what steps have they taken over the last four or five years on behalf of the Singapore Government to trace this man, and would they make public to me what has been done? Would the Minister say whether he will object to them disclosing all this to me?”
“All I want is a straight answer from the Minister. May I say to Interpol that the Government of Singapore has no objections to their disclosing to me all efforts that they have made on behalf of the Government to trace this man? May I have a straight answer to that question?”
“If I wrote to Interpol, would the Minister agree to Interpol releasing to me all the efforts that have been made by them on behalf of the Singapore Police Force? If I wrote to them, would he agree with that?”
“As I said, would the Minister recall his statement to this House about this man hiding in a neighbouring country? We all know we are surrounded by ASEAN countries. Is the Minister saying that he is not getting cooperation from these governments in an attempt to trace this man?”
“Would the Minister state quite clearly to this House or outline the various steps that have been taken by the police to trace this man, instead of contenting himself with a general answer saying that all steps are being taken? May this House be informed of the precise steps that have been taken by the police?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question for the Minister. Would the Minister recall that when I raised this question some months ago, his answer was that Mr Phey Yew Kok was in hiding in one of our neighbouring countries and, for some reason or another he could not tell this House which neighbouring country it was. May I know what is the position now? Is he still in one of these neighbouring countries, or has he disappeared from one of these neighbouring countries?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I propose to be brief. May I say that I share what has been said by the previous two speakers, and I wish to ask the Minister by way of clarification as to how the agreement of the workers is to be obtained to this approved employees' scheme. As he has said and as it appears from the Bill, the worker is to be given an option whether he wishes to join in the scheme or not. Is the obtaining of the approval of the worker to be left to the company, or is it going to be obtained by a body outside the company, for example, the Registrar of Trade Unions or somebody in the Labour Ministry? Will the Board or the Ministry ensure, as has been pointed out quite adequately, that before any worker exercises his option whether to join the scheme or not he is adequately and truthfully informed of the whole scheme, what he stands to gain by it and what are the disadvantages, if any; a proper balance sheet, as it were, drawn up in simple language to explain to him so that he can fully understand and exercise his option in a meaningful way, so that he is not misled by the company or the employer who may be only too anxious to have his contributions to the Board reduced. 6.15pm”
“Under the present section 14 any housing loan which is disbursed by a financial institution after the borrower has withdrawn his CPF moneys under the Scheme will rank, in terms of priority, after the CPF Board's charge for all the moneys withdrawn and authorized to be withdrawn as well as the interests that would have accrued to the member's account if the withdrawals had not been made. However, most financial institutions have no objections if the principal loan given by them ranks after the Board's charge in respect of the CPF moneys withdrawn. On the other hand, they are reluctant to give adequate housing loans to borrowers who also want to use their CPF moneys, if their principal loan or any part thereof ranks after the Board's charge in respect of the accrued interest. The CPF Board has no objections in allowing the full amount of the loan given by a financial institution to rank before the Board's charge in respect of the accrued interest. This will make it easier for members to obtain adequate housing loans. However, because the present section 14 does not allow the Board to postpone its rights, the Board had to require the financial institution and the member to execute certain legal documents to protect the Board's interest. This involves the payment of legal fees and costs and may also delay the processing of the application. Thus, the new section 14 will allow the CPF Board to give another mortgagee's or chargee's rights priority over the charge created by the section if the Board deems fit. The other changes are technical improvements of meanings and clarification of interpretations. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 6.02 pm”
“The experience gained in implementing the Scheme has shown that certain improvements can be made to the present section to overcome certain practical and legal problems encountered by the CPF Board, to save legal fees and other costs and to reduce the time taken for processing applications. Clause 3 of the Bill repeals and re-enacts with amendments section 14 of the Act to achieve this. If I may just touch on a few of the important changes. First, where a property is owned by more than one person, the charge created under the present section 14 does not extend to the estates and interests of the co-owners who do not use their CPF moneys in respect of the property. Consequently, a co-owner who wishes to use his CPF moneys can only be allowed to withdraw up to 80% of the value of his share in the property instead of the value of the whole property. However, there have been applications under the Scheme by members, especially those who owned a property jointly with the spouse who was not a CPF member, to withdraw up to 80% of the value of the entire property. To meet this difficulty, the CPF Board had to require all the co-owners to execute a legal mortgage in favour of the Board. This, however, involves the payment of legal and stamp fees and other costs. Under the proposed new section 14, the charge created by the section will extend to all the estates and interests of all the co-owners of the property provided the co-owners give their written consent to the CPF Board. In this way, it will enable any of the co-owners to withdraw his CPF moneys up to 80% of the value of the whole property without the co-owners having to execute a legal mortgage in favour of the CPF Board.”
