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 8 of 82.
“You say that it is not relevant and then he goes on.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise on a point of order to ask if the Senior Minister has not exceeded the time allowed for speeches.”
“May I ask the Member by way of clarification of his speech. The Member says he does not agree with the Opposition's definition of parliamentary democracy but he has not given us what his definition of parliamentary democracy is. Secondly, would he agree that the question asked of Nelson Mandela, because I asked the question, was not about democracy in Singapore but about the democracy that his country was practising? Does he agree there is democracy there and do we have that here in Singapore?”
“There have been suggestions from the Nominated MP that the Opposition has to be effective. Of course, it has to be. No one denies that. But if you, the ruling party, go all out using extra parliamentary measures to keep Opposition Members out, how can you claim praise for your party? It is only by a fair battle won by you by fair and lawful means that you can claim to be a democratic government. Until that happens, I am afraid, Singapore will be classified, as they have said, as an archaic society. We have made great progress in other fields - information, technology - but as a political society, we are still in the 18th century. Is it not time we moved forward and began the journey to becoming a full parliamentary democracy? 3.35 pm”
“There is a vacancy and if this Government believes that it has the trust and confidence of the people which has led to it being elected election after election, then why hold back now? Now is the time for this Government to show Singaporeans and the world that this Government is serious. This Government means business when it says that we want to be a parliamentary democracy. If you, Mr Prime Minister, will take that step now and call for a by-election, I tell you that the world will salute you, as a believer in parliamentary democracy. If you do not, you will go down in history as one who is frightened to introduce parliamentary democracy, and still holding on to your power to see that the PAP is not eventually replaced. Because, in a parliamentary democracy, it goes without saying that the people have the right and it should be seen that they do have the right to replace a government, through the ballot box. Sir, Members have talked of fair elections. I could go on at length about the kind of elections we have had in Singapore since 1971, when I entered into politics. We have never had a level playing field. And it is a pretence to talk that we are a parliamentary democracy when you go all out to deny the opposition a place in Parliament. As these authors have said, it is only when you have a sufficient number of Opposition Members in Parliament, then you become a parliamentary democracy. Without Opposition Members in sufficient number, you are nothing but an authoritarian government, passing measures and policies, not with consultation of the people, but because you think it is right for the people. This denies the people their place. It is the people who have to make the judgements, and that is only possible if you have Opposition Members in Parliament.”
“It has never resorted to this but we have it. Let us not flatter ourselves that we as a society have consciously sought to encourage the growth of parliamentary democracy in this country. There are steps necessary that have to be taken for the growth of parliamentary democracy. Time does not permit me to go into them at length, but clearly it calls for the abolition of the power to detain persons without trial for political activities and equally, a need to look at the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act to see whether that is necessary. Secondly, we need to consider whether there should be a restriction on public meetings especially called by political parties, whether that is still necessary. Thirdly, we have got to consider whether we should continue with the numbering of the ballot papers and the requirement for serial numbers on counterfoils. I say all this is necessary because they will then, Mr Speaker, Sir, remove the fear that is acting as a paralysis on our people preventing the growth of parliamentary democracy. These are measures that cannot be taken immediately. They would have to be taken over a period of time and it would be quite some time before our people are disabused of fear, assured that it is their bounden duty and right to take an interest and to take part in the affairs of the country. But may I tell the Prime Minister, if I may, before I sit down, that there is something he can do immediately so that we, the citizens of Singapore, can go into 21st century saying we are or we are beginning to be a parliamentary democracy. We can hold our heads high. This can be done if the Prime Minister decides after all that there should be a by-election now before we run into the next century.”
