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 79 of 82.
“I have heard of these grievances from many a quarter, of the dissatisfaction felt on the part played by the Ministry of Labour in solving their disputes. It has often been said that the Ministry is only too ready to lend its ear to whatever is said by the employer and the companies but not to what is said by the worker. I have said about the erosion of the rights of the workers, and I said it began in 1968. In that year, Sir, we saw the removal from the area of negotiations in collective agreement a number of matters that pertained to the welfare and rights of workers. The trade unions were no longer given any right to include, in their memoranda to the employers for the collective agreement, matters which pertained to the right of termination, dismissal and a number of other matters which were set out. In that same year, Sir, we saw the passing of the Employment Act, which should perhaps be called the Employers Act, which, together with the Industrial Relations Act, allowed the employer to hire and fire workers at their will. Workers lost their tenure of employment with these changes. We have seen gradually over the years the emasculation of the trade union movement in Singapore. Singapore is unique in that it must be the only country - I may be wrong, I would like to be told where else this practice prevails - where the head of the trade union movement, the Secretary-General who leads the workers, is also a Minister of the Government. I should have thought there was an apparent conflict of interest, the Government being the biggest employer of labour. But be that as it may, the trade unions have been reduced to going along very largely with whatever has been dictated or decided upon elsewhere.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I myself do not think there is direct pecuniary interest. But be that as it may. Sir, I do not wish to go over all the matters that have been raised by the various speakers in moving their amendments but, as the last hon. Member said, I would like to present to the Minister certain considerations that he should have when it comes to amending the labour legislation which he says his Ministry has in mind. Sir, let us not forget in this House the debt that we owe to our workers. It has been said not by any left-wing organization but by a right-wing paper, the Economist, that the trade union movement in Singapore, the workers comprising the trade unions, were the cradle of the independence movement in Singapore. They spearheaded the drive for our independence. So it is largely through what they did that Singapore was able to get its independence. In those days, Sir, there were people who championed the rights of the workers and among them was our Prime Minister. He was in the forefront of the workers' rights, championing them, pleading for a better cause for our workers in Singapore. It is my thesis in this short time that I have, to try and show that after 1959 and beginning particularly from the year 1968, there has been a steady erosion of our workers' rights and their privileges and benefits. They have been whittled down to such a state that today our workers are largely at the mercy of their employers. I am sorry to say that there is a general feeling among our workers that the Ministry of Labour is not holding the scales firmly when it comes to any dispute between the employer and the employee.”
“I think, Sir, it is time that we gave this question of public transport a great more thought than we have done so far.”
“It has caused a lot of dissatisfaction among the residents in Depot Road who rely on these bus services to get to their workplace in Jurong. I understand that this matter was even raised in the Residents' Committee, Sir, and was told that this was not really a matter for the Residents' Committee but it was a matter for the bus company to decide. And the bus company's answer was that the service was no longer profitable to them and, therefore, they had to withdraw it. Sir, you have the criterion, i.e. the profit motive, that dominates the company in providing the services in Singapore. We have to change this. It has got to be provided as a service to our workers in particular, and to the public in general. I see, Sir, that the SBS is spending $16.9 million - this is according to a report that appeared in the Straits Times of 9th July, 1981 - for the construction of new bus depots, including one at Ang Mo Kio where they already have a depot. Is it really necessary for the company to spend lavish sums on constructing depots? Is it not possible to see whether economies can be effected so that savings can be passed on to the commuters? The Minister also announced a decrease in the tax for the Singapore Bus Service. He said he was reducing it from the present $6,500 to $5,500. Where will the savings be absorbed, I wonder? Will any benefit result to the commuters or will all the savings be absorbed in other expenditures of the company, or just in dividends? At the same time the Minister announced an increase in taxes for buses owned by the City Shuttle Service. They were going up from $1,600 to $5,500 for buses with a passenger capacity of 46 and more. What would this result in? Are we going to see an escalation of fares for services provided by the City Shuttle Service?”