“The section also requires the employer to furnish to the CPF Board audited accounts in respect of the approved employees' scheme, comply with the rules of the scheme, pay contributions in accordance with the rules, obtain the prior permission of the CPF Board before amending the rules and furnish such returns and other information which may be required by the CPF Board. An employer who fails to comply with any of these obligations imposed under the provisions will be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000. If an employer is convicted for failure to pay contributions to the scheme, the court can also order him to pay the outstanding contributions and interests due thereon. All contributions paid into an approved employees' scheme will enjoy the same protection against creditors, etc., as CPF contributions. Approved Residential Properties Scheme The second aspect of the Bill relates to the Approved Residential Properties Scheme. This aspect of the Bill concerns Approved Residential Properties Scheme under which CPF moneys can be used to pay the purchase price of a private residential property or to redeem an outstanding mortgage loan on the property. The present section 14 of the CPF Act was enacted in 1981 for purposes of implementing the Scheme. It creates a charge on a residential property which has been purchased with CPF moneys to secure the repayment of the moneys withdrawn, including the interest that would have accrued to the Member's account if the withdrawals had not been made and provides for matters relating thereto. Since the inception of the Scheme, Sir, more than 10,000 members have withdrawn over $500 million.”
“Rules must be dr,awn up governing the amount of contributions payable by the employer into the trust fund, the time period within which the contributions must be paid, the interest payable on late payments, and the management, investment and use of the trust fund must be drawn up. The employer must also furnish a bank guarantee in favour of the CPF Board so that the Board can recover the contributions retained by the employer should the need ever arise. Sir, the COWEC Scheme therefore is intended to forge a link between workers' efforts and good management. Experience elsewhere has shown that absence of such linkage leads to erosion of the will to work and to improve. The COWEC Scheme is one way of enhancing the nexus between the employees and their company. Under a pilot scheme, 10 companies have agreed to participate in the COWEC Scheme. It must be emphasized that the Scheme will be a voluntary one for both employers and existing employees. We shall use the pilot scheme to build up our experience so that we will gradually learn and broaden its scope. The new section 40A deals with the powers of the CPF Board, the obligations of the employers participating in the Scheme and the protection of contributions paid under the COWEC Scheme. The CPF Board will be empowered to approve any welfare scheme which provides for the payment of pensions, gra- tuities or other pecuniary or welfare benefits by an employer to his employees. Any such welfare scheme which has been approved by the CPF Board will be called an "approved employees' scheme". An employer who has established a scheme will be entitled to pay a reduced rate of CPF contributions in respect of employees who are members of the scheme. The Board will also be empowered to revoke any approval given under the section.”
“The second concerns the Approved Residential Properties Scheme. I shall deal with each of these separately. COWEC Scheme Sir, the concept of using a portion of the employer's contribution to CPF for benefits provided by the companies to employees was outlined and discussed in this House in March this year. The proposed amendments, now before the House, particularly clause 4 which introduces two new sections, are to facilitate the implementation of the COWEC Scheme and to provide for certain safe-guards and penalties. We are living in an age of economic uncertainties and increasing protectionism. For Singapore to survive in this harsh economic climate, our products and services must have an edge over that of our competitors. Productivity must therefore be the cornerstone of our economic growth. One of the means of increasing the productivity will of our workers is to enhance the nexus between the employee and his employer. Employers must be encouraged to provide directly for the welfare of their employees who will then know that they are cared for by their employers and be willing to upgrade themselves and contribute to the well-being of their companies. It was with this in mind that the National Productivity Board promoted the COWEC Scheme. Under this Scheme, an employer will be allowed to pay CPF contributions at a reduced rate of 36% of the salaries instead of the full rate of 46%. The 10% which would otherwise have been contributed to the CPF will be retained by the employer and paid into a trust fund to be set up by the employer for the benefit of the employees.”