“Secondly, the denial of the freedoms vital to the growth of parliamentary democracy, the denial of the freedom of expression and assembly, making it difficult for democratic institutions to grow and function. Thirdly, denying a level playing field in the conduct of elections. Mr Speaker, Sir, in all countries, and particularly in the Commonwealth countries, which have inherited the system, they have an elections commission. We in the Opposition called for an elections commission way back in the 70s, and to this day, we still do not have an elections commission. The conduct of elections has remained and is still the monopoly of the Government. And so we have had gerrymandering at its worst. The altering and redrawing of electoral boundaries, creation of GRCs at just the will of the Prime Minister or the leaders of the PAP without any consultation with the people or the Opposition parties. Making it difficult for the ordinary person to stand as a Member of Parliament if he can meet the qualifications, by raising the deposits for candidates so that only the wealthy and the rich can stand for election to Parliament. The persecution of opposition leaders and parties denying them a place in the sun in Singapore. Prosecuting Opposition leaders if they wish to address the public, the audience, denying them licences to hold any public meetings. Then curtailing the freedom of Members of Parliament. After my presence in this House from 1981 to 1986, or following it, Bills were introduced to curtail the freedom of the Members in this House, introducing even the power to commit Members to prison if they dare to step out of line and abuse their privileges in the view of the majority of the Members, something which the UK Parliament has now abolished.”
“Can we truly say that Singapore is liberal, democratic, pluralistic constitutional, if you accept the criterion for a democratic society? Or is Singapore, on the other hand, dictatorial, authoritarian, monolithic? The authors of that book, in reference to the change in societies mention another quotation, that the transition from an archaic society into a modern society began sometime in the 18th century. Is Singapore an archaic society or a modern society? An archaic society is where it still retains the feudal system of government with authority being the key plank in the government. Can we, in Singapore, say that we are a parliamentary democracy? If it is, as we say about justice, government must be and must manifestly be seen to be answerable and accountable to Parliament. How is this possible - manifestly seen to be answerable to Parliament when Parliament consists of almost 95% of the ruling party? It is just nonsense. How can we say that in Singapore, all these years, the Government has accounted itself to Parliament? We only had, some months ago, the Prime Minister saying that he did not have to report a loan to Indonesia to Parliament, promising to give away some millions of Singapore dollars as Parliament did not have to be told about it. What are the factors that have prevented the growth of parliamentary democracy in Singapore? I will list them and, if time permits, say a few words on each of them. First of all, it is the climate of fear in Singapore of which I have been speaking more than once, the fear generated through the Internal Security Act (ISA) and victimisation of those who would dare to stand up and take the Government to task. It is also generated through the numbering of the ballot papers and entering the serial numbers on the counterfoils.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, parliamentary democracy implies and presupposes that Parliament is the centre of power. It is the supreme authority in the country representing the people. Let us not forget, and we will be reminding our people again and again in the years to come, that they are the masters and this House is a gathering of their representatives. The sine qua non of parliamentary democracy is that the executive, the Government, is answerable and accountable to Parliament. May I quote from the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences: "Parliamentary government is the form of constitutional democracy in which executive authority emerges from and is responsible to legislative authority." I quoted a writer, a Frenchman, who wrote in the Journal British Political System in London in 1958 but it is worth quoting it again. I quoted it the last sitting and this is what he has to say: "If asked to give a single criterion of the democratic government, I should say that it depended on the status of opposition." A book on Opposition by a professor of government in Manchester University, Ghita Ionescu and a reader at London University, Isabel de Madariaga have this to say: "Political opposition thus becomes the crowning institution of a fully institutionalised political society and the hallmark of those political societies which are variously called democratic, liberal, parliamentary, constitutional, pluralistic constitutional or even open or free. Thus the presence or absence of institutionalised political opposition can become the criterion for the classification of any political society in one of two categories - liberal or dictatorial, democratic or authoritarian, pluralistic constitutional or monolithic?" Where do we place Singapore in that classification?”