“If it is left to a private company, they can say, "Well, they must make a profit." If the Government takes over, how can they explain the profit motive? There can be no profit motive, as I see it, in an essential service that is absolutely necessary for the well-being of the community and, in particular, the workforce. At the moment, we have these private bus companies and we have heard from time to time that there must be a guarantee of 7.5% return to the shareholders. Is that what is preventing any lowering of bus fares? May I also refer, Sir, to the dissatisfaction that is felt by several bus users of the services that are being provided. At the moment it would appear to be that the criterion of any services is whether it is economically viable, whether it is profitable or not. I wish to bring to the attention of this House a matter which was brought to my notice by residents of Depot Road - begging the pardon of the hon. Member for Telok Blangah. Quite a lot of these residents in Depot Road work in the factories in Jurong, and at one time they had a Service 63 which originated, I understand, from Alexandra Road to MacPherson Estate passing through Depot Road. The workers were able to take this bus to its stop at Alexandra Road near Pasir Panjang where they could catch several bus services to Jurong. Sometime ago this Service was withdrawn and it was replaced by a Feeder Service 274, I am told, but this Feeder Service 274 did not take them to where Service 63 took them along Alexandra Road. It took them for less than half the way, and the result was that they found themselves having to walk half the way to the stop where they could catch the buses to Jurong.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard from the Hon. Minister in moving his Budget in this House some days ago about the need to motivate our workers and to give them a stake. I asked then what measures the Government had to keep the interest of the workers in their jobs and to give them satisfaction and may I say, Sir, that one of the ways in which you can encourage workers to remain in the employment that they are in is by providing a fast, efficient and cheap transport that will move them from their homes to their places of work. 4.15 p.m. We have been told that this contribution from the workers was the keynote of our productivity drive and that we in Singapore, without any natural resources and relying on a manufacturing economy, are dependent heavily on increasing our productivity and on the part that is played by the workers. If that is the case, Sir, may I ask why is this Government so reluctant, fighting shy, to provide a service to the workers in the form of cheap, efficient, comfortable transport? It has been said by the hon. Member for Khe Bong that in most other countries public transport is subsidized and the Hon. Minister - I hope I have heard him rightly - in referring to the London transport spoke about the heavy subsidy of the London passenger transport and the services provided. This Government has gone into a number of businesses and industries, but why is it keeping away from transport, which is a public service, an essential public service, just as the supply of gas, water and electricity is? Transport is an essential public service. It is a service to the community, to the nation. Why have they stayed away? Is it because the Government feels that if it does take over, then it cannot make the profits?”
“I think this is under another amendment.”
“Sir, I think it is time perhaps that the Ministry considered this aspect and see whether there is any possible scope for reducing the burden on the motorist in Singapore. There is a case, of course, for keeping cars off the road, congesting our streets. I can well see or support measures taken against people owning more than one car, two cars or even three cars, in some cases. But we must not penalize in these measures the families with lower incomes and force them out of owning a car which provides their only form of transport. I know of several people who have had to sell their cars because it is becoming a burden on them now. Finally, Sir, may I ask - I have not heard very much about this in Singapore - what the Ministry's policy is as regards the danger arising from fumes because of the high lead content in petrol. Has the Ministry given any attention to this in Singapore? I would like the Minister to say whether his Ministry is considering this, because I see it is a problem that is agitating other countries and there are restrictions in some countries against importing of cars whose engines have not been adjusted to using lead-free petrol.”
“I think we would do well to consider that. The car, Sir, is no longer a luxury. It has become a necessity for most people in moving from one place to another. You might say, "Well they do not need cars because they have got an efficient public transport system which will move them cheaply, faster and comfortably." Well, we cannot yet in Singapore boast of such a public transport system. Most of our people in the lower income group still try, if possible, to keep a car so that they may move from one place to another. An hon. Member: How can they buy a car when they are starving?”
“May I lend my support for whatever it is worth, Sir, to the plea made by the hon. Member for Leng Kee for extension of the Preferential Additional Registration Fee to cars over 10 years old. Sir, I can understand before the introduction of compulsory inspection of motor cars the need to take some measure to ensure that cars that are on the road are safe and pose no danger, particularly to pedestrians and other users of the road. Now that we have the compulsory inspection of motor cars, this question can simply be answered by the inspector's report after an inspection, whether the car is safe to be on the road or not regardless of whether it is seven years old or 12 years old. So I really cannot see the logic for denying, now that we have got the mechanical inspection of cars, the preferential rates to owners of cars which are more than 10 years old. Sir, there must be many cars, which are more than 10 years old, which are still perfectly good and roadworthy. There must be considerable economic waste in requiring people to scrap cars before they reach the 10-year age limit. Should we not reconsider this now that we have got the compulsory inspection of motor cars? So I would lend my support to the pleas that have been raised on this question. The other matter is a more general one, Sir, and, that is, may I make a plea on behalf of the most heavily taxed motorists in the world, i.e. our own motorists in Singapore. Sir, some years ago there was a survey by the British Labour Party Transport Committee and they came out with a report that the private motor car still represented the best and the cheapest form of moving people from one place to another. An hon. Member: Hear! hear!”
