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 7 of 82.
“It has become part of the Constitution. The Constitution, as I have said, is an act of the people. It is the people's charter. It is the charter by which the people have bound themselves to live together as a society. So we find these principles of the Rule of Law in our Constitution and they are to be found - I am not going to read them for want of time - in Articles 9 and 12 of the Constitution. There are also other Articles. They are all to be found in Part II, I think, which enacts the fundamental liberties of the people. But the most important ones are Articles 9 and 12. One also has to understand what is meant by the term "law" in the phrase "Rule of Law". In a case that went up to the Privy Council, in the case of Ong Ah Chuan versus the Public Prosecutor, concerning the question whether a certain provision in an Act (I think it was the Misuse of Drugs Act) was contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, it was argued for the Government of Singapore that the Act was not contrary to the Constitution because it had been passed by Parliament following the procedure set for the passing of law by the Constitution. So it had been regularly passed and therefore that was law, and that was all that we had to look at. The Privy Council had no hesitation in rejecting that - to confine law just to written law passed by Parliament or the legislature.”
“Thank you. The second sense of this meaning of the Rule of Law is that every subject, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals. Every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen. He adds a third sense, which is that, Rule of Law is part of the common law and has been propounded by judicial decisions rather than by any written constitution. He is speaking of course of England of the United Kingdom. But he continues to say that in developing countries, this has now been incorporated into their written constitutions. So it has in our Singapore Constitution. As I have said once before that when we decided to break away from the British rule, we nevertheless decided, all political parties gathering together and deciding as a people, that we will opt for the Westminster style of Government and for the institutions that were applicable in England and, of course, as they were applicable in Singapore at that time. The common law had been imported into Singapore in the 19th century and the institutions of Government followed exactly the Westminster style of Government. So we decided that we would have not any other system. This was a deliberate conscious choice of the people made through their political parties before the delegation went to London. And as I have said, the present Senior Minister was, of course, a member of that delegation. Now, we have a Constitution. These principles of the Rule of Law are to be found in our Constitution. They are there. They are no longer dependent upon judicial interpretations and declarations of the Rule of Law.”
“A subject can be punished for a breach of law but they can be punished for nothing else." He continues: "In this sense, rule of law contrasts with every system of Government based on the exercise by persons in authority of wide arbitrary or discretionary powers of constraint." That is the first meaning of the Rule of Law.”
“One of the reasons why despite the Government's assertion, often repeated, that in Singapore the Government observes the rule of law scrupulously and it is seen in its fullest extent, and the critics saying something quite the opposite, that there is no rule of law in Singapore today, may be due to a misconception as to what is meant and understood by the Rule of Law. Therefore, it is important that we try and understand what we mean when we say of the Rule of Law. I see the mentor of the leaders of this Government, Confucius himself, recognised the importance of giving things their correct names. He was asked by a disciple, "What will be your first task if you are given the charge of a country?" His answer was, "Rectify the names." When he was asked to explain, he was reported to have said, "If the names are not correct, if they do not match realities, language has no object. If language is without an object, action becomes impossible. Therefore, all human affairs disintegrate, and their management becomes impossible. Hence, the very first task of a true statesman is to rectify the names." So the need to try and name things properly is recognised by Confucius himself. Perhaps I should try and say something about what is understood by the Rule of Law. This term, the Rule of Law, came into prominence when Prof. A. V. Dicey, a Vinerian Professor of English law, propounded it. He saw the Rule of Law to consist of two main parts. "One, the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the Government. Subjects are ruled by the law and by the law alone.”
“If it is a dictatorship, ruled by decree, then it is no longer a nation but a fiefdom. May I also inform the Members that the proposition of the rule of law that it is an absolute fundamental and necessary before citizens can live in peace and freedom is not something new. It is not a novel concept. Its origins can perhaps be traced back to the 13th century when the English Barons met at Runnymede to curtail and to restrict the powers of the Monarch. Before that, the Monarch was ruling at will, doing what he wished and restricting the liberties of his subjects. And so the Barons gathered to put an end to this rule by the Monarch without any law and they passed a number of declarations. These declarations were later accepted by the Monarch, Henry III, I think, and came to be known as the Magna Carta, the great Charter. And clause 39 is revealing. One can see the origins of all our recent declarations in this clause, and if I may read clause 39: "No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disused or outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed nor will we send upon him except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." They are laying down, telling the Monarch that no free man shall be taken, exiled, his liberty destroyed in any way except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. Clause 40 says, "To no one will we sell, deny or delay right or justice." As I have said, they were embodied in the Great Charter issued back in the time of Henry III at the request of the Barons and became a foundation for the society in England.”