“If you want an appraisal, I say, let us have an open debate outside where Singaporeans will be able to attend and pass their judgement. If you are seriously concerned and interested in this question, may I say that the Open Singapore Centre will only be too pleased to arrange a public debate on the question of parliamentary democracy in Singapore. Would you accept it and would you come and speak there so that Singaporeans can then make their judgement? I have not got very much time, Mr Speaker, Sir, so I better move my amendment and speak on the amendment. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the motion before the House be amended by deleting all words following the words "across the yard", and in place of those words, to insert - "regrets the persistent attempts and measures of the governments since 1965 to impede the growth of genuine parliamentary democracy and urges the present government to take such measures as may be necessary to facilitate the growth of genuine parliamentary democracy in Singapore." Mr Speaker, Sir, I said that this speech of the Prime Minister and the motion itself display stark ignorance of what parliamentary democracy is. Parliamentary democracy is a concept that we have borrowed from other countries, particularly from the United Kingdom whose style of government we chose to adopt in 1955. And so we have to look to them as to what they understood as parliamentary democracy. If we are going to redefine that term, then we should make it quite clear to the world at large that parliamentary democracy, as they understand it, is not what we understand it. Singapore's understanding of parliamentary democracy is this, this and this. Then, we will be at least making ourselves plain.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have, as you know, an amendment to the motion. But as I did at the last sitting, I would like to say a few words before I move my amendment. Mr Speaker, Sir, did I misread the motion on the Order Paper? I thought we were going to debate parliamentary democracy. But we heard this afternoon, Mr Speaker, Sir, hardly anything about parliamentary democracy. We have been treated to speeches after speeches of how good the previous Parliaments have been, how effective, how they have had men of integrity, and so on, but not a word about parliamentary democracy except, I must hasten to say, for the speech from Mr Chiam See Tong from the Opposition bench. Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, it displays and, I am sorry that I have to ascribe this to the Prime Minister who has moved the motion, a complete ignorance or inability to understand what parliamentary democracy is all about. As I listened to him, I began to think what the Prime Minister was saying is that we have our own parliamentary democracy, parliamentary democracy ala Singapore and we are not interested in what others mean when they talk of parliamentary democracy. So I say this motion is wrong because, if he intended it to be the Singapore style of parliamentary democracy, then it should have said so. The second reason is that a House consisting almost entirely of PAP Members is the wrong place to debate a motion praising the previous Governments and Members of Parliament. You will get your pat on the back, there is no doubt about it. No one will imagine for a minute that this motion will be defeated. You will get your pat. But this is not the place to come for an appraisal.”
“The Minister says that investment income forms part of the current reserves because they are provided for in the Constitution. Would he be good enough to draw us to the Article or provision in the Constitution which says this.”
“Will the Minister be able to tell us when were the personal problems of the pilot, which have now been revealed, disclosed to the investigators?”
“The previous speaker has said that I never cast aspersions and now Mr Rai comes on and says that I cast aspersions.”
“The Speaker. Mr Speaker, Sir, we opposed the Bill. We said that the President should not have executive power. It should rest with Parliament to control the Government. And now, as I said, we seem to have found support from a quarter which we never expected and that is the Senior Minister. Now he says it is Parliament with an Opposition. So, let us reform ourselves. Let us scrap this office of executive President. Let us take steps to see that there is growth of an effective Opposition, so that the Opposition can play its role. If you are honest with yourselves, and you are honest in your determination to do your duty for this country, you will do it. Sir, I beg to move my amendment: To delete all words following "That this House" and there to insert - "regrets that the Government blocked the President's efforts to exercise the powers granted to him under the constitution to safeguard the Accumulated Reserves of the people and deplores the conduct of the Ministers of Government and the civil servants who failed to give the President any co-operation to enable him to discharge his functions."”
“Does Mr Nathan have the will of the people? We posed this question in a press release but, of course, the Straits Times, true to its tradition of being a servile follower of the Government, does not publish the press release. So I say, Mr Speaker, as we said in this press release, let us stop all this pretence. Let us be honest. Let us go back to the people and explain to them why this has happened. Let the people make the judgment. And I say quite seriously that the installation of Mr Nathan should be postponed and that an Acting President should be appointed until the people are told everything and the matter is resolved to their satisfaction, so that Singaporeans may say honestly and proudly that we have a President that we elected into office, not that we have a President who has been foisted on us by the Cabinet. We have no choice and yet the PAP said, "(its President) must be elected by the people." But after saying it, they went out of their way to see that people will not vote anyone of their choice. So let us stop all this humbug, all this pretence. Let us, as I said, be honest now with ourselves and with the people. The couplet in Shakespeare comes to my mind: 'To thine ownself be true Then it must follow as day follows night Thou canst not be false to anyone' And I tell the PAP Government, be true to yourself. What did you intend when you presented the Bill to change the whole structure of the Government? There is a fundamental change. We, may I say, Mr President, the Workers' Party oppose ---”
“May I repeat again: "The President must have, and be seen to have, the legitimacy and moral authority derived from the will of the people [not from the will of the Cabinet, but from the will of people]." Does Mr Nathan have the will of the people?”