“It is to give legislative effect now. Mr Deputy Speaker: Well, so be it, if you so prefer to waste the time of the House. Ring the Division bells. The House divided: Ayes, 40; No, 1; Abstention, 1. Ayes No Abbas Abu Amin Jeyaretnam, J.B. Ahmad Mattar Ang Kok Peng Barker, E.W. Chandra Das, S. Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Ch'ng Jit Koon Chor Yeok Eng Fong Sip Chee Goh Chee Wee Goh Chok Tong Ho Kah Leong Ho See Beng Abstention Howe Yoon Chong Jabbar, M.K.A. Hwang Soo Jin Jayakumar, S. Koh Lip Lin Lau Teik Soon Lee Yock Suan Liew Kok Pun Lim Boon Heng Lim Chee Onn Othman bin Haron Eusofe Phua Bah Lee Rohan bin Kamis Saidi Haji Shariff Seah Mui Kok Sia Kah Hui Sia Khoon Seong Sidek bin Saniff Tan Keng Yam, Tony Tan Soo Khoon Tay Eng Soon Teh Cheang Wan Teo Chong Tee Wan Soon Bee Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Yeo Choo Kok Yeo Ning Hong Yeo Toon Chia Question accordingly agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. Mr Deputy Speaker: I propose that we take a break now. I suspend this Sitting and will take the Chair again at 5.50 p.m. Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.22 p.m. until 5.50 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.50 p.m. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. The Acting Minister for Labour (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, there are two aspects of the proposed amending legislation. One concerns the COWEC Scheme or Company Welfarism from Employer's Contributions.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I say that these concessions that were made, I do not want to repeat, are thoroughly objectionable. They are discriminatory based on wealth. And I say it is a shame that this Government should continue to bring in concessions for the rich whilst loading the poor with higher fees and costs for services given to them. For those reasons, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I shall oppose this Bill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I speak, perhaps I had better say that I benefit by this amendment to clause 7, being over 55. So having declared my interest, may I speak. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as the Minister has said, this Bill seeks to give legislative effect or authority to concessions made in the Budget for this year. What the Minister forgot to say was that these concessions were made purely to the rich. I do not want to repeat what I said in my Budget speech. There are two concessions here - enhancement of allowances for those who are 55 and those over 60 and also to the married women who are specially qualified persons. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I tried to point out in my Budget speech, and as has been pointed out in letters after the Budget speech and the debates in this House, these two concessions are discriminatory. They favour the rich as against the poor. We have just been told this afternoon that those entering Class C wards will have to pay substantially higher charges. Whereas we are all too ready to impose charges on the poor for hospital care and treatment and for other services given to them because we say we cannot go on giving free services; the revenue cannot afford it or for whatever reasons. On the other hand, it would appear we are equally ready to hand back to those who do not need these concessions large sums of money. We have been told in the Budget that the loss to the revenue would be about $1.4 million in the concession given to married women who are specially qualified persons. I see now that this concession was probably brought in to prepare the way for the Prime Minister's appeal in the National Day Message to lure the specially qualified women who were not married yet to marry to get these concessions.”
“We can take it to court. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."”
“I have not misread the Bill, if it may please the Minister. The Minister talks about unauthorized information. But that is begging the question: who decides whether any information is autho- rized or unauthorized? Of course, the company will decide - something which it does not want the public to know - to say, "Well, this is unauthorized, my dear boy. We cannot breathe a word of this to anybody else." Why should the company be made the sole arbiter of what is authorized and what is unauthorized? That is my point.”
“On a point of clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I say that this Bill is thoroughly bad in principle and I shall vote against this Bill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it has been said that the discovery of what has been known as Watergate which led to the downfall of the President of the United States was only possible because information was made available and it had to be supplied. Is that not the sort of society that we should be aiming for, so that the public are kept informed of what the various Government companies are doing, what the Ministries are doing, what the statutory boards are doing? One might say, "Well, the statutory boards put up their reports. You get the information in the reports if you look at them." Do we get the correct information? I have had occasion before this to refer to the Annual Reports and the Financial Accounts and Statements of the Housing and Development Board. I have complained not once but twice that those Financial Accounts do not tell the whole story about the Housing and Development Board's activities. I have referred to the profits that were secreted away, and I see that even in the Report for the year ending 31st March, 1983, those profits derived by the Housing and Development Board from its MND Holdings have not been consolidated in the accounts. It would appear that I can just go on talking in vain. I say, Sir, that rather than introduce a Bill to cover up all affairs and activities of Government companies, we should really have a Bill making available information. Some of these boards are public utilities. The public would want to know what they are doing. They are entitled to this information. What is sensitive about their undertakings? What about the Government companies? Should we not know what they are doing? After all, the taxpayers are the shareholders. Are the shareholders not entitled to information? Why are we closing the doors?”