“Under this rule, citizens are ruled by the law and the law alone. We have had, only this afternoon, the Minister of State saying that it was important to send a strong message to those who blatantly and flagrantly disregard the law. My party says amen to that. The question is: is the Government exempt from this scrupulous observance of the Rule of Law? And that is what the House has to decide this afternoon. I have no doubt what the outcome of this motion will be. But what this House has to ponder is whether the Government in Singapore disregards the law, or is it only its citizens who refuse to attend and answer court summonses? We have to ask the question whether in Singapore it is a society that lives under the rule of law or whether it is a society that lives under a government that acts by decree rather than under law. It is a question that we have got to face and answer. Is the society in Singapore a civilised society living under the rule of law? Or is it a society more akin to a society ruled by a Mafia? I know these are strong words but the question has to be asked and answered. If the rule of law does not obtain and citizens cannot live in the certainty that all their actions will be judged only by the law and by nothing else, and they will only be punished by the law and not by any arbitrary power on the part of the Minister, it is no better than a dictatorship, where a dictator rules by decree. May I quote to this House what one of the finest writers from Africa and a Nobel Laureate, Mr Wole Soyinka, from Nigeria, wrote in his book The Open Sore of a Continent. And these are his words, "Under a dictatorship, a nation ceases to exist. All that remains is a fiefdom, a planet of slaves." How true those words are.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That this House recognises the importance of the Rule of Law and urges the government to ensure the complete and full observance of the Rule of Law by all Ministers, officials and public servants. I was saying, Sir, that I assure those Members of the House who perhaps are asking themselves why is the Member introducing the subject on which we have heard enough, and do we have to listen again to the same thing. May I remind the Members that the subject is not about any abstract value. It may be intangible, but is more valuable than any tangibles. The rule of law is what sets a civilised society apart from other societies that do not observe the rule of law. So it is not an abstract airy-fairy rule that is propounded or shouted out by left wing liberals, but it is something that is so fundamental in any society that believes itself to be a civilised society. I do not think I have to make a strong case on the first statement that the House recognises the importance of the rule of law, because we have had, many a time, Ministers declaring how Singapore scrupulously obeys the rule of law. So there is an admission that Singapore scrupulously recognises the rule of law. The Government often talks about having the fundamentals correct, and they pride themselves that in Singapore the fundamentals are correct and laid down. May I say that the rule of law is the first basic fundamental for any society. It is the only guarantee of the subject's freedom. Without the rule of law, the subject lives in a state of uncertainty and in a state of bewilderment and consequently of fear. But where the rule of law obtains in all its fullest extent, the citizen can live happily, breathe freely, knowing that he is ruled only by the law and not by anything else.”
“Thank you, I will. Thank you for pointing that out. Mr Speaker: Please proceed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House recognises the importance of the Rule of Law and urges the government to ensure the complete and full compliance of the Rule of Law by all Ministers, officials and public servants. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I assure those Members of the House who perhaps are asking why is the Member always raising issues that are --- Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat (Aljunied): Point of order, Sir.”
“May I answer that? They are in the remand prison because they cannot post the bail that has been offered to them. That is the only reason they are in the remand prison, or because certain offences are not bailable. It is something quite different from the subject that we are talking about.”
“By way of clarification and without being disrespectful to the Minister of State. I wonder whether he really understood what I was saying about the presumption of innocence. I do not get that impression that he understood it. This clause would suggest that the person has been arrested pursuant to the warrant of arrest issued against him. If he is arrested, he is brought to court and perhaps punished for not turning up and then released on bail to face trial for the offence for which he was arrested. The presumption of innocence is that that man or woman in front of the court is innocent of the charge until the court pronounces that he or she is guilty. Therefore, no action should be taken by any Ministry pre-empting the decision of the court and seeking to punish indirectly either the person or any other member of the family or other persons. That is exactly what I was trying to convey. The presumption of innocence before the trial and no one should pre-empt the decision of the court. Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have explained that by immobilising his vehicle, we are not presuming that he is guilty. In many of our law enforcement actions, we inconvenience individuals. The police have powers, for instance, if they feel that you have committed an offence, to detain you for certain hours and then they charge you in court. So are you saying that by detaining the offenders in the remand prison, it is presumed that they are guilty? Obviously, not.”
“Has the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology inquired from the Ministry of Home Affairs or the police officers how diligent are the Police in executing warrants of arrest? What would be the position if the police officers, through shortage of manpower or for whatever reason, suddenly forget about the warrant of arrest, which is lying on the shelf somewhere, and they have not made any attempt to execute it? Are you going to require, first of all, the Police or whoever is authorised to execute the warrant to say what attempts have been made, and in what manner, to execute the warrant of arrest? If not, the owner or driver is being punished for something that the Police have not done. That again is totally unfair. I would therefore ask the Ministry to reconsider this Bill again, particularly the two clauses (clauses 6 and 9) of the Bill.”