“Was there any directive to the civil service after the office was instituted that they should provide the President with all information he needed because the White Paper said that that would be the duty of the Ministers and the civil servants. I do not have much more time, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am going to suggest to the Government that it can still redeem itself. It can recover some of the credibility that it has lost and it can only do that if it now goes before the people again and explain to them why this has arisen. I say that, in all decency, this Government should resign and I mean it. It has been shown up to have instituted something which it had no intention to allow to work. It is a confidence trick, nothing short of it. If the Government feels that it is not necessary for the whole Government to resign, then I am sorry the Prime Minister should resign. It was he who promised the people in Parliament what the office would be. He should resign and go to the people. Let us not forget, as I keep saying in this House again and again that it is the people that matter. So we have got to satisfy the people. At the moment, there is a lot of mumbling going on outside this House. There is a perception that the PAP did not want Mr Ong Teng Cheong to continue because they found it difficult to get along with him. So there is a perception which has been lodged with me several times that Mr Nathan is just the Cabinet's man. Of course, we know it. It was revealed to us. It was the Cabinet who chose him. What about the words that Mr Goh used when he asked the House to pass the amendment?”
“He said, "We are providing an independent body to check. You have this second key held by an independent person." What was Mr Lee doing when Mr Goh said these things in Parliament? Was he not in Parliament then when Mr Goh said that the Government would be "clipping its wings"? He says, "I would never had used those words. It was not intended that the Government's wings should be clipped." Then why did he not correct it then? He was the architect. If he was the architect and he sees the workman putting a brick which should not be put, he should have said, "No, no, that brick is out of place. I did not want that brick there." But nothing was said and the people were allowed to think that the Government was really giving the President the executive power. As I said, we do not just have the President's outburst. We have Mr Lee revealing what he thought were the powers that were being given to the President which was what the PAP intended. But that was not what the PAP said they were giving to the President. So, the question is: was all this a show, a show in front of the public not meant to be carried out, but just a showcase, a pretext? Singapore, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a lot of pretence. We pretend that we have a national press when we do not have any national press. We have a PAP press. I do not want to go on but there are so many other things which are a pretence in Singapore. This episode has attracted attention not only in Singapore but outside Singapore. It has drawn into question the honesty and integrity of this Government. What did it mean to do when it brought this office into being? Did they intend to carry out or was it simply a wayang and the Government continued as it had done previously?”
“Now that the President is leaving his office, he can be summoned by that committee to answer questions and to explain everything. And so can the Government Ministers be summoned by the committee. If you are serious, that is the only step open to you. But we do not have to accept everything that the President has said. The Senior Minister - I am sorry he has left the House as soon as I started to speak, I wish he had stayed on - attempts to explain and I see he has, in his explanations revealed the intention of the PAP, knowingly or unknowingly. He has revealed the truth. He says, "There are a lot of misconceptions." I do not know there were a lot of misconceptions. But if there were misconceptions, who is responsible for those misconceptions? If you say something and the listener or the reader understands it in a different meaning, then it is obvious that you have not made yourself clear. But I thought that the Government had made it clear. But he says, "There are misconceptions." Then who is responsible, if not the PAP Government? He says, "No executive power was granted to the President." Are we playing with words, Mr Speaker, Sir? Here was the Prime Minister saying in this House, with this office we are "clipping our wings". We are subjecting ourselves to the President's powers." I asked the Senior Minister yesterday that when the President chooses to exercise his veto, is he not using his executive power? The Senior Minister evaded that question and said, "I am not here to argue as to whether it is executive or not." So are we playing with words? Then he said, "It was never intended that the President's office should be an independent office to check on the Government." Has he not read or heard what Mr Goh Chok Tong said when he was moving the Bill?”