“Yes. Would the Minister please answer the question?”
“This letter is the 7th December, not the previous letter. But I have no pecuniary interest in this question.”
“I think I am aware of that letter. That letter was written sometime -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have since becoming an MP received several cases of this nature where persons have been refused registration of their marriages, and one particular case that I have in mind is this man of whom I spoke. I have no pecuniary interest whatsoever in these cases.”
“Would the Minister please answer my question, Sir?”
“I have not got a case in court for these persons. These persons have seen me as their MP, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have mentioned one of these persons when I spoke on Friday. This man was refused any registration of his marriage and even after he had married the woman of his choice in Johore Bahru, he was told again and again, "Please apply for re-registration of your marriage in Singapore." And this was turned down again and again.”
“Sir, I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that it is the Registry of Muslim Marriages. Would the Minister say whether the Registrar of Marriages explain to those who apply to him to marry in Singapore that even if they do not get the permission from the Commissioner for Employment he will nevertheless register their marriages in Singapore if they so wish? If the Minister wants, I can give him particulars of persons who have been refused registration of their marriages in Singapore.”
“Sir, will the Minister concede that the person who loses by this is the employee, i.e. the employee who is affected by the employer paying his contributions late? Is it not equitable then that at least some of this penalty that is paid by the employer should be credited to the employee?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it would appear that I am to be subjected to an inquisition here, subjected to this. Whilst I concede that I have overlooked that there is this other action brought against the Government, that is a matter before the court at the moment. Even that, I think, was instituted before I became an MP. I may be wrong and I have to check on this. I stand corrected. But I still maintain, Mr Speaker, Sir (I am subject to your ruling) that in my own view, there is no breach of privilege as I see it, and if this matter has to be referred to a Committee, I will make my representations to the Committee for them to rule on this.”
“The affidavits read, of course, referred to those two cases where the court had allowed the habeas corpus and that was even before December 1980.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recall that I saw you either on Friday or Thursday when I said that I was considering making a statement about this matter that was raised in this House. It is my own view, having regard to Standing Order 62 which has been referred to by the Minister, that paragraph (3) of Standing Order 62 which is in point, says: '(3) In deciding whether a motion for the disallowance of a Member's vote shall be proposed by the Speaker or Chairman, the Speaker or Chairman shall have regard to the character of the question upon which the division was taken and to the consideration whether the interest therein of the Member whose vote is challenged is direct and pecuniary and not an interest in common with the rest of the citizens of Singapore or whether his vote was given on a matter of State policy.' Now, I was questioning the policy of the Government, the State. Sir, in my view, speaking for myself, even if I had any pecuniary interest, of course, subject to your ruling, in view of the qualification contained in Standing Order 62 (3), I cannot be disqualified. But as I say, I am subject to your ruling. So that is a matter of interpretation and the matter, of course, has to be looked at, if the Minister wants it to be looked at, by a Committee. I am prepared to state my views to the Committee. The other thing is this. This pecuniary interest, as I see it, Sir, must be direct pecuniary interest at the time when the matter is being discussed. These cases that the Minister has referred to were dealt with by the courts in 1980. I think the last one was in December 1980. Sir, where is the pecuniary interest now, even if it applied, when all these cases were dealt with before 1981?”
“I would suggest to the Minister that the PSA or his Ministry should take this matter up quite seriously with the HDB and see that the HDB, as the provider of public housing in Singapore, houses these workers who are being asked to leave Blair Plain quarters provided by the PSA and that they be housed as close to the port as possible. It is no good asking them to move out to Woodlands or Changi if they are working three shifts at the port. They tell me that when they come out of work at 12 o'clock midnight, there is very little transport available for them, and they must live nearby. This is all that I am trying to do, trying to put forward the views and the needs of the residents of Blair Plain to the PSA. I hope the Minister will look into this problem and see what his Ministry can do to alleviate this problem. Let me assure the Minister that I am not there to create trouble or unrest among the workers. That is the last thing I want. Thank you. 6.15 p.m.”