“If the man has been arrested and a date has been fixed for his trial, which I take will be the case, he will be on bail, compelling his attendance for the trial, then no action should be taken until the decision of the court is known. That would be the civilised way of proceeding. Then there is clause 9 which seeks to insert a new section 95A. Prof. Chin has raised a number of questions on this and I would endorse my support of what he said, and say that it may result in penalising members of the family who may be using the car, where the person who is registered may not be available. He may be out of the country for all we know. But the members of the family may be using the car and they may need the car. Is it the intention to penalise the family who is using the car to put compulsion on the person who has absconded or is evading arrest? That again, may I say, is an undesirable principle. It smacks of the collective punishment theory which was applied in Malaysia during the years of Emergency and was strongly criticised, not only in Malaysia but outside Malaysia, for punishing members of a village or community because of the wrongdoing of one or two members of the community. I see that the power to release the vehicle is given to the Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner of Police or the Registrar. But it would appear to me that the Magistrate's hand is tied in that the clause goes on to provide specifically that he may refuse to release the vehicle unless the man surrenders himself to a police officer. There again, it is a form of compulsion that is being used and in the result punishing somebody else. Finally, on the question of the 54,000 warrants of arrest.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my concern arises out of clause 6 and clause 9 of this Bill. But clause 6 really alarms me. I see that by clause 6, a person who has been arrested pursuant to a warrant may be refused a vehicle licence renewal, as the Minister puts it, even if he has not been tried and his guilt determined by the court. This reverses the presumption which perhaps, to some extent, is being eroded in Singapore today. It reverses the presumption that any person who is accused of any offence is innocent of the offence until he has been proved to have committed the offence to the satisfaction of a court. But here we have a proposal that even before the court tries the offender and pronounces him guilty of the offence, he should be punished by not allowing him to renew his licence. That, I find very alarming and, as I have said, it tends to reverse the presumption. It assumes that this man or woman is guilty of the offence which he or she stands charged. It is also undesirable for the reason that it may act as a compulsion for the person to plead guilty to an offence charged simply to get the vehicle's licence renewed. Compelling someone to plead guilty is, as I have said, very undesirable and I think it may even be an offence under the Penal Code if the police try to compel anyone to plead guilty. So I do urge the Ministry to reconsider the provision in clause 6 and see whether it should be made law. It is an important principle of law, and I hope that it is accepted by the Ministry of Law and the Ministry of Home Affairs, that the presumption of innocence should not in any way be dented in Singapore. On the other hand, it should be strengthened. So I have very grave reservations of clause 6 of the Bill. I think it should be taken out completely.”
“Sir, may I ask the Leader why has it not been thought proper to have a Mmber from the Opposition in the Committee?Does the House,and the ruling party for that matter,recognise or not recognise that there are Opposition members in Parliament? And if it is going to be a Parliamentary Committee, then all parties should be represented. Why has the Opposition been left out?”
“Sir, Mr Goh would seem to imply by his question that there are some people who threaten the owners. Is the Ministry aware of any such incidents or not?”
“May I ask the Minister by way of clarification? Instead of saying that if the officers do abuse their powers, there are methods of finding out, is it not better to confine their investigating powers? And would the Minister, I am quite serious about this, refer this back to the Attorney-General to consider whether the word "appears" should be taken out and something else put in place?”
“So would the Minister explain what exactly is meant by the phrase "appears to him"?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have a query for the Minister under subclause (2) of this new clause. As it now stands, it reads "A Commercial Affairs Officer may investigate any suspected offence which appears to him to have been committed under any written law." I am puzzled that the legislation proposes to give powers to a police officer to "investigate any suspected offence which appears to him .". Under the Criminal Procedure Code, police can only investigate where there is a report or complaint received at a police station and reduced into writing, or where an offence is committed by any member of the public in the view of a police officer. What exactly is contemplated by the word "appears"? Is this Commercial Affairs Officer to be given power to investigate where there is no complaint or no information received, but where he thinks there might have been an offence committed under a written law? As has been mentioned by the Minister himself, this officer is now not only confined to offences which previously the Commercial Affairs Department was confined to investigate, but now a whole box of offences has been open to him because it is any offence under any written law. Should not some restraint be imposed before a Commercial Affairs Officer begins to investigate? Or is he going to be allowed to investigate anything just because he suddenly gets it into his head that somebody may have committed some offence or some companies have committed some offence? It opens the door to abuse. I think there must be some restraint, as is the case with police officers in the investigation of crimes and other offences. Even the CPIB will have to have a report or complaint received before they embark on any investigation.”
