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 77 of 82.
“I accept your ruling, Sir. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr E. W Barker). Adjourned accordingly at Twenty minutes to Six o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS CIVIL SERVICE SALARY INCREASES (Implementation Date) 1. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Finance why it was found necessary to differentiate in the implementation date of the recently announced salary increases between those in the Professional and Upper Divisions of the Civil Service and those in the lower Divisions.”
“Yes. As I was saying, if you look further at , when I tried to raise it, you said: 'Perhaps you had better look at the Hansards of the sittings that the Member was talking about, Mr Jeyaretnam.' So I accepted your ruling then and did not proceed any further. Now I have got the Hansards and this is the first opportunity I have.”
“May I raise this matter at the next Sitting then? Mr Barker rose -”
“Col. 1515. The hon. Member speaking, after you, Mr Speaker, asked him to show the relevance of his remarks, said: 'But before I could explain the relevancy, I was interrupted by the Member for Anson, who stood up and denied that he had ever said anything about supplying me with such a list. Sir, the Member for Anson has realized that he was trapped by his own stupidity and arrogance by offering to supply me with the list and has now turned and twisted his own words by saying that what he meant was to invite me to examine the list in his office. Sir, he has eaten back his words, and this is not the first time. When he encountered our Prime Minister the first time, this was what the Prime Minister described of the man: "the unseemly, disgusting . . ." Then you, Sir, said: 'Mr Ho, what has that got to do with this particular subhead?' And then he went on: 'Since he has eaten back his words, I do not intend to argue with him further on this issue, but I wish to [this is where I am complaining of, Mr Speaker, Sir,] invite the hon. Members in this House, including the Member for Anson and the Press in the Gallery [this is where he rolled his eyes to the Press] to read the Hansard of last Friday's sitting on 19th March, 1982, as well as the Sitting yesterday, in order to testify who is lying and who is telling the truth.' So there was a clear indication that I was lying.”
“It is Vol. 41, No. 16, dated 24th March 1982.”
“I want to show that I was not lying at all.”
“Speaking on the 24th March, I have been vilified in this House by the hon. Member who accused me of lying and who sort of rolled his eyes to the press and said to the effect, "You know, look at this man who is lying."”
“Do you want to know what it is about now?”
“No, it is not. Perhaps if the bells were rung, he might come in.”
“Yes, but we have had no other Sitting of Parliament. When I raised it, Mr Speaker, Sir, you said that I should wait until the Hansard reports were out before raising it. Now we have the Hansard reports. I ask permission to raise this now. Mr Speaker: The Member for Khe Bong is not here.”
“Not just now, Mr Speaker. It relates to what the Member said on the 24th March 1982.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it relates to proceedings in this House and what was said by the hon. Member for Khe Bong.”
“Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. RECLAMATIONS (Tuas, Pulau Sakra and Pulau Bakau) 5.31 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I only rise to reply to the wild allegations that have been made against my party and me in the speeches. First of all, it has been suggested that we are in contempt of court. If we are in contempt of court, the Minister knows what the remedy is. This is the first time I have heard it suggested that a defendant who is unable to pay the costs that have been ordered against him is committing a contempt of court and that he should thereafter be debarred from bringing fresh proceedings. This is new to me. It is not contempt of court, as I understand it. Secondly, it has been suggested that we are abusing the judicial process. I do not know how we are abusing the judicial process. Mr Speaker, Sir, again, it is not, as I understand it, an abuse of judicial process for a man, even though he has lost one suit and has not paid the costs, to bring another suit, if he thinks he has a case. It is not an abuse of judicial process. If it is an abuse of judicial process, again the Minister knows that there are remedies. The courts will deal with them, if they are an abuse of judicial process. So let us have an end to all these allegations that we are in contempt of court and abusing judicial process. My Party, right from the beginning, has endeavoured to pay full regard to and uphold the dignity of the court. My Party is not the one which has been committing contempt of court. I called a press conference sometime ago to draw attention to the various contempts of court that have been perpetrated by members of the ruling party. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof Jayakumar].”
