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 9 of 82.
“I thought I made that clear. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Or in public places. The point is, as for the Worker's Party, we are assuming that there are Singaporeans willing to donate to the party to help it pay its cost. He asked for an assurance from this House that Singaporeans can contribute. I think it is not for the House to give an assurance. It is for the party, if it thinks it can get Singaporeans who want to contribute to its cause, to make its case and the public, I am sure, will examine the party on its record. Indeed, I understand that there is even an appeal on the Internet by somebody who may very well be a Worker's Party member appealing for funds for the party with the address and account number given. In fact, up to now, there is no law against donations to political parties. But in the UK, for example, a draft Bill has been put before the UK Parliament which restricts donations to political parties. The restrictions include a ban on foreign donations requiring donations of 5,000 pounds or more to be made public and banning anonymous donations of 50 pounds or more. UK is tightening up in this area, even running before us. The bottomline really is that Singaporeans abhor money politics. This healthy attitude is because the PAP Government took a strong stand against it from the outset. Unlike other countries, the Government scrupulously avoided travelling down this path. We have explained our approach before. The Senior Minister, when he was Prime Minister in 1989, spelt out three cardinal rules to keep money politics out of Singapore. These are, firstly, observe strict legal limits on election expenses, hence our cap of $2.50 per voter for single constituencies and $2.”
“All right. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I am sure the Singapore Tourism Board shares this view. In fact, a proliferation of such public solicitations would not just amount to a public nuisance but may even lead to frayed tempers caused by persistent hassling or harassment. All kinds of groups going door to door to solicit contributions for a whole host of causes cannot be any better. In public places, this is all the more so when political parties are concerned. People of different political persuasions may be approached or pestered or urged to contribute. There may be hackling or quarrelling, all in public view. The situation may then escalate and others join in. There will then be public disorder. I think the Police legitimately, being concerned that people should not engage in being a public nuisance or there being public disorder, disallows such applications. But this is the second point. This answers Mr Jeyaretnam's first question. This does not mean that political parties cannot raise funds. There are other ways they can do this. For example, they can raise funds through a private collection from party members, supporters, well-wishers and friends. Or they can hold fund-raising dinners. Indeed, they can make public appeals provided that there are no visits from house to house or soliciting on the streets.”
“Again, by way of clarification, may I ask the Minister of State whether he has read our letter. We asked if a formal application has to be made, would the Licensing Officer please let us know or send us the form, and we will make it. Have the police sent us an application form? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Whatever it is, the point is there has been no formal application.”
“Today! Thank you. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Two weeks from the time he wrote, ie, 20th July - the Public Entertainment Licensing Unit (PELU) issues 3,000 permits and applications a month - and even then not through a formal application but through an exchange of letters. That is the first point. Let us see it in context. Mr Jeyaretnam jumps the gun because the police has not replied yet. In fact, the police has been engaging him in a series of correspondence which I will ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute [Copies of correspondence distributed to hon. Members.].”
“May I ask, by way of clarification, when was it sent out because I have not seen it yet? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I understand from the police that they sent out the reply today.”
“We want a clear "Yes, we will grant you a licence, or we will not grant you a licence. But you may proceed to make an appeal provided you do not stand in the streets or do not go from house to house." We do not intend to do that, because the House to House and Street Collections Act forbids standing in the streets and collecting money or going from house to house because of any pressure that may be brought. We wish to make an appeal and those who are moved to give may send their donations to the Party. So may we have the clear assurances from the Minister? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam makes a mountain out of a molehill. He spends about 10 minutes introducing the subject, talking about a wide range of matters on fear and whatnot which had all been dealt with in the House. Then with the remaining time he has, he complains that the police has not replied to his latest letter regarding whether or not his Party could raise funds in the manner he had asked. In fact, no formal application has been made by the Party. This exchange started when the Workers' Party requested information from the police. Despite that, the police very graciously replied to the queries and I am told that the police has in fact sent out their latest reply. Perhaps, it has not reached him yet. So it is not a question of delay. It is only two weeks.”