“So we have two or three different grades all paid exactly the same pay because there is not enough room to make a differentiation between them. And we will still get some people coming in because in the public service, there is a strong tradition in America, you come in for one term and you go out, and you have made your reputation. But it is starting to tell, and we are beginning to see a shortage of qualified, high-calibre people in their public sector." So these are issues which confront every country. We have chosen the approach of coming out, discussing it openly and defending what we do rather than making believe, and I think that is a right approach.”
“Sir, I am afraid the Deputy Prime Minister does not understand the import of my question. I am not concerned so much with those employees in the private sector against whose salaries the benchmark for Ministers' salaries is fixed. I am concerned with those in the lower ranks in the private sector. What message is the Government sending to them when you are in a hurry to pay Ministers and everyone increased bonuses, including top civil servants? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, today is not a debate on Ministers' salaries. We have had several debates on Ministers' salaries in this House. The Non-Constituency Member has participated in many of them. The matter has been deliberated, discussed. White Papers have been tabled. The policy is well established. The message which we have consistently presented to Singaporeans is that we are looking for quality leadership in the public sector, in the political leadership. If you want good people, you have to be realistic. The more you are able to recognise what people are worth and pay them what they are worth, the better the quality of government we are going to have. So I do not think there has been any change. It is a system which we will have to continue to argue, discuss and defend repeatedly because Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam and others will often ask why this is so and it is quite understandable because it is not an intuitive solution. Many countries do not do this. But many countries envy us that we are able to do this. I was in America recently and one person I met, who is head of Brookings, said to me, "We envy your system. We are unable to do it. We have to squeeze our public sector salaries.”
“And, as I have said, beyond that, we have to make some adjustments, but we will be careful and mindful to be moderate and to make sure that the overall impact will be something which people will be able to bear. Finally, Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam asked what signal are we sending to the private sector. The answer is we are sending them the signal that we are still lagging them. We have a benchmark. We should have followed the benchmark. Because of the circumstances, we have not done so. We will make a partial restoration. How? We will settle later on. But at the end of it all, it will still take us some time to catch up, and we have always said that we will lag the private sector, and we are not leading it. But we have to keep in step and we must not be too far behind.”
“There is no easy way to do this, because for somebody who is in his 40s or 50s with teenage or grown-up children and family responsibilities, to go back to school, learn, sit down, take notes, study, take examinations - you know you did it many years ago but now, when you sit down to try and do it, it does not come so quickly any more. But it is an effort which has to be made and we will help them to make it. Dr Vasoo also asked about the effect of this package on inflation, I do not think there will be, because inflation is generally low. We have been watching it. This year, it should be about 1%, I think. Next year, maybe about 2%, but we keep a very close eye on inflation in Singapore. We are helped because world-wide inflationary pressures are down. So imported inflation would not be significant, and domestic inflation, as long as we manage our economy carefully and do not allow it to overheat, will be controlled. On charges and fees, there were a series of charges and fees which had rebates in the package last year including medical charges, public transport, service and conservancy, and GST rebates which were extended for two years. Some expire at the end of this year and some will expire at the end of next year. We will let them run their course. The economy is recovering. I expect to see wages rising gradually over the next few months. They have already started to rise, and I do not see workers losing their jobs in very large numbers and being unable to find new employment. There will be retrenchments but at this time, the retrenched workers really have the best chance possible to find new jobs. So I think that we should let the rebates and fee concessions to run their course.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to answer the questions that I asked earlier? One of them was: is it or is it not true that unemployment has risen over the last two months? Secondly - I made it as a passing reference - are Ministers going to be paid this bonus and annual wage supplement, besides top civil servants and Members of this House? And I asked why are we in such a hurry, and will it not send the wrong message to those in the private sector? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first respond to Mr J B Jeyaretnam's question which I overlooked. Unemployment is now 4%, slightly higher than what it was in June, but lower than 4.4% in December 1998. I do not believe this rise is significant, from all the accounts. The labour market is tightening. If you ask me what it could mean, one possibility is that it is some indication of a structural problem we have to address and which we are addressing, which Dr Vasoo raised, of older workers who may be having difficulties finding new jobs and for whom we must make an exceptional effort to help to find new jobs. Dr Vasoo asked what efforts are we making. We have the Manpower 21 programme. We are introducing training schemes. We are linking up with the ITEs, polytechnics and the training institutes to work out programmes which are tailored to the older workers, and to present them in a way which will fit them. And also to break them up into small modules, so that you can do it one piece at a time, master that, collect a boys' scout badge, go on, get another badge, and finally you become a President's scout, or you get a new job. I think that is a practical approach.”