“Thank you, Sir. I was very pleased to hear the appeal of the hon. Member for Khe Bong to the Minister for Communications to solve the problems faced by the residents in Blair Plain. They happened to be in my constituency and I know about their problem. I regret that the hon. Member for Khe Bong took it upon himself to deliver, at the same time, an unwarranted attack on what I am trying to do for the residents of Blair Plain. May I assure him and this House that I am not trying to stir trouble or incite the workers against the PSA. Please let us not make any mistake about that. But I would lend my appeal to the appeal of the Member for Khe Bong to the Minister. These workers were provided with these quarters some years ago because of their employment with the PSA [Interruption]. Not all of them. I have seen their tenancy agreements and they are not for a limited period. The agreements talk about their employment with the PSA. I have, therefore, put it across to the PSA Property Manager when I saw him, and in a letter to him (I am going to follow it up with another letter) saying that these are service quarters provided by an employer for his employees and that there is an obligation on the part of the PSA, as the employer - because of this agreement providing them with these quarters - to provide them with alternative accommodation, and that this obligation must be faced squarely by the PSA and the PSA must take it upon itself to try and house these Blair Plain residents. At the moment, the residents are not getting enough support from the PSA in their efforts to find alternative accommodation if they move from these quarters occupied by them in Blair Plain.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to speak on this amendment moved by the hon. Member for Khe Bong?”
“Do not bring into this country on a work permit any young unmarried girls. Tell them that they cannot come in. Tell them that Singapore men are reserved only for Singapore women. They cannot come in.”
“It should not just be kept as a right for a few whilst denied to the others. I know about the breach of work permit conditions. If we do not want our boys to marry anybody from outside Singapore, then there is one way out of it and that is -”
“She was then immediately ordered to leave Singapore and so she had to leave Singapore although the husband is a Singapore citizen and their home is Singapore, she was ordered to leave Singapore to have her baby in Malaysia. There is yet a third case, Sir. This is the case of a man whom I mentioned in a question that I asked the Minister for National Development the last time. This is the case of a man who has been working in the Ministry of the Environment for many years. He is a Singapore citizen and he married, again, a non-citizen, but a non-citizen who has been resident here for many, many years. He has been applying for permanent residence for his wife. This has been denied. The HDB says, as I asked a question of the Minister for National Development, "No house for you or your wife because she is not a permanent resident." The Immigration Department says, "No permanent residence for your wife." So what is the man to do? As I said, his house is in danger of being demolished. The area is due for renewal and the man is at his wit's end because he says he cannot afford anything else but a single-room HDB flat. What do we do in these circumstances? Do we say that the law is this: that the law must be enforced regardless of the situation that is presented to us? The Minister, responding to my question on this aspect some days ago, said about the recognized principle in law that wives follow their husbands. All recognized systems of law recognize this and we should recognize this in respect of our Singapore men who marry wives from outside. Why should they not be given this right? After all, I am sure that Members are aware, our Prime Minister's son married somebody from outside Singapore. This right should not be denied to anybody in Singapore.”