“"Oh, no, you can't be supplied with that list." This is the sort of thing I get, but I am becoming used to it, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Now it would appear that we are going to extend all this even to Government companies and statutory bodies. If this Bill becomes law, and I am sure it will, it would mean that the public may not get any information about the affairs of a Government company or a statutory board. They will be told quite blandly, "I am sorry. If you look up the Statutory Bodies and Government Companies (Protection of Secrecy) Act, 1983, you will see that we cannot disclose any information." Why is it necessary to keep all the activities of statutory bodies and Government companies under wraps? As I have said, if we are as we claim, a democratic society, should we not open the doors wherever they can be opened without detriment to our national safety, without prejudice to our national interests? Should we not open the doors not only of Government Ministries but also of statutory boards and Government companies to public scrutiny? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in many countries there is this freedom of information available to a member of the public. Members may know that in Australia they have just passed quite recently a Freedom of Information Act under which any member of the public can telephone any Ministry or department and require information and he has got to be supplied with that information, unless the information falls within the exception laid in that Act. Should we not be thinking along those lines if we claim to be a democratic society, or should we as it were wrap the blanket more closely around ourselves so that nobody may even be able to look into what we are doing?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, clause 3 of this Bill makes it an offence for any person to disclose to any other person any secret or confidential document or information which he has obtained or to which he has access by virtue of his position as such member, officer, employee or agent. One might suppose that it is only a secret or confidential document or information that it is intended to be protected by this Act. But that begs the question, Sir, because who decides whether such information is confidential or secret? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may illustrate what I am saying. After I became a Member of this House, I tried to obtain some information from the Prime Minister's Office, and my precise inquiry was whether I may be supplied with the rules of the Residents' Committees. The official that I spoke to at the Prime Minister's Office said, "Oh, these rules of the Residents' Committees are not available to any person." So I had to remind him firmly that I was not just "any person but I happened to be the Member of Parliament elected by the voters of Anson." After some haggling over the phone, he said, "Well, it is all confidential, but if you want, you write in. So I had to write in and eventually, of course, I got it. But is that the sort of thing - rules designed to regulate the activities of the Residents' Committees are not to be disclosed, it would seem, even to a Member of Parliament if he does not happen to be in the official group of Members of Parliament in that club? There is yet one other instance, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Again, about three months after I was elected, I wrote to the Ministry of Social Affairs asking whether I could be supplied with a list of persons in my Constituency who were receiving public assistance. And what did I get?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill seeks to throw a veil of secrecy over all affairs of a statutory body or a Government company. The Minister has set out the purpose of this Bill. That is quite evident from the Bill itself, that it seeks to throw a blanket, as it were, over all affairs of a statutory body or a Government company. What the Minister has not tried to explain to this House is why it is considered necessary to enact this Bill at this stage. He has referred to the Official Secrets Act. That Official Secrets Act spells out clearly the circumstances in which a person may be prosecuted for divulging information which he should not divulge and which information is considered to be detrimental or prejudicial to the safety or the national interest of Singapore. This Bill does nothing like that. It does not go out to spell any circumstances under which the man may be prosecuted, the man or woman. It virtually gives a carte blanche to the Attorney-General to decide whether anyone should be prosecuted or not for disclosing any information on the affairs of a statutory body or of a Government company, however innocuous, however trivial the information or document may be. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, claim is often made that in Singapore we have a democratic Government, that all our public affairs are conducted democratically. It is the essence of democracy - I do not have to remind Members of this House and the Minister - it is the essence of democracy that the conduct of public officials and the affairs of statutory bodies and companies should be subjected to the scrutiny of public opinion so long as whatever is subjected to their scrutiny does not endanger the safety of Singapore.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, you do not want me to make any declaration that I have no pecuniary interest in this Bill.”