“He has said what we have been saying all along, that if you want a check on Government, then vote in the opposition. And we hope the electorate will remember that. Have the opposition in. So that was the promise of the PAP when they introduced the office. But what is the reality? We now hear from the President in his press conference that it was not exactly what the PAP had promised. The President was, one could see, very restrained when he spoke to the press. He pulled his punches. But despite all that, it was quite clear to anyone reading between the lines that the President was disillusioned with what was promised and the reality. He spoke of a long list of problems. I am not going to go into all what he said because I do not have the time. Yesterday, we heard from the Minister, and no less than the architect of this office, and the Prime Minister replying to the President. I am not here to make a judgment on who is right and who is wrong. The President was accused of not setting out facts accurately. They did not exactly call him a liar but they said he was not setting out the facts accurately. May I tell the Government that if you think this matter should be cleared once and for all, then it should not just be brought before the House in a debate. You should have a committee to look into it and to report on the situation that existed between the President and the Government. And I am commending to the Government that if they are really serious, they appoint a Parliamentary committee consisting of the three opposition MPs and three backbenchers from the Government to consider the difficulties that the President said that he had experienced.”
“All public officers [mark these words] will be placed under a legal duty to inform the President whenever assets or reserves are to be used or pledged." So this is what the PAP Government was telling the people, "We are an honest, good Government. We are now providing you with a second safeguard. He is going to safeguard your reserves." When the Bill was presented in Parliament, the mover of the Bill, our present Prime Minister, then the First Deputy Prime Minister, said again that "The President will have the right to veto budgets if they draw down past reserves." Bear in mind that these words have been quoted by Dr Lee yesterday. Bear in mind that in introducing this Bill, the present Government was saying it was, in fact, "clipping its own wings". "Clipping its own wings" means that it is depriving the Government from doing something which it previously had the power to do. There is something else to it where he says, "This Government will have some of its powers checked." And he says in the Third Reading, "I am putting my money where my mouth is. I am subjecting my Government to these new checks and balances." In other words, he said he would accept the authority of the President over these matters and he would be subject to his decisions. That was the promise and the people were told "we are honest men, we are men of integrity". The Government would not wait for any loss to occur and was taking all sufficient safeguards because Parliament was not competent at the moment. And why was Parliament not competent? It was simply because Parliament was deprived of an effective opposition. It is very heartening when, at last, the Senior Minister has come to the realisation about the role of an opposition in Parliament.”
“The question that I am going to raise before this House is whether the PAP, when it instituted this office of an Elected President to have executive powers over the Government, was serious or whether it was all a show. I am going to explain why I ask this question. The question that has to be answered is: was all this just a show, a pretence, a game of make-believe or did the Government seriously intend to do what it said it was proposing to do? What was the promise that was made in July 1988 to the people of Singapore in the White Paper? There was great publicity given to it, although there was not enough public debate, and the analogy of the second key was used that the President would have the second key; the Government cannot open the safe unless the President himself joins in and opens the safe for them. It was said that if the Government wanted to spend any past reserves, it must obtain the concurrence of the Elected President. This was to be a precondition, according to the PAP. And what is more? The White Paper went on to say, in grand words, "The legitimacy and moral authority of the President can only be derived from the will of the people as expressed in an election." He must have the moral authority and that moral authority must come from the will of the people as expressed in an election. And then the White Paper continues, "The President will have the discretion to withhold concurrence to decisions of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on the spending of reserves and assets. For a Cabinet decision to be valid, the second key must be used." And what is important is that the White Paper sets out, "The President shall be entitled at his request to any information on matters requiring his assent.”