“Was it his decision that the Workers' Party should not be given any licence? Or was it just the decision of the police officer? And why have we not had a reply to that question? May I point out that, under the Act, the Minister has the power to exempt any person, including organisations or societies, from the provisions of the Act. Should he not consider exempting the Workers' Party from the provisions of this Act for this particular purpose? Any democratic government, conscious of its duty to the people to provide a place for dissent and the growth of democracy, would exempt a political party making an appeal from any law preventing it. In the United Kingdom, for the last two years, political parties with representation in Parliament receive annual grants. We are not asking for annual grants. We are asking for a licence to collect lawfully and peacefully any contributions that the public may wish to give to us without any fear or worry. The second assurance I want from the Minister here is, if he thinks no licence should be granted under the House to House and Street Collections Act, will he give a categorical assurance in this House that the police will not interfere if the Workers' Party made an appeal to the public, I repeat, not standing in the streets and collecting the money but an appeal to the public to send whatever they wish to the account of the Party or to hand it in to an appointed official of the Party. And together with that, an assurance from this House to Singaporeans that they are free to make any contribution or donation towards the Workers' Party. So I would like answers to these questions. As I said, may we have clear, unequivocal answers, not an answer that is clouded by "ifs" and "buts" and "qualifications".”
“And, finally, we asked whether our request had been sent to the Minister and whether it was his decision or whether it was the decision of the police officer concerned. That letter was written about three weeks ago and we have not heard any reply, although I asked for an immediate reply. We asked for this licence, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because, as I said, of two previous attempts. We first attempted to put out a leaflet for appeal when the Party's accounts were put into the receiver's hands by an ex-PAP Member of Parliament and we asked for the funds to be sent right to the official receiver, not to us. We were not soliciting in the streets. We were prosecuted for it. And sad to say, we were convicted, and appealed. The appeal was dismissed. We do not agree with that decision but that is the decision of the court. So there was that instance. Another instance was when we made an appeal for help for the Secretary-General of the Party to meet certain judgements that had been made against him in suits brought against the Secretary-General. We had an account opened and asked for funds to be sent direct to that account. Again, we were not standing in the streets or going round from house to house to collect the monies. The police swooped in after a period of time, seized the monies, closed the account and said we could not appeal without their licence. Hence, the decision of the Executive Council. So now, we have applied and we have not heard. I am asking in this House now for the Minister - I hope the Minister is replying - to give categorical answers to four questions. We do not want any "ifs" and "buts". We want a plain answer "yes" or "no". We want to know, first of all, why is it that no licence can be granted to us under the House to House and Street Collections Act.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have handed to the Clerk copies of the correspondence that has passed between the Party and the Police, and I would ask that it be distributed to those Members present, so that they may have sight of the correspondence that has passed. [Copies of correspondence distributed to hon. Members.] We pointed out to the Police - there should be four letters, I think - that the Executive Council had taken the decision as a result of that judgment, and we asked whether we may have a licence to make an appeal. We took this decision as a result of two previous attempts, of which time does not permit me to go into in great deal but I will speak a bit later about them. So we wrote, "Will you give us a licence to make an appeal?" There was an immediate reply asking how did we propose to do it. We said that we would like a licence to be able to appeal over a period of time, and not just one day as in the case of Flag Days given to associations, and we said we propose to station perhaps one or two members in prominent places to receive any donations that the public may wish to give. After some five weeks or so came the reply from the police that no licence could be granted to us under the House to House and Street Collections Act. The reason is apparently that it can only be granted to a worthy charitable cause. Nowhere in the Act does it say that a licence can only be granted to a worthy charitable cause. So we wrote back to the police asking to be shown where the Act restricted the grant of licences to only worthy charitable causes. We also asked the police to tell us under which of the grounds specified in section 4 of the Act a licence was refused, because there are specific grounds under which a licence may be refused.”