“Sir, may I ask whether it is true or not that the unemployment figures have gone up over June. Secondly, as I understand from the Deputy Prime Minister, we are not completely out of the wood but we are well on the way perhaps. Echoing the question that was asked by another Member, why is the Government in a hurry to reward the top civil servants, and I take it that Ministers are also going to be rewarded, when the economy has not fully recovered? Thirdly, does the Government appreciate the message that all these increases may be sending to the workers in the private sector?”
“This would allow subscribers more choice over the channels they want and lower the entry price for those who are only interested in certain types of programmes. SCV is in active negotiations with its programming partners for this move.”
“May I ask whether the daily-paid workers - I do not know whether you consider them Government employees - will be paid the bonus and annual wage supplement. BG Lee Hsien Loong: I am not exactly sure of the terms. But if the Member will file a question to that effect, I will give him the answer. Mr Jeyaretnam: Are the road-sweepers and cleaners employed by the Ministry of the Environment not daily-rated and daily paid? Will they benefit? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, if he files a question, we will give him an answer. SINGAPORE CABLE VISION (Percentages of subscription) 12. Dr Ker Sin Tze asked the Minister for Information and the Arts what are the percentages of subscription for Singapore Cable Vision by Housing and Development Board flats, condominiums and apartments, and landed properties and what measures will be taken to raise the percentages if they are low. The Minister for Information and the Arts (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Mr Speaker, Sir, in February, my Ministry informed this House that the overall subscription rate for cable as at 31st January 1999 was 18.5% or 148,000 households. Since the completion of cable rollout recently, the overall rate has increased to 21% (or 196,000 households) as at 31st October 1999. The subscription rate is highest for private residential homes, with landed property showing a 40% take-up rate. I am unable to provide more detailed information as this is trade information of commercial value. SCV is currently re-packaging its basic tier system to make it more affordable and attractive. The new system is likely to have packages such as news, sports, education, Chinese language, entertainment and minority interests.”
“Toh See Kiat: Sir, the card issuer is TransitLink, and they have said that after three years the money is untraceable and therefore they cannot give it back to you. If that is the case, if it is untraceable, then it is a bone of contention, meaning it is property of the State, and it should go to the State, and not enrich the issuer who cannot trace the money. BG Lee Hsien Loong: I have no doubt they can improve their tracing capabilities and MCIT would discuss with them to see how this can be done. CIVIL SERVANTS (Payment of bonus and Annual Wage Supplement) 11. Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam asked the Deputy Prime Minister what categories of civil servants will be paid the bonus and Annual Wage Supplement payments for 1999. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, as with previous years, the Annual Wage Supplement and Annual Variable Component will be paid to all civil servants in December 1999, except for employees who are under disciplinary charges and those whose services are under review for poor performance.”
“Under the current legislative framework, MAS has responsibility over the issuance of multi-purpose stored value cards (for example, the popular CashCards), but not for single purpose stored value cards. MAS views monetary values in these pre-paid stored value cards or any unused balances on these cards no different from deposits. MAS expects issuers to make every effort to identify and repay deposits of the card or account holder. Although expiry of these CashCards effectively means that they will no longer be accepted at points-of-sale, in other words, cardholders cannot effect purchases using the stored value cards, cardholders can nevertheless redeem unused balances on their expired CashCards. On the other hand, the treatment of single-purpose stored value cards such as TransitLink farecards is based on commercial considerations and differs among the various card issuers. The Ministry of Communications and Information Technology is aware that consumers have raised various issues concerning TransitLink farecards, and is looking into them. Assoc. Prof. Toh See Kiat (Aljunied): Sir, my question is not so much on the validity of the card because of wear and tear, but this question arises because of statements made by a certain issuer recently about the card's validity. They said that it expires after a certain number of years, and whatever money is left inside is no longer traceable because the database is not on line, and therefore they do not know who owns the money, and therefore they cannot give back the money. BG Lee Hsien Loong: If the Member will tell us which card issuer he is referring to, we will look into the matter. Assoc. Prof.”
“Toh See Kiat asked the Deputy Prime Minister (a) whether it is proper practice for the issuers of stored-value cards to claim administrative difficulty as a reason why their cards must expire after a certain time and all the money remaining therein unusable by the cardholder from that expiry date; (b) whether he will introduce measures or legislation (i) allowing the cardholder to claim a refund of the monies; and (ii) obliging the card issuer to forward monies remaining in the card, of which the owner is untraceable, and the interest earned, to the state rather than keep it for the card issuer's own use. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, currently a host of proprietary stored value cards are in use. These cards can be broadly categorised as single purpose stored value cards or multi-purpose stored value cards. There is no uniform practice with regard to the validity period of these cards or the treatment of unused balances. The decision to impose an expiry life on cards is based entirely on commercial and practical considerations, for example the physical wear and tear or obsolescence of these cards. For security reasons, stored value cards such as those embedded with smart chips are typically designed with a definite life span. This is because access to "electronic purses" on these cards is controlled by cryptographic keys which, through time and technological advancement, may be duplicated, compromising the security of the smart card. Limiting the duration of a card's use reduces the possibility of a security breach. In these respects, stored value cards are similar to prepaid vouchers with validity periods.”