“This Bill seeks to remedy the situation so that the secrecy and confiden- tiality of sensitive information of such organizations can be better protected. The inclusion of the statutory bodies and Government companies in the Schedule has been made with great care. Only those statutory bodies and Government companies handling or likely to handle sensitive information which warrants protection by penal sanction have been specified in the Schedule. As a safeguard, the Bill also provides that no prosecution will be instituted without the written consent of the Attorney-General. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“It is not. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - (Prof S. Jayakumar). Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. STATUTORY BODIES AND GOVERNMENT COMPANIES (PROTECTION OF SECRECY) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.25 pm The Acting Minister for Labour (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this short Bill is to protect secret or confidential information relating to the affairs of certain statutory bodies and Government companies which are specified in the Schedule. The Bill prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of such information by existing as well as former members, officers, employees and agents of these specified organizations. The organizations specified are those which handle sensitive documents and information, the improper disclosure of which could be detrimental or damaging to the national or public interest. Although we have the Official Secrets Act, that Act does not extend to the disclosure of information which is concerned solely with the affairs of a statutory body or a Government company. There is no general provision dealing with the protection of secrecy of information received or generated by statutory bodies and Government companies (except where official secrets entrusted by the Government are involved). Further, no provision exists which prohibits former officers and employees of such organizations from making unauthorized disclosure of information.”
“If the Minister says that he is not quite clear or is doubtful as to how the courts will interpret this, would he say what is the intention of his Ministry? Is it the intention of his Ministry that it should only be after the disciplinary committee has found the advocate and solicitor guilty and a court of three judges has censured him, or does it intend to enlarge that? If it is the former, would the Minister accept an amendment to paragraph (c) of clause 4?”
“I do not know what that question means. I am not a notary public.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise really on a point of clarification. The Minister has said that the present position is that the Attorney-General may revoke the appointment if the notary public has been struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors, and then he said that the Bill is designed to extend this power to give him the power to revoke the appointment if the notary public has been found to be guilty of such professional or other misconduct. What I would like to know from the Minister is, who is the person contemplated for finding the advocate and solicitor guilty of such professional or other misconduct? Is the Attorney-General made the arbiter or judge of whether a particular advocate and solicitor is guilty of professional misconduct and therefore empowering him to revoke? Or is it intended that he can only revoke the appointment if the notary public has been found guilty by a disciplinary committee of the Law Society and has been censored by the High Court of three judges but who have not struck him off the roll of advocates and solicitors?”
“These are the questions that I have asked, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.”
“I wish to ask why is it not possible for some of the charges for Class C patients to be met out of the substantially increased revenue which the Government is now collecting? Has he thought about that? Has he consulted the Minister for Finance about using some of those monies to pay for these Class C costs? The Minister for Finance's answer was that these monies would be used for the provision of services.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I put all my questions to the Minister at this one rising? Is the Minister aware that contrary to what he has told the House -that in the present charges, the ward fee was only $6 and there was a prescription fee of $2.50 and laboratory fee of $1.50, making in all $10 - is he aware that the Ministry has been collecting $10 regardless of whether there were any laboratory or X-ray tests done?. Is the Minister aware that these fee increases are staggering for Class C patients, without even taking into account the laboratory and X-ray fees which are 15% of Class A fees? They represent something like 85% increase on the present fee. Does the Minister know how much revenue the Government now hopes to collect? I have had this answer from the Minister for Finance - how much revenue the Government hopes to collect from the increase in the registration fees for cars and in the road licences -”
“Would you like to appoint a commission of inquiry?”
“Do we not have a Standing Order that says, "No mention or reference shall be made to any proceedings in courts?"”
“These are serious allegations of dishonesty against me.”
“Is he not in danger of bringing in court proceedings? Is there a law for himself and another law for others?”
“The Prime Minister speaks about credibility. Does he not accept that the credibility of a political party is to be judged by the electorate, by those who make the decision, and not by the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Workers' Party is heavily in debt and in danger of being wound up.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, does the Prime Minister not accept that what he may have done from 1962 to 1983 should not form the basis for any future conduct of elections? Now, since 1981, will the Prime Minister accept that there is a Member from an Opposition party in Parliament? And is it not time that political parties were consulted on the question of elections instead of keeping it as a preserve to himself, the Prime Minister.”
“Is the Prime Minister frightened of the result of any bye-election? He has asked us to meet him. Well, why does he not name the date?”
“With respect, Sir, may I ask this question?”
“Well, arising out of the Prime Minister's last answer -”
“I am afraid the Prime Minister has not answered my question. Does he not agree that appointing a caretaker MP when the citizen electors have a right to elect their own representative is to stand this principle of parliamentary representation on its head? And one final question before I sit down. Did he appoint this caretaker MP as Secretary-General of his party or did he appoint him in his office as Prime Minister of the Government and, if so, under what powers?”