“One of the measures that had previously been used was, of course, the arrest of political leaders, detaining them, scaring them from taking part in politics, and keeping them away from any thoughts of offering themselves as candidates for a party other than the PAP to this House. But that, of course, was not the only method. The PAP knows that a political party cannot function if it is starved of funds. And so it uses this weapon very effectively. Right from the beginning, there was this climate of fear brought about by the deliberate policies of the Government that kept people from contributing to Opposition political parties. The PAP themselves, of course, have no problems. They have only got to ask and they will get their donations. But the people in Singapore were scared into giving anything for the Opposition parties. And the PAP found that very effective, and so the result is that the Opposition parties find it a struggle, an uphill battle to try and maintain any form of dissent to further their calls for democracy in this country. And so this continues, and has continued for the last 50 years. May I explain - I have not got very much time, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir - what I am saying by reference to a particular case. After the recent judgment in the High Court ordering the Workers' Party to pay a substantial sum in damages and costs to a group of 11 plaintiffs, which included a PAP Member of Parliament, the Executive Council decided that it would appeal to the public for help to keep the Party continue with its struggle, because there was a threat to wind up the Party. Council took the decision to apply for a licence under the House to House and Street Collections Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, why is it that this PAP Government, which wastes no opportunity of boasting how learned its Ministers and its leaders are, and how gifted they are in leading the country, finds it so difficult to learn an essential truth. To learn the lesson that for the growth of a country economically, politically and socially, there is a place for dissent. That it is absolutely essential that constitutional dissent, lawful dissent, should be allowed and be even encouraged, if the country is to move forward. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] Developed countries have recognised this long years ago. And countries which are developing are beginning to learn this lesson. Countries with autocratic rulers are learning that they cannot keep out constitutional lawful dissent of its people, and they learn it sometimes at great cost to themselves. This has happened in a number of African countries. It has happened not very long ago in this part of the world when President Suharto, the former President of Indonesia, had to learn that he could not keep dissent out and had to give way to the people's demands for their voices to be heard. But this PAP Government stubbornly refuses to recognise the lesson. There was a time, of course, when it held sway completely in this House from 1965 or so, to 1981, without any room for dissent, and during that time it perhaps suffered the opposition outside Parliament. But after 31st October 1981, when dissent found a place in this House, they have clamped down on any attempt for dissent, for democracy to grow in this country.”
“You are not answering the question. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan: The Minister of State, in his detailed reply, for which I thank him, stated that the public transport operators sit on the Council in order to voice their own interest. I would like to seek clarification from the Minister of State regarding the following related aspects: (1) Can the public transport operators not represent their own interest by extensive discussions with the members, but not sit on the Council? (2) The Minister of State likened the PTC to the NWC. The NWC is involved in wage negotiations and discussions among the parties concerned. It is not a watchdog body where wage negotiation is concerned. (3) Hence, my third point is, therefore, that the PTC is not really a watchdog body, as mentioned in the annual report. It is a Council to deliberate on fare revisions and matters pertaining to public transport. If so, I can see why public transport operators sit on the Council. But in that sense, I think further and subsequent annual reports should exclude and refrain from having this particular description of the Council.”
“By way of clarification, may I ask the Minister of State, on his statement that the Public Transport Council looks into any proposal to withdraw any particular service, whether the Council invites the people who are served by that service to send in their representations? Does the Council call them up and listen to their grievances? May we have an answer to that?”
“So, I would ask the Ministry to consider these two proposals quite seriously, and not just dismiss them as coming from the Opposition.”
“Please do not laugh at this. I am saying it quite seriously. In one of the earlier motions that I moved in this House in 1997, I had proposed an all party parliamentary committee, ie, including Opposition Members and the Government Members, to review any increases in prices for basic services - transport, utilities and other basic services - that are provided for our people. That, of course, was rejected. It could not have been passed. But would the Government now consider seriously setting up an all party parliamentary committee, consisting of Members from the Government and the Opposition, to consider any applications from the operators for increase in fares? They can then make their recommendations to the Council. You may perhaps think that the Council should not be bound by it, but at least they will have the views of people who have been elected by the people, and they can take them seriously. That is my suggestion for enlarging this Council, to try and find a way to allow commuters to have representation on the Council. The second point that I wish to put forward is the holding of a public inquiry when any operator or operators decide to withdraw any particular service. In other countries, when an operator plans or announces that he is going to withdraw the services, and if there is an objection from people who are served by that service, the Minister then appoints an inspector to hold a public inquiry to listen to the objections and decide whether the service should be withdrawn or not. Can we not move along those lines, instead of always having Government appointed people on councils? Let us give our people a greater participation in how things are run in this country. That is the whole idea of democracy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to speak on any particular amendment. But I do wish to bring up a few points which have already been raised. I do not wish to repeat what has been said. But I think a valid point that has been made is the over representation on the Council by people who run the transport service and people who do not travel on public transport. I do not know how you are going to remedy this imbalance. One way may be to form an association of commuters, encourage all over the island associations of commuters and then ask them to delegate somebody on to the Public Transport Council to look after their views. Alternatively, may I suggest that the Government consider appointing an Opposition Member of Parliament on to the Council. An hon. Member: NCMP?”