“So I was surprised to see that it comes from a Nominated Member of Parliament. Be that as it may, it is my proposition here that this agreement has lost all its validity now. Mr Ong assumed the post of President in 1993 and just three months before he leaves his office, an agreement is presented, setting out what should be the pattern of behaviour between the Government and the President. One would have thought that as soon as the President has been appointed the first thing to have done would be to come to an understanding on how the institution was going to be worked, but, no. What is more surprising is that it comes after the Government would appear to have made known to Mr Ong that it would not support his re-election. We were told by the Prime Minister yesterday that it was in February of this year that Mr Ong mentioned to him that he might seek re-election. And then, apparently, the Cabinet immediately got into a huddle about it, called for the medical reports and then informed him that the Cabinet could not support his re-election as President. What is the purpose of having this agreement when there was going to be another new President? Should you not wait until the new President takes office and then have the agreement? So I do not see that there is any purpose in debating this agreement at the moment. Thirdly, there is the Constitution which sets out clearly, I should have thought, the powers of the President and that, according to the President, was not being strictly observed. So what guarantee is there that this agreement will be strictly abided by? I think it is a waste of time at the moment debating this agreement. But I have something more serious.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. As I said, I have a few words to say on the motion and that is, first of all, I must express the amazement I felt when I received the notice from the Clerk that Mr Shriniwas Rai was moving this motion. If any motion is to be moved, I would have thought it would have come from one of the Ministers of the Government. They are the party to this agreement, not Mr Shriniwas Rai, and he is not a Minister of the Government, unless he thinks he is a member of the Government already.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have an amendment to the motion, but before I speak on the amendment, I have a few words to say on the motion itself.”
“May I ask the Minister whether he or the Health Ministry has taken note of the recent report by the Samaritans of Singapore, that the suicide rate among the elderly is much greater than in other groups? What does the Ministry or the Government propose to do about that?”
“Sir, before I ask the Hon. Minister supplementary questions, may I thank him for not casting aspersions on my sincerity. The Minister mentions 1955. Does he realise that in 1955, I was around in those days, the present Senior Minister was the legal advisor to a great many trade unions. The PAP then was championing the rights of workers, wanting greater rights for them. My second question is this. The Minister says anyone unfairly dismissed can appeal to his Ministry. I have asked, time and time again, why can we not have an Unfair Dismissal Act. Why is it that our workers cannot be given their rights, but be allowed to depend upon the patronage of the Ministry concerned?”
“May I ask the Minister: did the trade unions not have all these rights before 1968: the right to negotiate for better wages, the right to be consulted on dismissals and transfers, before the law was amended in 1968? Did they not have these rights? And were they not taken away from them? Is the Minister aware that the Senior Minister, some years ago, said in a BBC interview that he had to tell the workers then that they should give up these rights because the British were withdrawing their bases and it was necessary for Singapore to do something about its economic programme which would be affected as a result of the withdrawal? The implication, he said, was that they would be restored once the economy improved and the situation made it possible for the rights to be restored. How long have the workers got to wait?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister another supplementary question? Does he accept that unless there is a law which requires equal pay for men and women, there is very little point in women complaining to his Ministry? He says that his Ministry has never had any complaints so far.”
“May I ask the Minister, when he says that our women in Singapore are paid comparable wages, is he able to assure the House that all employers in Singapore, whether they are in the private sector or public sector, pay equal wages to men and women doing the work of same value or the same work? Is that the fact? And, secondly, he says the Ministry, in conjunction with the NTUC, will make a study of the provisions in these two conventions. I do not know how long ago the conventions were promulgated. Why has it taken the Ministry all this while and has it started in its study of the provisions?”
“May I ask the Senior Minister why has he not proceeded with his case?”
“May I ask the Senior Minister, when he says that the President has no executive power, is his decision to say "no" to the Government's proposal to use the reserves not an exercise of executive power?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Senior Minister, I am glad, has finally conceded a place for the Opposition. But he says there is no viable alternative. May I ask who is responsible for this? Is it not his Government which has gone out of its way to prevent a viable alternative coming up in this country?”
“Is the Prime Minister saying that this Government is not prepared to trust the intelligence of our people?”
