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 73 of 82.
“Yes, but I was told by the Chairman then that I could reply to this.”
“Sir, before I speak on this Subhead, may I, first of all, say, in view of Mr Speaker's ruling, that my firm does act for employees in actions against employers but I have no direct personal pecuniary interest in this subject. And also before I come to the subject proper, may i say a few words on the speech of the Member for West Coast that I have had to listen to. He spent most of his time railing against whatever I said in this House. May I say, Sir, that it is a gross distortion of the truth to say that I have been speaking in this House on behalf of hundreds of thousands of foreign workers.”
“May I speak on that later on, because I would probably want the time to clarify this point.”
“Sir, all that I want to say is that the hon. Member is being carried away to misquote me completely, Is that allowed? He is carried away.”
“I withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $101,144,920 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates, The sum of $465,502,100 for Head I ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.”
“The question is, is he told that he has a right to see you or address you and to make such representations as he wishes over the decision of the Registrar of Vehicles?”
“So he is not given a right to address you?”
“No. May I ask the Minister to reply to one of the questions that I asked him, and that was, "What is the procedure that he follows in an appeal to him?" Does he hear any further representations of the taxi driver, or not? May I have an answer to that question?”
“What is the great objection to taxi drivers, who wish to run their own taxis, availing themselves of these facilities? In what way will the hire-purchase company impose any restrictions on the taxi owner so as to prevent him from rendering a service that would be acceptable to the Registrar of Vehicles? I myself cannot see anything objectionable, and I would like the Minister to say why he thinks that cannot be allowed. 4.45 p.m. The other matter, Sir, is about the system of appeal that I was talking about. I did not expect the Minister not to display the faith he has in his Registrar of Vehicles. It would be surprising if he did not display his faith in his Registrar of Vehicles. But the question is not whether the Registrar can be expected to do his job well or not, fairly or unfairly. The question is whether it is right that it should be demonstrated to the taxi driver to his satisfaction. That is the principle at stake. If a taxi driver makes a complaint that his representation has not been properly considered, then he should be given an opportunity for his complaint to be heard by a tribunal and for the Registrar to appear before the tribunal to try and justify his decision. As I said, it is the application of the maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. I am sure in most of the cases perhaps justice is done by the Registrar of Vehicles. But there might be the odd case where justice may not have been done. And even if there is just one case, then it will be a blot on the system. I would ask the Minister to state what is the real objection to having a tribunal to consider any appeals from the decision of the Registrar.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister, if I have understood him, says it cannot be a matter of right that a father should be allowed to transfer his taxi licence to his son. May I ask why not, Mr Minister? After all, as I said, operating a taxi is a business like any other business. Is the Government imposing restrictions on the transfer of a business interest from the father to the son in other areas? Why should the yellow-top taxi operators be visited with this restriction? As I said, the impression that is gaining ground outside, if it has not already gained ground, is that the Government intends to drive all of them into the arms of the NTUC when they have no desire to be driven into the arms of the NTUC. In the particular case that I mentioned about the father wanting to transfer his taxi to the son, I am told that the son holds a vocational driving licence. The Minister makes mention about the Registrar of Vehicles having to make sure that transfers are only effected to good and credit-worthy persons. Here the son has got a vocational driving licence. What is wrong with it? He has been accepted as a taxi driver, and he was told, "You can drive a taxi if you can deregister your father's yellow-top taxi, and go to NTUC. We will arrange a priority allocation for you". That is obviously intended to persuade him to go into the NTUC-fold. The other thing that the Minister mentions is the discouragement of what he called the Ali Baba practice. I do not know how this practice is obtained as regards taxis in Singapore. But as I understand it, these yellow-top taxi owners or drivers get their finance from companies who operate hire-purchase facilities. Hire-purchase facilities are available to private car owners.”
“Yes. My final appeal is - I know this has been made before - would the Minister consider withdrawing the charge of $2 for taxis entering the CBD area?”