“On a point of order, Sir. We are treading on very dangerous ground here. The matter is sub judice and the Hon. Minister must be aware that it is not open to him to talk about whether he has got a winning case or the Party has got a winning case. Mr Rajaratnam: Past cases. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I know enough law not to make a judgment on his present case. But I am referring to past cases.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have refrained from speaking at all about the subject matter of the suit or the merits or demerits of that action. That matter is now before the court. It is sub judice and I do not know if the hon. Member can speak about whether it is justified or unjustified in this House when the action is still pending before the court. It is for the court to decide and not for the Member here to say whether it is justified or not justified.”
“I do not know that it is even necessary for an Act to be passed. I do not know whether the Minister of State has looked at the Rules of the Supreme Court, because if he does I would suggest that he will find there, in one of the Orders, power in the courts themselves to order a plaintiff to pay costs where the plaintiff is a nominal plaintiff acting for the benefit of other person or persons and a society is, of course, a nominal plaintiff and it is acting for the benefit of its members. So there is already the power, as I see it, in the courts on the application of the defendant to order that a plaintiff provide security for costs before he continues with his action in court. I do not really know that we need an amendment to the Societies Act to bring that about when there is already the power in the court. This Bill seeks, by sub-clause (3) of clause 3, to apply this amendment retrospectively and, in particular, to the action brought by the Party against the Minister. It has been said that legislation must as far as possible not affect rights that have already accrued and on which parties have begun or commenced action. For these reasons, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would ask that this House considers the Bill further. I myself do not propose to vote on this. I have declared my interest. I shall abstain.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may say so, the impression one is left with is that this Bill has been introduced solely for the benefit of the Minister and is directed against this particular society, the Workers Party, that I represent. This is a piecemeal legislation and, in my respectful view, Mr Speaker, Sir, is undesirable. We have not been given any instances of several cases of societies commencing proceedings against suitors, against defendants, and not being able to pay the costs which have led to the introduction of this Bill. The only reason that one is left with is that this Bill has been introduced because the Workers Party has seen fit to sue the Second Deputy Prime Minister (Foreign Affairs), The writ was filed on 1st February 1982 and the Bill was read for the First time on 25th March 1982. It is the function of Parliament, if I may so humbly suggest, to legislate for the general good and benefit of all its citizens and not for the benefit of any one particular person or body nor should legislation be directed against one particular body or person. This is not the only time, Mr Speaker, Sir, that a Bill has been introduced and passed as a result of litigation in court. After the termination of the proceedings against Mr Tay Boon Too and the Department of Broadcasting, a Bill was introduced and passed which protected the Department of Broadcasting from payment of any damages for any incorrect reporting in its broadcasts; clearly intended to cover the situation that was the subject of the case against the Department brought by the Workers Party. May I say again that it is an undesirable state of affairs when Parliament is asked to legislate for a particular person or against a particular party, and this is what it would appear to be.”
“Thank you. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister of State has outlined the reasons why it has been found necessary to introduce this amendment, and he goes back to the one and only case of the Workers Party suit against Mr Tay Boon Too who was elected a Member of Parliament in 1972 and also against the then Department of Broadcasting. That action was commenced way back in 1972 (I stand corrected) and the beginning of 1973 against the Department. The matters were concluded in 1974 in the High Court when the High Court dismissed the action of the Party against both the defendants, Mr Tay Boon Too and the Attorney-General who was sued as nominee for the Department of Broadcasting. The Court holding, as against Mr Tay Boon Too, that we had not proved that he spoke those words of which complaint had been made and yet at the same time the Court holding that the Attorney-General succeeded in his defence of justification in that he had proved that all that was broadcast were the very words spoken by Mr Tay Boon Too at this public rally. Be that as it may, Mr Speaker, costs were awarded to be paid by the Workers Party, and in an appeal to the Court of Appeal the appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to be paid for the appeal as well. As I said, that took place in 1975 or at the latest, I think, in 1976 before the Court of Appeal. Nothing was done to try and prevent societies from instituting actions where they have not paid the costs until this year when the Party again commenced an action against the Second Deputy Prime Minister (Foreign Affairs) for what the Party considered defamation of it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I speak, may I declare here - it is quite obvious to me - that I have an interest in that not only am I a member of the Workers Party and therefore I have an interest in this Bill but that my firm is also acting for the Party and for another plaintiff in this action against the Second Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I then carry on, having declared my interest?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if you rule, so be it and I accept that ruling. I say I am sorry that I did not tell the House that I had previously acted for this woman that my firm had written the letter. If that is your ruling, of course, I accept that. Mr Barker: In which case, Sir, I withdraw the Motion. Motion, by leave, withdrawn, CIVIL LAW (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read, 4.46 p.m.”