“May I suggest to the Prime Minister that if he is sincere in what he said, the Government should now remove the restrictions on who should stand as President. The basic qualifications are laid down in the Constitution as for Members of Parliament. Let the public decide - not the Prime Minister, not the Senior Minister, nor the Cabinet - as to who should be the President.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure the people of Singapore would have been very glad to hear the Prime Minister say in this House that the Government was not looking for sycophants to run for the post of President. If that is the case, what was the need for the Cabinet to shortlist certain people and then finally decide on Mr S. R. Nathan as the Cabinet's choice? Is it not better to leave the judgment to the electorate to decide who should be their President? Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a feeling among great many Singaporeans that they have been completely left out, cheated, of their chance to choose the President?”
“May I ask the Prime Minister again on the question of the President's health. The Prime Minister said that the Government had two reports. Were they conflicting reports from the report given by the President's own doctor? And who did the interpretation? Was it the Attorney General or did the Government seek an opinion from someone qualified, eminent in this field outside Singapore, to decide between the two reports? Did the Government report say that the President's powers would be affected and there was a likelihood that he would not be able to discharge the powers as President? Finally, may I ask the Prime Minister - he has been very candid - whether the Cabinet decided on Mr S R Nathan because they would find it less of a problem having him as President?”
“May I ask the Prime Minister a question or two? I understood him to say that the Cabinet would have been happier if the President had decided to seek re-election. But the Cabinet was concerned whether he was medically capable. But the President had said in his statement that his doctors had given him a clean bill, that his cancer was in complete remission and the President clearly indicated that his health would not stand in the way of his becoming President. May I ask the Prime Minister to explain to this House on what basis or information did the Cabinet conclude that he would not be capable of discharging his duties?”
“May I ask the Minister whether it has been successful so far? And, secondly, is he not aware that at least two other member states in ASEAN are having second thoughts of the wisdom of this constructive engagement?”
“Is the Minister saying that the Singapore Government recognises the military regime, the usurpers, as the lawful government of Myanmar? And, secondly, will the Minister tell us whether this constructive engagement policy of ASEAN has borne any fruit, or has it only strengthened the will of the military to further suppress the people?”
“May I ask the Minister to tell us what is the rationale for not disclosing to this House? We know that, in Myanmar, it is not a lawful government which is in place. We have a military which has usurped the rights of the people. Do Singaporeans not have a right to know whether we are supporting this military government with our arms?”
“May I know whether Singapore exports any arms to Myanmar?”
“May I ask why was Parliament not informed and its sanction sought before the Government entered into this memorandum of understanding and gave up a substantial part of its equities? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, I do not understand. We have not given up any equities. SCHOOL ADMISSION POLICY ON FOURTH CHILD (Review) 4. Mr Sin Boon Ann asked the Minister for Education whether he will review the school admission policy in relation to children who are the fourth and beyond in the family.”
“Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept or not that he is playing with the people's moneys and he has a duty to account to them for every cent? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, the game is not over. I have explained several times in this House why we went into this project, what the difficulties have been, how we have tried to turn the project around and what solution we have now arrived at. The solution will take several years to work out. The final accounting is not done and the project has to run its course. There is no suggestion that the officials or the companies involved have been derelict in their duty, that they have done this without due diligence and without making proper commercial considerations. They have gone in on a proper commercial basis. These are statutory boards and GLCs which have to be assessed as statutory boards and GLCs, and not on the basis of individual projects. It is not Parliament's business to become a deputy auditor of these companies. They have auditors to make sure they have done things honestly. They have boards to make sure they have acted commercially in a wise way. I think if he looks at the track record of the statutory boards and the GLCs which have invested in Suzhou, he will find that overall they have done well. These are not bankrupt, broken-back companies. So I think we should leave them to do their business.”
“But does the Government not owe a duty to the people whose money the Government itself, either directly or through GLCs, has invested in the project? Does this House not need to have a full audited statement of accounts? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, statutory boards and GLCs are set up specifically to have greater operational flexibility than Government departments and to be able to make commercial and business decisions like other companies. The responsibility of ensuring that they are competently and honestly run rests with the supervising Ministries of statutory boards. In the case of GLCs, it rests with their board of directors and ultimately their shareholders, including the Minister for Finance who is answerable to Parliament. If any MP has reason to believe that a statutory board or GLC is not being competently or honestly run, he should raise the matter directly in the House either by filing a Question or moving a motion, and he will receive a full answer, as the Member has received very full answers on the question of Suzhou Industrial Park. However, it is counter-productive for Parliament to second-guess commercial and business decisions which are properly the responsibility of the management and boards of the statutory boards and GLCs.”