“It is desirable for consumers to have the flexibility to choose an alternative insurer when they contract a loan, and forgo the benefits offered had they chosen a bank's related insurer. They should also be able to switch insurers for subsequent renewals of their policies. Most banks require customers to seek their approval for this, to ensure that the terms and standing of the alternative insurer are satisfactory. However, approvals are not always granted readily, and the terms and conditions under which consumers can switch insurers are often not clear. MAS will therefore ask the relevant industry bodies, namely, the Association of Banks in Singapore, the Finance Houses Association of Singapore, and the General Insurance Association of Singapore, to review the present arrangements, and if necessary, develop practice guidelines. The aim should be to preserve consumers' freedom to choose insurers, and set out fair and transparent terms under which consumers can switch to alternative insurers. At the same time, the guidelines should enable banks to cross-sell insurance products efficiently, and ensure that their mortgage loans have adequate insurance coverage. STORED-VALUE CARDS (Expiry date and refund of monies) 10. Assoc. Prof.”
“By how much have you succeeded? Dr John Chen Seow Phun: No. The objective of the COE system is not to reduce the number of cars on the road. It is to control the growth. That is right. We have fixed the growth of vehicles at 3% per year, and because the number of COE is fixed according to that growth figure, therefore the control is precise. INSURANCE COMPANIES (Competition) 9. Dr Ker Sin Tze asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether insurance companies should be encouraged to compete with each other in terms of lower premiums and better service instead of allowing banks and finance companies to force their mortgagors to take insurance coverage from their own related insurance companies. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, this will be a short answer. To protect their interests as lenders, banks and finance companies require that properties financed by their loans be properly insured. Some banks and finance companies which have related insurance companies package their mortgage loans with a built-in fire insurance component provided by these related insurers. As a marketing incentive, these packages often include free insurance coverage for the first one or two years of the loan period. The banks find that using the same related insurance company is a convenient way for them to monitor the adequacy and continuity of the insurance coverage. The market for mortgage loans is a competitive one, with many participants. Consumers can choose which bank or finance company to borrow from, based on the overall terms of the mortgage loans on offer, and the quality of the service. If they are not satisfied with the insurance coverage bundled with the loan, they can instead borrow from other lenders, including those with no related insurance companies.”
“Your objective is less cars on the roads.”
“It is heartening to hear the Minister of State say that the Certificate of Entitlement was not introduced for the purpose of collecting revenue. May I ask him whether all this that has been in operation, I do not know how many years, has succeeded in any significant level in reducing the cars on the roads?”
“Sir, does the Government appreciate that Indonesia has opened up a host of freedoms for the people which may lead to Indonesia becoming a democracy? Does Singapore intend to follow in that lead or not? Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I humoured him by giving an answer to a question which was really off the point in my view, but his further question would be a repetition of what I believe he is going to raise in his motion which is tabled for consideration in this House later. CENTRAL LIMIT ORDER BOOK (CLOB) SAGA (Update) 2. Mr Thomas Thomas asked the Deputy Prime Minister if he will (a) update the House on the latest position on the Central Limit Order Book (CLOB) saga and whether there is a solution in sight; and (b) clarify the role of the Securities Investors Association (Singapore) and whether the Association is in a position to handle the issue satisfactorily.”
“May I ask the Minister, digressing a little from the economic ties and cooperation, whether there are any lessons for Singapore to be learned from the political transition that has taken place in Indonesia?”
“Because he dares to question the Police as to the exercise of their powers. All these must go. Our citizens must feel that they have a right, a right which the law will protect and no agency of the Government, no officer of the Government can take that right away from them. Then, you give them pride. The second step that I would suggest to the Government is to give our citizens some say in decisions that affect their daily lives. Let them feel that they are heard and consulted and can make some decisions. I suggested not very long ago that there should be representation of our bus and MRT commuters on the Public Transport Council but was laughed at. It is impractical. Why is it impractical? If you do have that, then the people who rely on the public transport can take pride in that they are being listened to. Their views are heard. But that does not happen in Singapore. So they cannot take any pride. Then there is the Housing and Development Board. The Housing and Development Board, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a law unto itself.”