“The taxi driver will be given an opportunity to see the case presented by the Registrar of Vehicles against him and the reasons for the Registrar of Vehicles making his decision. He will then be able to call any evidence to refute any evidence that has been presented by the Registrar of Vehicles, and to answer the reasoning of the Registrar. I think there is considerable merit in this. It is important that, as is often remarked in the courts, "justice should not only be done but must be seen to be done." And the only way it can be seen to be done is for the taxi driver to be given an opportunity to meet the objections brought forward by the Registrar of Vehicles before another tribunal and to answer them and to call his own evidence in support of his case. I do not think - I stand corrected - that the present system of appeal allows for this. I would like to know how the Minister decides on any appeal from a taxi driver against the decision of the Registrar of Vehicles at the moment. Does he merely see the report from the Registrar of Vehicles and then makes up his mind on it? Or does he give the taxi driver an opportunity to further address him?”
“May I know what is the policy of the Ministry on this? Is it the intention that only the NTUC and perhaps selected companies approved by the Ministry should operate taxi services? What is wrong with individuals operating their own taxis? I should have thought that it was more desirable. The Minister has spoken about companies exploiting taxi drivers and taxi owners. Well, the answer is to encourage individuals to own taxis and to operate them individually without being driven into the arms of the NTUC. Is it the intenion of the Ministry that the NTUC and a few selected companies approved by the Minister should have the monopoly of the taxi service? I think that is undesirable. We should allow these individuals to operate their own taxis. They are, as it were, running their own little businesses, and that should be encouraged. It would provide healthy competition and perhaps lead to an improvement in our taxi service and solve the problem of the shortage that we are now experiencing. So I would like the Minister to say what is the objection. The other thing is the power that the Registrar of Vehicles possesses to suspend or to revoke the vocational licences of taxi drivers. I have asked the Minister in a previous question whether []e would consider setting up a tribunal to consider appeals from the decisions of the Registrar of Vehicles. His answer was that "the present system works satisfactorily. There is an appeal from the Registrar's decision to me as the Minister, and I do not see why we should have a tribunal." The benefit and advantage of a tribunal is that, when we do have a tribunal, there is an appeal.”
“It was a report in the New Nation of 28th August, 1978, about a Ministerial statement that new taxi owners' licences had been issued only for Comfort taxis since the NTUC Cooperative started in 1971. And then, further on, there were reasons given why transfers were being restricted to Comfort taxis only. Sir, we have heard of the desirability of encouraging competition and about the formation or allowing other companies to operate a taxi service besides the NTUC. My question is, why does the Ministry or the Registrar of Vehicles not allow individual owners of taxis or any individual to acquire a taxi and operate it as a taxi if he wishes to do so, without having to go to the NTUC? Why is it necessary to drive all intending owners of taxis into the arms of the NTUC Comfort Service? What is wrong with individuals running their own taxis which they have been doing for many years now? I do not know that the service provided by the yellow top taxi owner drivers are in any way inferior to that provided by the NTUC. So why this discrimination against the owner drivers of yellow top taxis? I was told only recently that a yellow top taxi owner driver applied for the transfer of his taxi licence to his son. This is not a transfer on the market for a big price. This was a transfer from a father to his son. I was told that this was disallowed. He was told that he could not and the son was told, "Well, we will tell you what. You go to the NTUC and you can get a taxi there, and your father can deregister his yellow top taxi." Is it the intention of the Ministry to eventually drive out all the yellow top taxis from our roads in Singapore? I am told that all registration books for the yellow top taxis are stamped "Non-transferable".”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head I be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead IE-05 of the Main Estimates. Sir, this Subhead deals with public transport, and it is about the taxi service that I wish to talk about - one or two particular aspects of it. But before I do that, in view of your ruling, may I say that my firm acts for taxi drivers in actions brought against them either by the Registrar of Vehicles or by the courts, and also for owners. But I have no personal pecuniary interest in any of the matters that I am raising here. Sir, the first point that I wish to raise is the non-transferability of yellow top taxi plate licences. Sometime ago I asked the Minister a question as to the transferability of these yellow top taxi licences, and this was the answer given by the Minister. He said: 'Taxi licences are made non-transferable to prevent trading in such licences. It would not be proper for holders of these licences to make large windfall gains out of them.' He then referred to the situation in Hong Kong where, he said, taxi licences were being sold on the market for as much as HK$250,000. Whilst I appreciate that there might be a racket if we allow the wholesale transfer of taxi plate licences, I really cannot see the restriction at the moment that the Ministry places on the transferability of yellow top taxi plate licences. There was a report in 1978 in the newspapers.”