“The amount invested by each statutory board and GLC is small, compared to the size of its operations. They financed these investments in the normal commercial manner, from reserves accumulated in the course of operations and from bank borrowing. They did so based on commercial considerations, after critically evaluating the project's viability. Ten Singapore companies that are not GLCs, and four non-Singaporean multi-national corporations, also similarly invested in the project. Mr Jeyaretnam also suggested that the full financial statement of the project be presented for debate in this House. This is not appropriate. It is for the companies which have invested in the project to examine the project's finances, not for Parliament. These are mostly listed companies, answerable to their shareholders for their own financial performance. For this House to debate the project's budget is to change a commercial undertaking into a government one. This is unjustified and unwise.”
“Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that in other countries, the office of the banking ombudsman is maintained by the banks themselves? They see it as something which is very good for their own business. Has the Government ever thought of suggesting to the banks in Singapore that they should perhaps also move towards having a banking ombudsman? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, if the banks feel that it is necessary, I think they will work it out themselves. In this case, we have an Association of Banks and they have a certain moral suasion. They have issued guidelines and I do not think there is any difficulty with banks not taking advice from the Association of Banks. But there is no complaint before us today that the banks have acted in a manner contrary to what they should do. That they have to charge cannot be disputed. There is no allegation that these are unreasonable charges or flagrantly exploitative. I understand that the Non-Constituency Member, as a matter of principle, thinks ombudsmen are good and they work in some countries. As I have explained before, in answer to him, we do not feel that we need one in Singapore. SUZHOU PROJECT (Financial statement) 3. Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government will present a full comprehensive financial statement on the Suzhou project for debate in the House, showing clearly where the monies for investment by the Government and the Government-linked companies were taken from. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, in my replies to Mr Jeyaretnam on 3rd August 1999 and earlier on 14th January 1998, I provided full details of the investments made by our statutory boards and GLCs in the Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP) project. To date these investments amount to US$147 million.”
“Sir, is the Deputy Prime Minister saying, as I understand him, that because banks are commercial institutions, they should be free to charge whatever they like for whatever service they provide? Is he saying that any customer who has any complaint about any charge that is made has no recourse anywhere, but has to accept it? Is it not time, as I have asked before, that the Government considered appointing a banking ombudsman to receive any complaints from any customers about any charge imposed by any bank? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, there are five major Singapore banks and 22 foreign banks with full licences which provide a full range of services. There are 3 million plus Singaporeans and if they do not like the way any bank is treating them, take their custom to another bank. And many banks, including foreign ones, will be very happy to make sure that you are properly treated and will not be unfairly charged, because it is foolish for them to do that. They lose business. If you feel that the bank is not being fair to you, you are fully at liberty to make a public row of it, and the matter will be debated. And you can make a representation to the Association of Banks. They will discuss it. But this is a free market, and that is the way the market works.”
“50 per voter divided by the total number of candidates for GRCs in a parliamentary election. Secondly, donations should never be made to individual Ministers or MPs, but to the party. And thirdly, political contributions must never become a means of buying influence or swaying Government policies. Hence, we have stood firm by these three tenets which have served us well. What about foreign donations? Indeed, a case can be made to prohibit political parties from receiving funds from foreign sources. This is the position in many countries, such as Taiwan and South Korea. As I said earlier, the UK which currently allows foreign funding is re-considering its position. Prohibiting foreign funding of political parties would help prevent foreign influence and lobbying in the political arena. Foreign organisations and individuals who provide funding for political party may try to influence politics in Singapore. Some of these organisations or individuals may be fronts for foreign countries which want to see a party with a friendlier stance towards their country come into power in Singapore. In addition, some foreign organisations may, by channelling funds to political parties here, promote their causes which are incompatible with the unique make-up of our society.”