“As the Latin maxim says Amor omnia vincit - love is not bothered by these difficulties - they went across the Causeway and got married and had their marriage registered in the Registry of Marriages in Johore, having been refused registration in Singapore. Then he found that the wife was not allowed to live in Singapore. She was sent out of Singapore and told she could not come back for three years. He made repeated appeals - I do not want to spend too long over this - to no avail. He was told, "All right. If you could get your wife sterilised, perhaps we will give her permanent residence." He complied with that and still that did not help. All that he was able to get from the Immigration Department was that the wife would be allowed to come into Singapore on social visit passes to visit him in Singapore. This state of affairs went on, Sir, until November last year. Then he happened to be in my constituency and he came to see me. His previous appeals to his previous MP had not produced any desired result. He is now, I am glad to say, allowed to bring his wife into Singapore and the Immigration Department has agreed to allow her to stay in Singapore on six-monthly visit passes. That is one case. There is another case of another Chinese citizen of Singapore who married a Malaysian girl but who has been living in Singapore from the age of 12. She fell in love with this man and he fell in love with her, and they decided to marry. Again they had difficulties. They were able to register the marriage in Singapore but she was not given permanent residence and their troubles really started when she found herself pregnant with the third child.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by the whole sum in respect of Subhead QJ-02 of the Main Estimates. My plea now this time is not for persons who think they are being wrongfully incarcerated in the drug rehabilitation centres but for the wives of Singapore citizens. I do not have to again, I hope, remind Members of this House that the right to marry a person of one's own choice is a personal right that belongs to the individual, and it finds expression in Article 16 of the Declaration of Human Rights to which we have subscribed. Sir, before I come to talk about the general principles of this, may I give the House three examples of how the Immigration laws have been applied against the wives of Singapore citizens, i.e. Singapore men who have married women who came from outside Singapore. May I take the first case. This is a Chinese man who has been living in Singapore all his life. His parents are all Singaporeans. He happened to fall in love with a Malaysian Chinese girl working in Singapore on a work permit and she, being in Singapore for some years, was obviously contributing to the economy of the country. Her services were needed. As I said, he fell in love with this girl and both of them decided to get married. There began their problems, Sir. They applied to the Commissioner for Employment - because that is one of the conditions in the work permit - for permission to marry. This was refused by the Commissioner for Employment and the refusal was repeated to the Registrar of Marriages who refused to register the marriage. What do they do?”
“Sir, I do not wish to say more. I am not withdrawing my amendment. Question on the amendment put, and negatived.”
“Sir, the Minister asks whether I could provide evidence of a wrongful diagnosis having been made by the doctor at the rehabilitation centre. Evidence can only be forthcoming if the man who complained is allowed to be examined by somebody outside. If you do not allow that, how can evidence be forthcoming? So it is idle to ask me whether I can produce evidence about any wrongful diagnosis. This is what I am asking: why is it not possible for a man who complains, and who wants to be taken seriously that he is not a drug addict, to produce that evidence and to make it possible for him to produce that evidence by saying, "All right, you complain that this diagnosis is wrong. We will allow you to be examined by a proper medical officer outside." I am sure doctors will be carrying out their professional duties. They would not be colluding with the man. We must credit them with that intelligence and honesty. Why do we not provide the man with the opportunity to adduce this evidence? It is no good asking me, "Will the Member adduce evidence of wrong diagnosis?"”
“Yes, of course, he will say that. But you have to satisfy them. You cannot leave them with a sense of grievance. That is important. You cannot leave your citizens nursing a sense of grievance against the administration of law and justice. They must be satisfied that the Administration is just and fair and has taken every step to exclude the possibility of any injustice or miscarriage of justice. I would ask that the Minister consider taking steps to provide an adequate safeguard, a further safeguard, for people who feel that they have been wrongly detained, or allow somebody else to have a look at this man, the man who complains about it, and to satisfy himself that the man is really a drug addict.”
“I am sure the Minister is not suggesting that the Magistrate will order the release of the man if he complains to the Magistrate that he has been wrongly detained. I have looked at that section and I know what the section means. All that the Magistrate will ask is: "Is there an order from the Director of CNB?" And if you tell him that there is an order from the Director of CNB, he will go no further. Just as what the Court of Appeal said. Just as long as you have the Order of the Director of CNB, ordering the man to be detained, it is not for us to inquire into this medical report or to ask the doctor to expand it at length. I am making a plea in this House for persons, and let me assure the Minister and this House that I have received several complaints from people who feel that they have been wrongly detained. It is not just them. It is their parents. It is their relations. Some of them say, "My son has never touched any drug at all in his life." An hon. Member: Of course, he will say that.”