“As part of the Government's drive to enhance efficiency and productivity in the hospitals and to improve the health care services to the public, a major project costing $16 million is being implemented to computerize the administrative operations of the hospitals and other departments of the Ministry.”
“Improvements were made to the following facilities:- (a) Specialist Outpatient Clinics (b) Central Sterile Supplies Unit (c) Wards and Delivery Rooms. The feasibility of rebuilding the Operating Theatre Suites and X-ray Department is still being studied. Toa Payoh Hospital has 424 beds. A major improvement project to renovate some of the wards, operating theatres and X-ray Department and to create a Central Sterile Supplies Department has just been completed at a cost of $2 million. More Specialist Outpatient Clinics are being provided to meet the increasing outpatient load. A fifth regional hospital, the University teaching hospital at Kent Ridge, is under construction. It is being built in two phases. Phase I started in September 1981 and will be completed in end-1984. The first patients will be taken in on 1st April 1985. Phase 11 will be tendered out soon and is scheduled for completion in end-1985. Together, they will provide modern diagnostic and curative facilities for 767 beds. The total project cost is estimated at about $300 million. Kandang Kerbau Hospital has 687 beds for O&G patients. In line with patients' preference for better privacy, there is an on-going project to upgrade some of the open Class C wards into Class B2, B1 and A wards. Class B2 wards are becoming popular. We have just completed converting and renovating a 36-bed Class C ward into a Class B2 ward. Another Class C ward is being upgraded into Class B2 as well. At a later stage, Kandang Kerbau Hospital will also be turned into a regional hospital.”
“All right, Sir [and resumed his seat]. REORGANIZATION OF MAJOR HOSPITALS 7. Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi asked the Minister for Health what steps are being taken or planned to improve the major hospitals like Tan Tock Seng, Alexandra, Toa Payoh and Kandang Kerbau to meet the increasing demands for better hospital facilities following the reorganisation of hospitals on a regional basis. The Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, the four regional hospitals are Singapore General Hospital, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Alexandra Hospital and Toa Payoh Hospital. The present Kandang Kerbau Hospital is still a specialist hospital concentrating on obstetrics and gynaecology. The rebuilding of Singapore General Hospital, providing up-to-date facilities for 1,627 beds, has just been completed at a total cost of $261 million. So far, 1,200 beds have been put into operation. The remaining beds will be commissioned in stages over the next few months. The 1,324-bed Tan Tock Seng Hospital has a mixture of relatively new and very old buildings. Progressive improvements through rebuilding and renovation will be made over the next few years. Plans are in hand to rebuild and relocate the Accident & Emergency Department at an estimated cost of $17 million. The proposal is being evaluated by the Ministry of Finance. A new building to house all the Specialist Outpatients Clinics and a new multi-storey ward block to replace some of the wards in the very old structures are being considered. Alexandra Hospital has 589 beds. It was a Military Hospital inherited from the British. Over the last few years, the Ministry of Health has spent $3 million to convert it into a regional hospital.”
“Would the Minister be good enough to accept that it is imposing undue hardship and inconvenience to these employees if they are asked to move out temporarily, and then move out again? Some of them told me that over the past two years they have been moved from pillar to post. They were moved out of Everton Block sometime ago, and even before that they had been moved out. This is causing a lot of dissatisfaction and unhappiness to the employees. What is wrong with his Ministry or the PSA arranging with the HDB for permanent accommodation for these employees?”
“It depends on the conditions of service.”
“Sir, as I understand the Minister, there are about 339 employees who are still to be found suitable alternative accommodation. Would the Minister assure the House that no steps will be taken to evict these persons from their present accommodation until a suitable alternative accommodation has been found for these 339 people? And would the Minister also assure the House that they will be found accommodation as near as possible to their work place, i.e. the dockyard and the dock areas?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question for the Minister of State. Is the Ministry considering control of the sale of these volatile inhalants at all? Have they considered any form of control over the sale of these inhalants?”