“All I wish to say is that I accept that a letter written by the firm is my letter, notwithstanding that it does not bear my signature. There can be no quibble about that. But concerning the question as to my intention in speaking, whether I had a motive, all I can do is to assure the House that it was not with that intention that I spoke, and it hurts me to think that there are people who think that I have come to Parliament to try and further my practice outside. May I tell the Members of this House and you, Sir, that my practice has suffered by my taking up the cause that I have been trying to take up for the last 10 years. It was not with the intention of furthering my practice that I have chosen to come into Parliament. I have been asked whether I would apologize. If you, Sir, having considered the whole matter - because Standing Order 62 provides that the Speaker or the Chairman shall rule whether the Member is required to disclose his interest - if you rule that I should have in those circumstances declared my personal pecuniary interest, then of course I will accept that ruling and I will say sorry that I did not declare my personal pecuniary interest. But my only reason is that I did not think it was required of me and I still do not think it was.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to the Minister. I am grateful to him. May I assure you and this House that the last thought in my mind in speaking in this House was to further my practice in any way whatsoever. I have, as I said in my memorandum to the Committee, spoken on a matter of State policy, on a policy of this Government which I found very hard to accept. It was purely as a Member of Parliament trying to discharge my duties to those who had elected me that I spoke and, may I assure the House and the Minister, it was certainly not with the intention of advancing my practice in the field of law. May I explain a little further, Mr Speaker, Sir, with your indulgence? As I understand it, I was not aware at that time but I have now come to understand that at Question Time a Member is not required to disclose his personal pecuniary interest even if he had one. That would appear to be the ruling in the British House of Commons. Be that as it may, I am not relying on that. Be that as it may, the question that I was asked was whether I was acting, at that moment of time, for anybody and I stated truthfully when I said that - because between the time that I was elected as a Member of Parliament and the time I spoke - I had seen persons (I said I remembered six or so) who had come to see me to complain about their wives being asked to leave the country. That was the only reason I spoke in Parliament. I did not have in mind any case in which I had acted and, of course, I was not aware of the letter written by my assistant. No doubt it was the same client for whom I had written a letter way back in May 1981. I had written that letter. But then I do not think I saw the person again, and then this letter written by my assistant was pro- duced.”