“Why were the occupants of the house not first explained carefully before they broke down that they were officers from the CNB and unless they complied with the request to open the door and they can see their warrant cards, the door would be broken down? That is working under the law. The law is that you must have a search warrant before you can enter anybody's house, unless, of course, the circumstances are such that valuable evidence will be lost if you go, first of all, to get a search warrant. An instance might be where you see a criminal running into a house. Clearly, you have to go after him into the house and not wait till you go and get a search warrant from somebody. But that was not the case here. The second is that Ministers must be seen to obey the laws scrupulously. We questioned the Ministers' flouting of the law so flagrantly in the last elections in the constituency of Cheng San. To us, the law was clear. But apparently, the Ministers thought that they were above the law and went into the polling areas when the law is that only the voters and the election officers and the Police would be allowed into the precincts of the polling station. The other area is that our citizens must be told quite clearly that law enforcement agencies can only act under the law and that they have every right to question law enforcement officers. The position in Singapore is when a police officer goes to arrest somebody, he is not told what the charge is. He is simply told, "Come with us". And if he dares to ask, "Why do I have to come? What is it?", he is told, "Oh, you will hear all about this when you get to the station." And then, in some cases, the poor citizen is charged in court with obstructing the Police in the execution of their duties. And what is his crime?”
“It is not just a question of them having their rights. I was surprised again by the mover's statement that active citizenship does not mean transfer of powers and rights. What does it mean? You must, first of all, Mr Speaker, Sir, give our citizens pride in themselves, pride that they belong to a society where they matter, where they take the decisions, where they are not just robots doing everything that is told to them by the Government. The first step is to give our citizens the pride of being citizens of Singapore, a pride that in this society they live under the Rule of Law. That is very, very important if you are going to give citizens the pride. No citizen will feel proud if he feels that the Rule of Law does not obtain in their country and the government can behave as it does without being taken to task. The first imperative is that the government should come under the law. The government must be manifestly seen to be under the law, not a government that is above the law, not a government that does what it thinks it can do and will do without any regard to what the law is. But that the government scrupulously obeys and follows the law. Only recently, there was this report in the papers about the CNB knocking at somebody's house at 2 am in the morning. No one questions the need for the CNB or other law enforcement agencies to do their work. But they have to do their work under the law laid down. No one expects them to stay away and abdicate their duties and responsibilities. We were told that there was no search warrant produced. Why was no search warrant produced?”
“Whilst other countries and societies around us march towards progress, modernisation in people development, in allowing the people to take greater share in making their decisions, we are still mired in this society of ours of which we are asked to be so proud, still mired in the siege mentality of the 1960s - fear, fear, fear! Mr Geoffrey Robertson, not very long ago, in addressing the court on the case brought by the Senior Minister against the Far Eastern Economic Review had to say this, "Mr Lee was still wearing the spectacles of the 50s." So let us not pretend that we are a society which is marching with other societies. Practically, as I said, some time ago, we are still in the 18th century when other countries have moved forward and we seem to be content to stay still simply because the PAP are frightened of losing their hold on the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, the 21st century and the millennium will soon be upon us. And if we are honest with ourselves, our people must be ready to face the challenges that lie ahead. If we want our people to think for themselves -what they should do to meet the challenges and take on a greater responsibility, not just accept whatever is done for them or whatever is said on their behalf, but for themselves to take the responsibility, then we have to act fast. There is no time to be lost. May I suggest a few steps. I have three. I could suggest a lot more, but time does not permit my outlining all those steps, that the Government can take to give our citizens greater responsibility. Mr Speaker, Sir, responsibility comes with freedom. You cannot expect people to be responsible unless you give them the freedom. No amount of calling upon them to be responsible will help unless you give them the freedom.”
“It is fear that is most important in the thinking of this Government. To keep the people in fear and that, as I shall show, has been alarming for the Singapore society. It shows no trust in our people. There was again the recent utterance by the Senior Minister about the loyalty of an important community in our midst. It is a very unfortunate remark. I hope he will come to this House and explain what exactly he meant and why did he say it. So the PAP's actions and policies, Mr Speaker, Sir, have been warped by this paranoia. The Senior Minister, not very long ago, at the last sitting, said that my mind was frozen. If anyone's mind is frozen, it is the PAP's mind. It has stood still from the 1960s and has not been able to think clearly because of this paranoia. The result is what? What have we got in Singapore? A result which is disastrous for Singapore as it gears up to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We are always talking about the challenges that lie ahead. But how are we prepared? If we propose to go into 21st century with a society too frightened to think, the Government unable to think rationally because of this paranoia, what have we? A society where those who have the charge cannot think rationally and those under the charge too afraid to think. Is this the kind of society that will fit us for the challenges that lie ahead? It is a totally incompetent society, however you look at it. And who is responsible for this? Again, one has to, if one is honest, admit that one man is responsible for this image which Mr Ian Buruma points out himself.”