“May I ask what is wrong in making a general policy announcement instead of leaving it to the parents to appeal for charity every time? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: I am not sure what general policy announcement the Member is asking for. But as I have explained, anyone who needs financial assistance for his children to be in school, he is able to get it. If the Member knows of any such person, please let me know if he is unable to help him himself. 1.30 pm”
“Has the Government considered making education free for children of parents who may find it very difficult to send their children to school? Would the Government find some money for that? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, education is available to all in Singapore and a wide range of schemes are available. If there are children who the Member knows are unable to attend school because of financial reasons, please let me know. We will refer them to the appropriate authorities to help them, if the Member is unable to refer them to those appropriate authorities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise, on behalf of the Party and the other Member and myself in this House, to say that we support whatever has been said by the Prime Minister. And on behalf of the Party and us, we extend our condolences to the family of Mrs Ong.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether I heard the Minister correctly. Did he say that executives can appeal to him if they feel that they have been unfairly dismissed? If so, I would like to know where the provision is to be found in the law.”
“Is the Minister aware that the Unfair Dismissal Act exists in most enlightened countries? Why can Singapore not have one?”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister whether the Government will now consider bringing in an Unfair Dismissal Act and setting up a tribunal to hear any grievances or complaints that executives may have against their company?”
“I have another supplementary question, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether a comprehensive agreement was drawn up between the Chinese Government and the Singapore Government before we embarked on this Suzhou project, and if there was, whether any provisions were made for the resolution of any disputes that may arise by reference to arbitration or to any other international tribunal? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Of course there were agreements. There was a G-to-G agreement which governed the software transfer and there was a commercial agreement which governed their commercial development. And some of the items in the agreement were issues which were long in dispute and have taken us this long time to settle. The commercial agreement would have been subject to the investment guarantee agreement signed between Singapore and China which provides that, in case of dispute, the matter would be referred to arbitration. And that was one of the options which was considered seriously, but fortunately, the two parties were able to resolve their difficulties without having to refer to arbitration.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether it is reassuring to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister that the Government hopes that it will show returns. What I want to know from the Deputy Prime Minister is: is this a pious hope or are there any realistic expectations and, if so, when do we expect any returns? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, these are commercial propositions. There is a commercial consortium. They have spent 19 months negotiating the MOU, which they have signed. It is still not guaranteed that the project will become profitable. But they have to make the best of the project in the circumstances, and we will have to see in due course what happens. I think it is too early to speculate.”
“May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister why has the Memorandum of Understanding not been made public? I understand from the librarian that it was not presented to Parliament. May we know why? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Memorandum of Understanding is a commercial document which was published when it was signed, and it was all over the newspapers.”
“Yes. I do not think there is anything more for me to answer. I am just coming to that, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you will bear with me. I was just saying that it would appear there is nothing more to answer. Because all we have heard is just one reason. It is a pity. But I think the people of Singapore will see. They will read, I hope, something of what was said today and they will judge for themselves. In the final analysis, it is the people. And it is the people's judgement that we must accept. The conclusion I get from this evening's debate is that the PAP is not prepared to face the people and accept their verdict. Question put, and negatived. Motion accordingly negatived. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed. " - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes past Six o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 1.30 PM OVERSEAS VOTING FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS 14. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan asked the Prime Minister, for the Presidential elections, whether Singaporeans who are overseas will be allowed to vote at Singapore's missions overseas.”
“If you want, speak afterwards, Mr Simon Tay. But did you not say that there was no vacancy? If you want to clarify, you should have clarified it then. And he harps on Opposition Members failing so far. This was again taken up by the Minister. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, they say. And here is an opportunity to have just that - to see whether the Opposition Members have failed or not. Will you take up the challenge? Or will you just say, "Ah, but section 24(2A) says we don't have to." Will you take up the challenge? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Let the electorate in Jalan Besar decide whether the Opposition Members are failing or not, or whether they would like to see Opposition Members in Parliament. It is no good indulging in words without being prepared to put your words to the test. He says that the PAP has no fear. And I thought the Minister would be giving us sound reasons for not holding a by-election. But he says PM has given his reason. We should have expected greater clarification of what the PM was trying to say. But we did not get that. What was the Prime Minister saying when he said "to distract the nation from its economic activities"? What was he trying to say? Just mere words without any meaning? If there is a meaning, what is it? Let us have it. And we do not get any of these. So I do not know if there is anything else for me to answer.”
“I am afraid I cannot see the analogy. They are quite different things. And the football team which Mr Simon Tay talks about, I am afraid I cannot really see what the analogy is between a football team and having your own representatives in Parliament. But what really astounded me was Mr Simon Tay's announcement that there is no vacancy in Parliament. As I have pointed out when I spoke, the Speaker only this afternoon announced that there was a vacancy in Parliament from 2nd June this year. So what is Mr Simon Tay saying that there is no vacancy? Was the Speaker speaking out of turn when he announced that there was a vacancy?”