“And this is why I have raised this question -should it not, first of all, be decided whether there was a direct personal pecuniary interest which required me to disclose that? May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not that I am loathe or reluctant to apologize or to express my regrets. If there is any reluctance, it is because I am myself not con- vinced at the moment that I was in breach of the Standing Orders or the section of the Act and, therefore, if I have to apologize or express regrets for something of which I do not think I am in breach, it would appear to be insincere. I would like to be shown that I was in breach, that it was quite clearly required of me under the Act and under the Standing Orders to disclose this personal pecuniary interest.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware, of course, of the provisions both in the Act and the Standing Orders of Parliament. The Hon. Minister has said that, being new, perhaps I was not aware. May I assure him that I was aware of the Standing Orders before I took my seat in Parliament. And I was aware, of course, of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. I am aware of the methods of dealing with this matter as set out in the section of the Act that has been referred to by the Minister. One of the methods is for it to be referred to a Committee of Privileges, and this is why I am asking whether this matter should not also be referred to the Committee of Privileges which is already seized of the other matter. The Motion before the House assumes that I had a direct personal pecuniary interest. My respectful submission is that the motion begs the question because unless this House is satisfied that there was a direct personal pecuniary interest that required me under the Act and under the Standing Orders to disclose, then it must follow that I was not in breach of the Standing Orders or the section of the Act. The question is, I repeat: was there a direct personal interest that I had which required me to disclose this interest? Sir, in my submission to the Committee and in my appearance, I have said why I had not, under the authorities and under the practice and precedents followed in the British House of Commons. May I pause here to say that I quoted these instances only because our Standing Orders themselves provide that in interpreting our Standing Orders, regard shall be had to the practice and precedents of the British House of Commons.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, on a point of procedure. One other matter which was raised by the Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs has been referred to the Committee of Privileges. That matter is now before this Committee of Privileges. This Motion by the Minister for Law refers to speeches made by me on other dates not covered in the matter raised by the Minister of State. I ask whether this matter should not also first be referred to the Committee of Privileges for the Committee to report whether, in their view, there was a direct personal pecuniary interest which required me to disclose that interest. Mr Speaker, Sir, as you are aware, I have already made my submissions and appeared before the Committee on the other matter which has been referred to the Committee, in which I have stated why, in my view, there was no direct personal pecuniary interest. So my question is whether this matter should not also be referred to the Committee of Privileges before the House debates this motion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to the Minister of State, but I have here three numbers which were included. I wonder whether the Minister of State would agree, if I wrote to him about these numbers, to give me detailed answers as to why they were included. These numbers are much higher than the numbers that were being balloted.”
“Would the Minister please say whether or not consideration has been given to whether the wage earner will be able to save that amount without suffering a reduction in his living standard for the present? May I ask the Minister whether it is not like telling a starving man, "Look, you can't have the bread today. We are going to keep the bread for you for tomorrow." Tomorrow may never come for him.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to the Hon. Minister for his long speech in answer to my question. As I understand the Minister, the compelling reason for this increase was the need to find money for the improvement of the economy of the country. But surely is there not another consideration and, that is, the capacity or the ability of the wage earner to give up so much of his earnings towards the CPF? A man who is earning $500 a month today is giving up $110 of his income every month. That is a hefty proportion.”
“Would the Hon. Minister agree that if he took the 31st of December, that would be the longest period, not the 30th of December?”
“Sir, would the Hon. Minister explain why it is necessary for an officer, whose retirement age is reached sometime during the year but whose birth date is not known, to be retired on the 30th of December and not on 31st of December? Is that just to exclude the payment of the annual wage supplement?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be very brief. I do not rise to oppose this Bill but merely to seek an assurance from the Minister for National Development that there will be no shift in the emphasis on the object and purpose for which HDB was established. The HDB and the HUDC cater to different sections of the community. The HDB was primarily designed to cater for those in the lower income group to provide housing as cheaply as possible; the HUDC for people higher up the income ladder. I hope that with the taking over of both these somewhat different needs, the HDB will not slacken its drive to provide public housing for the poor at a price that they can afford and concentrate to a greater extent on providing houses for the middle class because it may perhaps be profitable.”
“No, Sir. Question on the amendment put, and negatived. 7.48 p.m.”
“The other point is about the figure of 5,000. Again, I would commend to the Hon. Minister that he sit down calmly and do a bit of arithmetic. If he adds the number of persons who are detained under the criminal law, under the Internal Security Act, under the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Immigration Act, he will get a figure of 4,400. What are we quibbling about?”
“May I just finish what I want to say, Sir? The Chairman: Yes.”