“Sir, the Members here are so fond of throwing challenges. Little boys, so fond of throwing challenges. Yesterday I told the Government, "You should resign. Why don't you go and see your chief and tell him?"”
“The second reason is to give the Minister of State an opportunity to kill the snake or the rat when it is drawn out of the hole.”
“Of course, this is a matter of opinion. But, it is our considered view that at any point of time, if the newspapers are able to discharge their responsibilities in the fields of culture and education, they would have honourably discharged their most important role to the country. This is the most important responsibility of the newspapers. Dr Ow Chin Hock( In Mandarin):. Sir, allow me to say a few more words. I understand very much the feeling of the Minister of State. He is both sad and happy. I know there are certain things which he cannot bring up completely. Just now he said that he could understand my feelings with Chinese news- papers. This is not entirely a matter of emotion. There are certain other matters. I have quoted figures and logic just now. The Minister of State must not forget that I have been with the Ministry of Culture for a period of three years and three months. So I have certain data in my hand. But that is not what motivates me to bring up this matter. As regards the Member for Anson, it is strange that I could almost anticipate the matters he would raise in this debate. Last year there were the matters of PARF and HDB accounting system. This year there is the payroll tax among other matters. In fact, this year I anticipated him to raise the matter of Nanyang Siang Pau under the Ministry of Culture. In fact, it is not difficult to anticipate what he would raise. It is very easy to read what is in his mind from his behaviour. I raised this question for two reasons. One is to give the Ministry of Culture another opportunity to explain and to clarify the reasons for reorganizing the two newspapers so as to prevent some people with ulterior motives to capitalize on the emotions generated therefrom and to fish in troubled waters.”
“We had this last year. Maj Fong Sip Chee: Yes. I want to remind him. Sometimes it is good to remind certain follies. Let me continue the quotation: "People are starving in Singapore". (In Mandarin): Local newspapers know that this kind of nonsense is not worth publishing. He has got to enlist the help of foreign reporters in order to get his rubbish published for his satisfaction. Therefore, he is obliged to speak on behalf of this foreign journalist. Now, Sir, the problems of Chinese newspapers are not matters within the comprehension of the Member for Anson. The Member for Leng Kee - of course I discussed the matter with him - is a little emotional. There are other Chinese newspapers like Sin Min Rih Pao and Min Pao. The market is limited and therefore the source of advertisement is quite limited. There is an overlapping of advertisements, by about 20%, in the two newspapers. The matter must be resolved expeditiously. When the two newspapers, Nanyang and Sin Chew, are merged, they will find it easier to operate. Their manpower, financial and other resources will be pooled. This will be beneficial to the Chinese readership. The two newspapers now have almost the same volume of sales as before. There is no question of a reduction of readership or any disadvantage to any Chinese newspaper reader after the merger. This is a fact. Members here must understand that the merger of these two newspapers is to Singaporeans' long-term interests. It is good both for the Chinese language and for the newspapers, and even to those others who are concerned with wider problems of State. If it is necessary to separate them in the future, and if that would help to realize or fulfil their responsibilities to society at that moment of time, then let that be.”
“What is it? Sir, I do not know why the Minister of State is getting so dramatic about this. He does not have to get to this high pitch. Cool down, please. I know there are other Chinese newspapers, but all I am saying is this. Were not these two newspapers in competition with each another? Does he deny that? They were, as I understood, in competition with one another, fighting for a larger circulation. What is wrong with that? That is all I am asking. I know there were other Chinese newspapers. So do not keep asking me, "Do I know or not?" I do know. 7.15 p.m. Maj Fong Sip Chee: If a man who has spent years in law does not know how to fill up a simple form to apply for a permit, I do not expect him to tell me the name of the Chinese newspaper. If the PAP and the Workers Party are competing parties, would he prefer a merger that he alleged we wanted to? Or with the UPF? Sir, may I deal with the Member for Anson -”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I do not know what is the purpose of this question. We have been told that both these papers were in competition with each another. There was competition, wasn't there? Why do you close it? Is it because you do not like the competition between the two papers? It is as simple as that. Maj Fong Sip Chee: I take it that you are not aware of the existence of other Chinese newspapers. (In Mandarin) This is just like what we say, "fishing in troubled waters." (In English): The Member for Anson is treading in very dangerous water, participating in a debate on a subject which he is completely ignorant of. He does not know anything about Chinese newspapers but tries to score a political point. He cannot even pronounce tak patut - two simple Malay words - and he wants to talk about the Chinese language newspapers! Will the hon. Member please tell us the name?”