“I did not follow what he said about PAP having shown itself to come down on criminal activities. What has that got to do with representation in Parliament? Just because the PAP has prosecuted - is that what he is saying - Mr Choo Wee Khiang in court and had him punished, that there is no need to hold any by-election? Is that the argument? I do not quite follow that. I think almost every speaker mentioned about the practical arrangements that have been made by the PAP, how wonderful it is, that they can send Mr Heng Chee How to look after voters in Whampoa. But that again misses the point. Heng Chee How, as Mr Chiam mentioned, is not the choice of the voters yet. And he cannot by any stretch of the imagination be asked to do the work of an MP there. They need an MP to do the work in Whampoa, not Mr Heng Chee How. I think the third speaker also talked about free and fair elections. This was taken up by Mr Sin Boon Ann and Mr Simon Tay, says, "Oh, the Opposition got a sound beating in the last elections." So there is no question about Singaporeans not wanting an Opposition in Parliament, that they do not want any Opposition in Parliament. That again, with respect, ignores the realities. I have to, at the risk of repetition, go back to our own particular experience in Cheng San. Why did we lose? Because of the threats and intimidation, extra-parliamentary, extra-legal methods used by the PAP, by the Prime Minister and his two Deputy Prime Ministers invading our own pitches in Cheng San, and watching over the voters. And to say that we got a sound beating is to miss entirely the point and to see the elections through the PAP glasses. Both Mr Sin Boon Ann and Mr Simon Tay also brought up examples. Mr Sin Boon Ann talks about a board of companies losing a director.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have sat through all the speeches and, apart from the speakers from the Opposition Members in Parliament, the sum total of the answer from NMPs and PAP MPs seems to be "Section 24(2A) does not require us, so we would not hold any by-election." May I suggest that that is a lame excuse of people who fear defeats. They hide behind a legal excuse for them and not face up to the realities. I am aware of section 24(2A). I pointed out what Article 49 of the Constitution says. It does not say "leave out GRCs". It says "leave out only NCMP post", but in every other case the vacancy "shall be filled." There are no two ways of reading it. The vacancy shall be filled. As Mr Chiam pointed out, "shall be filled" cannot be interpreted as saying you do not have to hold it till the next elections. But is that how the Article is to be interpreted, that you do not have to hold any by-election? Section 24(2A), as I said, in the first place, would appear to conflict with Article 49. I am challenged to take it to court. But better than the court it would be for this House to resolve that notwithstanding section 24(2A), there should be a by-election in Jalan Besar GRC. It is within the competence of this House. Parliament can pass a resolution. So I do not have to take it to court. I come to Parliament which, as I have said, is the supreme body in a parliamentary democracy. If I may deal very briefly. As I said, the main theme seems to be that we do not have to hold it, we have got section 24(2A) behind us. The other reasons are simply just by the way. But if I may just reply to one or two of these criticisms. Mr Zulkifli Baharudin said that I had not made out a strong case. I do not know what he meant by not making out a strong case.”
“And I do appeal in this House to the Prime Minister, to the Government, and the remaining Members in Jalan Besar GRC, that they should rise above party interest, and not decide the question whether there should be a by-election purely on whether it suits the party or not, whether it may result in losing a Minister, but whether in the national interest, the Constitution requires that there should be a by-election. So I do appeal to the Government and to the Members because they can do something about this by resigning their seats in Parliament and contesting the seats all over again. If that is done, then may I say the world will see, and Singaporeans will see and understand, that this is a party, that is the ruling Party, which believes in parliamentary democracy, which believes in giving voters their rights under the Constitution, which believes that there should be an effective Opposition in Parliament and not just a party that pays lip service every time but does not believe in what it says. I hope the Prime Minister, if he is the only one who has got to decide this question, will reconsider and if there are good reasons, let us have them, but not facile reasons about economic activity coming to a standstill. Question proposed.”