“" Picking that up, Mr Buruma says: "Backward children cannot be expected to think for themselves for they are not responsible citizens. It is this official attitude towards its people that makes Singapore such a depressing place despite its fine hotels, excellent restaurants and shining shopping malls. The result of 50 years of PAP Government is that most Singaporeans are too frightened to think. To call that Asian values is an insult to the rest of Asia." I have one disagreement with Mr Buruma in his assessment of the Singapore society. It is not an insult to the rest of Asia. It is an insult to the great Asian civilisations of which we claim to be the inheritors. As Prof D. J. Enright says in his book, from its inception, at least from 1965 onwards, the PAP mind has been hobbled by a mindset born out of paranoia. This is the siege mentality, that Singapore is under siege. Not only the country is under siege from countries around us, but the Government itself is under siege from its people. The fear of the people one day asking the Government, the party that forms the Government, to leave, that they may one day rise up and say, "We have had enough. Thank you very much for what you had done, but we think we should now have a change." So that is the siege mentality, not only that the country is under siege, but that the Government itself is under siege. Not long ago, President Habibie of Indonesia was driven to remark that the Singapore Government is afraid of its own shadow. This paranoia that has afflicted the PAP has led to the "nanny" mentality, the over-regulation of every aspect of the people's lives and to rule by fear. The Senior Minister himself, in one of his candid admissions, has said that he'd rather be feared than respected. There you have it!”
“It has been said that our Government is now turning to people development. Are we talking about the same thing? What is people development, Mr Speaker, Sir? I should have thought people development is developing the people's faculties to take on a greater responsibility. That is what we talk about people development, so that their faculties are developed to the fullest extent. Is there anything here in this Address that say something about how the faculties of Singaporeans are going to be developed? It is abysmally silent. It is full of pretence at what has been achieved by this Government, without the assumption in it of the need for participation from the people. And yet, there are calls for greater people's activity, people's participation. All a pretence, Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have been saying. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the great pretender should now be taken off the Singapore screen. The script should be changed and the people be seen as playing their part. So what sort of a society do we have in Singapore today? Is it a society where the people have the responsibility, the people contribute to the decision making? Or do we have a society where everything is dictated by the Government, not so much the Government, but really by one man? Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure I am going to encounter great criticism of being unfaithful when I say that the truer picture of Singapore society was given by Mr Ian Buruma in his latest criticism. He takes a quotation from D. J. Enright, the professor at one time in our university, in his book "Memoirs of a mendicant professor." The quote is: "The PAP have often treated the populace like naughty or backward children.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I move my amendment, may I say, let it not be thought that it is out of churlishness that I do not wish to join the House in thanking the President. In any case, we know the President is not responsible for the contents of that speech. He was gracious enough to come and deliver the speech, and I have no hesitation in joining the House in thanking the President for coming to deliver the speech. May I now move my amendment. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the motion before this House be amended by adding thereto, at the end, the words: "but regret that the Speech is significantly silent on any measures to encourage citizens to take responsibility for the future of their country." Mr Speaker, Sir, the mover of the motion says one does not look for measures in the Address. I do not know what one looks for, if one does not look for the programme of the Government as to what it is going to do. So I fail to understand that. But I see that one or two other speakers have said that the Address was silent on concrete measures and concrete plans. And Mr Chiam has said it was empty. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that the Address is a great disappointment. One would have thought that after the trouble and the time taken to prepare the Singapore 21 Vision, one would have found in the Government's programme for this session of Parliament some concrete measures, concrete steps, to achieve what is considered should be the vision for Singapore. But as has been said, you find none of it in this Address. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that, on the other hand, the Address is all full of self-satisfaction, taking pride in what this Government has done, and patting themselves for what a wonderful Government they have been.”
“May I ask him, by way of clarification, Sir?”
“May I ask the Prime Minister, by way of clarification? He has, speaking for the first time in this new House, again mentioned that Singaporeans wanting to take part to join political parties. May I ask him now, as Prime Minister, whether he will give an assurance from this House that henceforth, persecution of people who take part in politics will stop?”
“May I clarify with the Member who has just spoken? He mentioned about the rhetoric calls for democracy made in the 50s. Does he realise who were making the calls for democracy and does he say they were purely rhetoric to be forgotten soon after the Party took power?”
“Will the Senior Minister be present at the next debate?”
“I have another question. Will he tell us ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, by way of clarification, put one question to the Senior Minister? Will he tell us, within the few minutes left, after he came into power, why he jettisoned many of the things that he had stood for when he was in the opposition?”