“He is referring to a wrong application. There is no application from the Party. It was an application from an MP.”
“Well, the application to hold a Residents' Forum was not from the Party. I said it was an application from an MP.”
“May I ask the Minister whether his Ministry will grant a permit to my Party to hold a May Day Rally on the 1st of May? May I have an answer to that categorically, yes or no?”
“With your permission, Sir, can I just finish the question?”
“And I got a reply saying, "Would you please tell us who is the organization represented; what is the object of the event; what are the topics for discussion; personal particulars of the speakers at the forum?" Really, Mr Speaker, Sir, this does not speak well for the productivity campaigns in this country - that the Ministry of Culture should spend its time writing this letter to me, when I write to them saying that I wish to hold a residents' forum, to ask for the organization represented, objects of the event, topics for discussion, personal particulars of the speakers. Do they want names of the residents who might be asking me questions? Honestly, I would ask the Minister to direct his officer who is responsible for this to use a little bit more sense. Finally, Sir, may I know this from the Minister? Last year he said that a permit would be granted for a public rally if it was on an important -”
“Second Deputy Prime Minister. Thank you. I stand corrected. I have forgotten that we have got two Deputy Prime Ministers. 6.45 p.m. The statement made by him was that this man was, in his articles, suggesting that the Singapore Government was using the Internal Security Act to put down political opposition to the Government. I would like to know if that is not true - that the Internal Security Act has been used to put down political opposition to the Government. What about the case of Mr Ho Juan Thai that we have brought out? Is that not a clear case of using the Act to put down any political opposition to the Government? The Prime Minister said, as I said sometime ago, in Suva, Fiji, that it was healthy to have the truth acknowledged. Let us have the truth acknowledged and not just hide behind words. The other matter, Sir, is the control of meetings under the Public Entertainment Licensing Section of the Ministry of Culture. I referred last time, Sir, to the application we had made and which was refused. That was last year that I referred to it. This year, again I wrote to the Ministry of Culture asking for a licence to hold a residents' forum in my Constituency. I thought I had better do this in order to avoid causing embarrassment to the O.C. of Queenstown coming round to me and saying, "You know, Mr Jeyaretnam, you should have got a licence." I wanted to save him the embarrassment. So I wrote to the Ministry of Culture saying that I intended to hold a residents' forum on the 25th of this month and would they give me a permit. I do not know why it is necessary but I wrote, because apparently that is what they want.”
“I know that withdrawal of the visa comes under the Ministry of Home Affairs. But I am referring to the statement made by the First Deputy Prime Minister. Some hon. Members: Second Deputy Prime Minister.”
“Subhead JC-03 - regulatory, press control, media. It is on control of the media, information, press, publicity. This was the Subhead I spoke on last year.”
“Now, may I move on to the other two or three points, Sir, that I wish to bring up under my amendment, and that is, if I may refer very briefly to the withdrawal of the visa for the correspondent of the Far Eastern Economic Review There was some publicity about it in the newspapers. The Second Deputy Prime Minister (Foreign Affairs) speaking to the Foreign Correspondents Association -”
“But apparently the Ministry of Culture, or the Government, has a different view when it comes to the English newspaper because until sometime last year there was only one English newspaper put out by the Straits Times Group, They had the New Nation as well, but it was from the same publishing group. It was then thought, as I understood it, that it was Government's policy to try and encourage another paper to compete with the Straits Times Group. But now when we have two Chinese newspapers competing with one another, it is thought that is not desirable, "We must not have this. We must marry them together so as to avoid any competition." There was concern about the lack of finance. But as has been pointed out, neither of these newspapers were complaining about any lack of finance. So the reasons that had been put forward, may I say to the Minister and to the Government, sound very hollow and the only inference that one is left with is that these two newspapers had to be punished, the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew Jit Poh, and they had to be closed down. We know that the man who was connected with one of these newspapers was detained some years ago. Is that the real reason for closing down the Nanyang Siang Pau and the Sin Chew Jit Poh? Is it because they were critical of the Government in the past and had to be taught a lesson? I would like the Minister to face up to this squarely and answer the questions. We do not want to hear, as I have come to expect from this House, long statements of policy without answering the question.”