“Yes, Sir. I beg to move, Sir, That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by the whole sum in respect of Subhead VC-04 of the Main Estimates. Sir, in a social survey on Singapore in 1953-54, it was estimated that a family of four needed a sum of at least $102 to keep body and soul together. In 1973, in a thesis submitted for a Master's degree, this sum was estimated to be not less than $240.11, just for a family of four to keep themselves alive. Now in 1982, we are told that the Ministry has graciously agreed to increase this sum to $170. This is still less by $70 of what was thought to be the barest minimum in 1973. I say, Sir, that our public assistance rates are a mockery. The Hon. Minister says he is very angry because of what I had said to the editor of the New York Times. I would suggest to the Minister that, instead of spluttering with rage, he should perhaps sit down and calmly think about it. I am telling him that a family who is paid a public assistance of $170 for a family of four must be starving. There must be a number of days when they probably go hungry. It is those people that I am talking about. I would suggest that the Minister tries living on $170 for a month, and then tell us how many days he would have to go starving.”
“I am aware of that, Sir. I would not go beyond that. The last amendment, Sir, is a vote for Public Assistance. I do not want to say too much on this. The Minister has announced the recent increases. I hope he will be able to answer now the question that I put to him and he was not able to answer by how much the overall allowance was reduced when the first revision was made. He conceded that there was a downward revision but he was unable to tell us how much.”
“I would withdraw my amendment, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Why should they be denied when they should perhaps be given more attention than others because of their disability? That is about the staff. There is another matter, and that is the equipment. Again, taking the Singapore School for the Deaf, I understand that of the 19 classrooms only two are fitted with auditory equipment, and they need this equipment for the proper teaching of the children. Why is it not possible to fit all these 19 classrooms with the auditory equipment? I ask, Sir, that the Government rethinks its policies on providing education for disabled children, either physical or mental. Last year was the Year of the Disabled. I do not know what was done for the children last year. But perhaps we can start doing something now.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by the whole sum in respect of Subhead VC-03 of the Main Estimates. This is a provision for the physically and mentally disabled persons. I am, in the time that is allotted to me, going to confine myself to the education of the disabled and mentally or physically disabled children. Sir, I have it, on the authority of a social worker who knows what he is talking about, that Singapore is the least progressive when it comes to providing education for disabled children, whatever it may be in other fields. There is the instance of the Singapore School for the Deaf, for which there was some publicity, I think, at the beginning of this year. This school has an enrolment of about 500 and I am told that the recommended ratio, internationally, of trained staff to students is 1:8 and this has been adopted in most countries. We are talking about trained staff, to teach children who are deaf. On this ratio, the School needs about 60 teachers to look after these 500 students who are enrolled at the School. I am told that at the moment they have only 22 teachers supplied by the Ministry of Education and the Singapore Association for the Deaf employs another 17 who are untrained and are paid very low salaries because the Association is short of funds. Would the Minister say whether any steps will be taken to see that schools like this, the Singapore School for the Deaf, and other schools which are catering to disabled children, are provided with adequate trained staff? After all, Sir, the parents of these children pay tax like any other parents, and why should their children be denied the education? They can be made useful citizens of our country if they are rehabilitated and given the proper education.”
“Sir, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I think the Minister has missed my last point. The supportive services that he talks about are the halfway homes, is it not? I am talking of supportive services for the aged sick, chronic sick, those being looked after by their children or relatives in their own homes - whether there is any nursing care for them, i.e. nurses visiting them to give them help with the nursing of these patients.”
“Why are you then providing another 565 beds?”
“I was told by this matron that she has had to take 10 patients from this Chronic Sick Unit at Trafalgar Home because they were unable to take them, and in the last two weeks she has already had five requests from this Chronic Sick Unit to take patients into her Home when her own home is already crowded.”