“Sir, as they say in court, with respect, I am afraid the Minister completely misunderstood the point of my objections in this House. I was not asking that drug addicts be charged in court. I appreciate that they require treatment or cure more than punishment. I was not asking that. I am also aware of the Court of Appeal decision. It is because of that that I am making a plea in this House, because it is for the Legislature to provide safeguards where the safeguards are not adequate enough as already provided in the law, because the courts are there only to declare the law. I have drawn attention to the Mental Disorders and Treatment Act. What is the insuperable difficulty, Sir, of providing for an appeal from this finding of the doctor? May I say about the examination that the Hon. Minister of State talked about. Three days. As I indicated, each period only lasted for about five minutes. There is no urine test, no blood test, to antagonistic test, as the other doctor has said in his report. What is the insuperable difficulty of allowing that medical report to be looked at by two other doctors outside, as is provided in the Mental Disorders and Treatment Act? In that way we can assure the man who grievously feels that he has been innocently detained, incarcerated for 36 months, that we have taken steps, all reasonable steps to satisfy ourselves that there was no reasonable possibility of a mistake in the diagnosis of the doctor. I think we owe it to our citizens to see that we are taking safeguards, the necessary safeguards, before we deprive them of their liberty. The Hon. Minister of State talks about the Magistrate's Court.”
“I beg to move, Mr Speaker, Sir. I ask that there should be sufficient safeguards.”
“Thank you, Sir. May 1, before I sit down, refer the House to another Act, the Mental Disorders and Treatment Act. If one goes through that there are sufficient safeguards. You got to have, first of all, one doctor, then two doctors to certify, and then finally if the man is to be detained for more than one month he must be certified by a psychiatrist from outside the hospital that the man should be detained.”
“We must make sure that before a man is put away, he is put away because he has been proven or found guilty on evidence which will be accepted and which can be reasonably accepted to be conclusive. Anything falling short of that would be an invasion of the liberty of the individual.”
“No blood test was taken, no urine test was taken, to confirm the presence of drugs either in the urine or in the blood. On that, as I said, the Director of Central Narcotics Bureau made the Order for detention. This was looked at by another man, a doctor, who has had years of experience in the Government service and who knows something about the treatment of drug addicts. This is what he has to say about the report: 'The report does not set out the nature of the withdrawal syndrome, what symptoms were observed upon which there was a finding that the applicant was a heroin addict at the time of observation. In any case, withdrawal symptoms are not pathognomonic [I understand from that, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will probably be able to guide us better on this - that it is not conclusive pathologically] and if they are to be relied upon, should be supplemented by urine and/or blood tests or the employment of special techniques such as specific drug supplement or antagonist.' And then he ends up by saying: 'It is my considered view that the report does not disclose that the applicant was a drug addict at the time of the observation.' Sir, I suggested when I asked my question at the last sitting that there could be a possibility of a wrong diagnosis. The Minister of State immediately took it to mean that I was suggesting collusion. As I said, you do not have to have collusion for the possibility of an error of diagnosis. One single doctor may make a mistake. We know this. My plea to this House is that we must take the necessary safeguards to see that persons who are not drug addicts are not detained, because if we do not, then it will only lead to disrespect for the law and the law will fall into disrepute.”
“In practice, what happens is that the Police round up persons whom they think may be drug addicts and they make a request to the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau for an Order, and the Director makes the Order and the man is then taken to the drug rehabilitation centre. He is then kept there for a period of days - I think three or four days - when he is required to undergo medical observation and any other scientific test that it is possible. The Minister, responding to my question two days ago in this House, Sir, said that the examination was conducted by two doctors and they would then report - I hope I have got him correct and I do not want to misquote him - that they would make a report of their findings to the Director of Central Narcotics Bureau who would then make the Order. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have with me the report made by the doctor, and it is a single doctor who has made the report to the Director of Central Narcotics Bureau. His report - I propose to read it. There are two reports. They are identical. It says: 'In the course of my examinations and observations of the subject I found that he had definite clinical evidence of drug withdrawal syndrome consistent with heroin addiction. In my opinion, he is a heroin addict.' That is all we have - "I found that he had definite clinical evidence of drug withdrawal syndrome consistent with heroin addiction, and in my opinion he is a heroin addict." On that, an Order was made by the Director of Central Narcotics Bureau. It is not signed by two doctors. It is signed by just one doctor, and the examinations that he talks about consisted of three, over three days, each lasting for a period of about five minutes.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by the whole sum in respect of Subhead QI-02 of the Main Estimates. Sir, in moving this amendment, let me make it quite clear to the Members of this House that I am aware of the menace that is posed to this country by the drug problem and I am in no way criticizing the active steps taken by the Government to deal with this problem. I am fully in agreement with what has been said by the hon. Member for Punggol about the problem and by the Minister about the threat that this problem poses not only as a social problem but also, as I see it, perhaps an economic problem and also a problem to the security of this country. But, having said that, Sir, may I make a plea that in all our efforts to combat this drug problem we must also take care that innocent persons are not caught in the net and incarcerated for up to 36 months. Persons who are not drug addicts are incarcerated for 36 months, I hope it will not be necessary for me in this House to speak of the value of personal liberty and freedom and that before we can interfere with a man's personal freedom and liberty for as long as up to a period of 36 months, we must be sure as reasonably as we can that the man should be incarcerated for 36 months. In the normal process of law this often is done through the courts which inquire into the charge or offence which requires that the man be incarcerated - receives the evidence, makes a finding of guilt on evidence produced before the court, and then puts him away. The position is different when we come to the drug addict. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, Sir, the Director, i.e. the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau, may require anyone reasonably suspected of being a drug addict to be medically examined.”