“Sir, we have heard from the speaker about the closing down of two newspapers which have served us very well for the last 50 years. I saw in the Straits Times yesterday a photograph of the Minister, who was there assisting at the birth of this new baby. I do not want to go over the criticisms and the comments made by the last speaker. As he has well put it, it is far from convincing - the reasons that had been advanced by the Government for the closing down of the two independent, well-established news- papers which have been hallmarks in Singapore society. I would like to hear from the Minister in this House whether he can really try and justify this Government clamping down on the two papers to produce the Government's own baby. We have been told, as I said last year when speaking on this Subhead, that it was very good that this Government believed in free enterprise. But as I said then, and I say it now, when it comes to the free expression of ideas, apparently this Government has got a different viewpoint. When it comes to free expression of ideas, that must not be allowed. The public must be limited to just one expression of ideas and that emanates from the Ministry of Culture through its various sub-ministries, be it at Times House or at the new offices of this paper. Sir, the reasons that were given, as has been pointed out, were various. But one of the reasons was that the readership was dwindling and that it was wasteful to have two newspapers competing for the readership. That is what I seem to understand to be the reasons.”
“Sir, I have an amendment, No. (6)* under this Head. I am also going to talk about this subject. May I bring it up now, Sir? It is Regulatory - control of the media, and two other matters. May I speak now, Sir?”
“Sir, it is just this. We do not want all this ad nauseam. I want answers to my questions in these two particular cases.”
“Again, people who have lived here for 20-30 years, who have given their life-time of service to this country, have come to me. Their fault, it would appear, is that they are not rich enough. They have worked for 20-30 years and their applications for citizenship have been refused. Why? If you look at the Constitution - I know I will be told it is 'may', yes, of course, it is 'may' - but the Constitution says that if you have lived here for 10 years out of the last preceding 12 years, and you have been continuously a resident for the last 12 months, and you are of good character, then you may be granted citizenship. Why do we have these provisions if these are going to be ignored? These persons have not been convicted. They have lived honest lives, given their service to the country and they have been deprived -”
“I was disappointed to see that in our Constitution there is no provision to say that you cannot discriminate on the basis of wealth. Perhaps the framers of the Constitution thought that it was not necessary to include wealth as a basis for discrimination. But apparently it would appear that this Government does discriminate on the basis of wealth, and I say that is immoral. There is the question of citizenship also, which is Amendment No. (15)*. May I just speak for two minutes on that, Sir?”
“When they went to register their marriage, no questions were raised as to whether he was able to maintain her, and he has maintained her for the last 12 years. What is the problem about whether he is able to maintain her or not? Why can she not be given permanent residence? If you look at the Constitution, you will find that the wife of a Singapore citizen may be granted citizenship status after two years. Here, we have a wife who has been living with her husband for 12 years and she is not granted permanent residence. As a result, the Housing and Development Board says to the poor husband, "You cannot get an HDB flat. Your wife is not a permanent resident, not a Singapore citizen." And this poor man has worked with the Ministry of the Environment for a number of years. I have another case, This time it is a Singapore woman who married a Hong Kong national, and I understand that they have been here for at least 30 years. He married her in Singapore and he has lived and brought up a family here. He has four or five children. He has been working here and he has brought up his family. Now the Immigration Department descends on him and says, "You must get out. You have not got permanent residence." She came to see me, and I wrote on their behalf and it was rejected. The appeal to the Minister was rejected. She came to see me again, and she said, "I know what I will do. I will take my children and put them at the Minister's doorstep." I said, "Well, you do that." She said, "What can I do if my husband is deported to Hong Kong?" I say to the Minister that they should not discriminate on the basis of wealth. It is immoral, I say to you, to discriminate on the basis of wealth.”