“I think they said they would take her back again, I do not know for how long. There is a need for a home for persons like her. I hope something is done to meet this situation. The other thing is about the assistance given to these Homes for the Aged and the Aged Sick. I understand from the matron of one of these Homes that the PUB services are charged at commercial rates. She tells me that they have appealed again and again for these rates to be put on the domestic rate. This has been refused. I do not know why it is not possible to give them some help with PUB charges. I hope the Minister would perhaps lend his assistance to try and get a cheaper rate for these homes. That would be some practical help to them. The other matter springs from the inadequate provision of beds for non-ambulant patients. A number of them have to be kept in the homes of their children or their relatives and cared for. If you have got a couple working and they have a non-ambulant aged parent or grandparent living with them, they need some assistance. Is there any plan that the Ministry has at the moment to provide what are known as supportive services for children of families who are looking after the aged sick in their own homes? They need some help. Sir, no amount of teaching of Confucian ethics and filial piety is going to help. A little bit of practical help goes a long way. I would ask the Minister, at this time when there is, I am told, an acute shortage of beds for non-ambulant patients, to consider providing some supportive services for children of families who have bedridden people staying with them. The House was told yesterday about the Chronic Sick Unit at Trafalgar Home, and the Minister said there are enough beds there.”
“Sir, in view of the limited time I do not propose to take up all the ten minutes on this, my first Amendment No. (5). Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V be reduced by the whole sum in respect of Subhead VC-02 of the Main Estimates. This is for Services for the Aged, Vagrant and other Destitutes. The House has already heard about the need for bedridden patients and that there are at the moment only a few homes that are able to take non-ambulant bedridden patients, notably among them the Jalan Payoh Lai Home for the Aged Sick and the Sree Narayana Mission Home for the Aged. The Minister in reply said that there are plans to provide another 565 beds. He does not tell us when these 565 beds will be available. Does he have any idea as to how many are on the waiting list for beds in these homes for non-ambulant bedridden patients? I understand that there is a long waiting list and the Payoh Lai Home for the Aged Sick has a waiting list which will absorb the new unit or hall when that is built. Apart from that, Sir, may I also say something about the people who are not too ill to be kept at Woodbridge Hospital but are not safe enough to be accommodated back into their family homes. I am told that there is a need for what are known as half-way homes. In my own constituency, the case of a patient who had been discharged from Woodbridge Hospital was brought to my attention. She came back to live with her brother who has a family and a son of about a year or 18 months. He found that this sister of his who had been discharged tended to get violent at times and he was very worried about the safety of his 18-month old boy. He therefore approached me for assistance and I had to write to the Hospital.”
“No, Sir. Question on the amendment put, and negatived.”
“Sir, I am afraid that the Hon. Minister has not really answered my criticism as to why this Government is so frightened. We have consistently said that we are for constitutional change and for change in the elected government through the ballot box. We have never, never advocated any form of violence. And then the Minister says here about people wanting to start fires, violence and riots. It is a sweeping indictment without trying to understand what others are trying to do. I think it is not worthy of the Minister to resort to this sort of sweeping indictments. As regards the Minister without Portfolio's statement, Sir, I did not ask him to send it to me. I merely said he challenged us to put somebody to contest his election to the post of Secretary-General of the NTUC. I said perhaps he should have told me what the rules were. He has not, Even now he says I can go and look at it. But my challenge still remains to him. I say let the people decide, and at Bukit Merah they will decide. An hon. Member: Are you standing in Anson especially?”
“Now, what I would like to ask the Minister without Portfolio is, since he has issued me a challenge to the party, whether he would step down in his constituency at Bukit Merah and let the public decide who should be elected at Bukit Merah. Finally, Sir, may I ask the Minister to say in this House now whether his Ministry - The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Mr Speaker, Sir, his time is up. The hon. Member should stop talking and sit down. Will he obey the Standing Orders?”
“You ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer; I mean, to ask what a political party is going to talk about when it applies for a permit for a public meeting. So we were told that no rallies can be held outside elections. Sir, I have been subject to a number of challenges here. Last week, or was it this week, the Minister without Portfolio asked whether we would challenge him at the forthcoming election for the Secretary-General's post of the NTUC. He did not tell us what the rules were under which this election would be held. Well, if he would let me see the rules, then I will tell him whether we will challenge him, whether the rules are so arranged that it would be very difficult for us to do anything about it. An hon. Member: Very free.”