“Sir, is the Minister aware that the Act provides that before a worker can be dismissed for misconduct, there should be an inquiry? Is the Minister aware that by a decision of the Court of Appeal in Singapore it has been held that there need be no inquiry held before a worker is dismissed? Will the Minister consider taking steps to amend the legislation to put that right?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a supplementary question. The appeal to the Minister only lies in the case of a dismissal of a worker for misconduct. Is there any protection for the worker who has put in, say, 15 or 20 years of service and he is then suddenly told, "Your services are no longer required. Here are four weeks' wages. Goodbye."?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister of State say whether any contractors have been prosecuted as a result of the surprise checks and, if so, how many?”
“I am asked to describe the concept of the police force I saw before. Before when? The concept of the police force that one saw years ago? The concept of the police force that one would desire for one's country - and the concept of the police force that I would desire for this country - is a police force that has the respect of its citizens, the trust of its citizens; where there is mutual understanding and rapport between the police and the public. And if we can build that, then we have got a wonderful police force. For that, we have got to do a number of things. First of all, we have got to raise the morale of the police force as well. The Acting Minister for Social Affairs (Dr Ahmad Mattar): Mr Deputy, Sir, if I heard my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour, correctly, he wanted the Member for Anson to describe the police post he saw at that time, not the police force.”
“I am saying that there has been a complete misunderstanding of the points that I have made. It is not that I am against police posts. All I am saying is that we had this once before and now, as I understand it, the sum total of all this advice we have received is that we must go back to our police posts. Please, let us not have complete misunderstanding of everything I say in this House.”
“Thank you very much. I am indebted to you. I am afraid there has been a misunderstanding. Perhaps it was deliberate by the Minister -”
“I was not suspicious. I said we were reverting back.”
“Sir, we have heard from the Minister that we are now swinging over to the Japanese method in policing our country. We have heard a lot about importing Japanese labour relations. Now it would appear that we are going to import the Japanese methods of policing into our police system. I see that the sum total of the Japanese recommendations would appear to be the establishment of outposts in different parts of the island. I remember that there was a time when we had a lot of outposts in various parts of Singapore. There were small police outposts for the people living in a particular area to report any offence or take their grievances and see the local policemen, as it were. We scrapped all that. Now the Japanese have recommended it and it would appear that we are going back to it. I would like to know how much has been spent on getting this advice from Japan. Secondly, the Minister spoke about community relations. Of course, one of the essential things for the proper policing of any country is that there should be good community relations between the police and the public. May I know from the Minister what plans the Ministry has to foster this community spirit between the police and public? Finally, again community relations must depend upon morale in the Singapore Police Force, not only morale of the officers in the top ranks but largely morale in the ordinary policeman who patrols our streets and who goes out on duties in his motor-car or otherwise. What plans has the Ministry got about continuing dia- logues with the men and women down below in the hierarchy of the Police Force to monitor their grievances and to see what improvement can be made in respect of their complaints?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister of State about an appeal to the Minister? Who is the Minister advised by when he sits on this appeal? Does he take an opinion from outside valuers, or is he advised by the Government Valuer who made the valuation in the first instance?”
“All I want to say is that this second letter that was handed to me was dated 30th May 1981. It is long before I became a Member of Parliament. It is dated 30th May 1981. Of course, it is my signature. But this signature on the letter dated 5th February 1982 is my assistant's signature. It is about this that I was talking. But the letter dated 30th May 1981, of course it is my signature and I wrote that letter.”