“This is important because we must discourage our citizens who can barely support a family from marrying foreign wives, and thus imposing a greater strain on our public housing, medical and social services.' He repeated this theme again and again: that the foreign wife of a Singapore citizen would be a strain on our public housing, medical and social services if he gives her permanent residence. May I say to the Minister and to the Government that the question whether the husband is able to afford to maintain his wife is a matter for them, not a matter for the Minister for Home Affairs. When they go and register their marriage in Singapore, is the husband asked, "Are you able to maintain your wife in Singapore?" Is a Singapore man wishing to marry a Singapore wife asked to produce evidence of his wealth to the Registrar of Marriages to show that he is able to maintain and support his wife? Sir, at least two cases have been brought to my knowledge as a Member of Parliament. Perhaps I should have said, Sir, that my firm has in the past, and perhaps even now, acted for persons who have applied for permanent residence. But here I am talking of persons who have come to me in my capacity as a Member of Parliament, I have no personal pecuniary interest in any of these matters. I know of at least two cases. One, a man who has been working in the Ministry of the Environment - I think both of them are working in the Ministry of the Environment - for the last 12 years or so. He married a Malaysian woman who was resident in Singapore at that time and who has been his wife for the last 12 years. She has been denied permanent residence.”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, I beg to move, +That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QJ-02 of the Main Estimates. Sir, this relates to Immigration Enforcement and Control and the topic on which I wish to address this House is the grant of permanent residence, particularly where it affects the wives of Singapore citizens. Sir, in answer to a question that I asked, the Minister for Home Affairs said that over the last 10 years, 27,199 applications for permanent residence were received from wives of Singapore citizens. I am confining myself to the wives of Singapore citizens because it is often put out that I am here trying to speak for foreigners. Of these, he said, 20,452 applicants were approved which meant that 6,747 were not approved. It would be interesting to know, Sir, of the 6,747 how many were from the working class? We know that permanent residence for wives of members in high positions has been approved and also for those who are, as the Minister said, very able to afford to keep their wives in Singapore. The Minister, in replying to me, said they had to take into consideration a number of things. Among them, he said that permanent residence was a first step towards acquisition of Singapore citizenship. It carries privileges, i.e. housing, education, medical facilities. We all know that. Is it to avoid the grant of these privileges that these persons have not been given permanent residence? Is that the real reason? Then we were told by the Minister of State that: 'A citizen who wishes to sponsor his foreign dependants for permanent stay must show that he has the means to support them.”
“Sir, in view of the time available, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment No. (12), but may I in place of that, take Amendments (14)+ and (15) now?”
“(12) That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Q1-02 of the Main Estimates.”
“The question, again, is this. We are referring to this particular area. Would the Minister of State for National Development say what is the problem here in giving them the compensation so that they may get out and escape any further fires? Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid we have here a very confused Member of Parliament. I do not know whether he has spoken to the residents and whether they have given him the right information. But, as I have explained to the House, the first step is to serve the quit notice. This is the first step in the legal process. After that, and in parallel, we will make offers of compensation, and so on. So these people who have been given quit notices recently have not been offered any compensation yet because it is part of the legal process. I do not know whether the persons he is referring to are the residents I am talking about, but I am told by my colleague that these people have been given many offers of alternative accommodation. They are choosy. This is a problem that my Ministry is facing, especially with shopkeepers. They want the best location, the best facing - in order to have something that has to do with feng shui and all that. So they are there waiting.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have referred to a particular area, Tanjong Pagar Road, where there was a fire two weeks ago and a fire before that. The residents adjoining these vacant shop houses told me that the question of their compensation had not been determined. They told me there was another problem. Since the notices to quit expired on 31st January, they have been told by the insurance companies that they have no more cover because they were told to get out by 31st January and they had not moved out.”