“Of course, the Constitution is supreme. It takes precedence over all other laws. But, quite apart from that, section 24 (2A) is purely a procedural section. The substantive section is still Article 49. And if the only way to satisfy Article 49 is for the other members to resign, it should be done. They should resign their seats so that the by-election may be held to comply with Article 49. If that is not thought desirable, because the ruling Party fears that it may lose a Minister in Parliament, and that would be terrible, then the other alternative is to take Whampoa out of the Jalan Besar GRC and arrange for a by-election for that particular constituency. It is not good enough to say, "Well, that's going to create problems. You got to have a committee to re-draw the boundary again." In Singapore, that is no problem, as we say, because the committee is appointed by the Prime Minister. Election is all controlled by the Prime Minister. It may be a problem when you have a national elections commission. They might say, "Well, we don't think we are going to do this for you." But in Singapore it should present no problem. May I say that there is a precedent for it. Before the last general elections, MacPherson was taken out of Marine Parade GRC and made into a single constituency. So you have a precedent there. So I ask in this House: what are your reasons then for not holding any by-election in Jalan Besar GRC?”
“" But I would have thought that the arrangement would have been for Mr Choo Wee Khiang to go around in Whampoa. I see Dr Lee shake his head. He is going to tell us that all four went round each house in Jalan Besar. Let us know. But Mr Choo has been popularly referred to all the time as the Member from Whampoa. Perhaps may I also say that we suggested to the Prime Minister that if he is worried about economic activity coming to a standstill and the by-election a waste of time, he could combine the by-election with the Presidential Election which is due under the Constitution by the end of August this year. Or are we going to be told, "No, we're not going to have the Presidential Election, because that will also distract the nation from its economic activity."? Is that going to be given as a reason and the Presidential Election put off? I suppose that will be more difficult because the ruling Party will have to bring an amendment to the Constitution. I am, of course, aware - I do not want to be told that I did not mention this - that section 24(2A) of the Parliamentary Elections Act which spells out what should happen in the case of a vacancy - that a writ shall be issued, but goes on in a subsection to say that no writ shall be issued in a GRC unless all members of that GRC have vacated their seats. May I say this. It seems to me, in the first place, to conflict with Article 49 of the Constitution which says "shall be filled", and there is a vacancy. The Speaker announced at the beginning of this sitting today that there is a vacancy in Parliament. You cannot pretend that there is no vacancy. And the Article says that the "vacancy shall be filled". So the question is, does section 24(2A) of the Parliamentary Elections Act conflict with Article 49 of the Constitution?”
“So we asked: could you explain? We have never heard from him. I hope we will hear today, from whoever is replying, the true reason for this refusal to hold a by-election for Jalan Besar GRC. Is it because - and I am asking this seriously, could we have an answer to it - the ruling Party fears defeat? If that is so, then may I say it does not do the ruling Party any credit. It will be dismissed by the electorate as being a totally irresponsible party, putting its party's interest above the country's interest. In 1992, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister, partly in answer to the questions that were asked as to why the general election held in 1991 was brought forward, and whether it was to keep me out, because I was still disqualified, only waiting for another two months for the period to run out, decided that he would hold a by-election in 1992. Unfortunately, we were unable to go into it for reasons which had been explained. And we were taunted by remarks that we chickened out. May I ask: is the PAP chickening out this time? If the PAP is not chickening out, then why are we not having a by-election? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just as in the case of Anson, the general elections, if this Government decides to go its full term under the Constitution, elections will not take place for another two-and-a-half years. So for two-and-a-half years the voters in Whampoa will not have their man chosen by them. May I return to that? I have no doubt that when they canvassed in Jalan Besar GRC, it must have been Mr Choo Wee Khiang who went round the homes in Whampoa district asking the voters to vote for him, albeit as a member of a team, unless, I am told, "No, we all four went round.”
“But the worst of it, of course, is to deny through extra-parliamentary means the opposition parties obtaining representation in Parliament. I say that is "extra-parliamentary" because the Constitution speaks quite clearly that they should be allowed. You have to have a by-election to fill any vacancy and that means an opportunity for the opposition parties to take part in it. So it is for two reasons. One, for the rights of the voters in Jalan Besar GRC in their interest, and second in the national interest of the country that the Government should consider very seriously whether it is right to continue denying the voters and the people in Singapore the right to have representation in Parliament. I will deal briefly with the answers given by the Prime Minister. I am sorry that he is not here to answer these questions. After all, it is his Ministry which is responsible for holding elections. That is another thing. It breaches the system of parliamentary democracy if the holding of elections is left entirely in the hands of the Ministry, and that is the Prime Minister's Ministry. One reason given by the Prime Minister appears to be that a by-election would distract the nation from the task of economic recovery. We could not understand what he was saying. That it would distract the nation from its task of economic recovery seems to us a no answer to our question. So we asked: would you please explain what you are saying? Are you saying that if you held a by-election, all economic activity would come to an end? That people will no longer do any business? People would not go to work? The Stock Exchange would be closed? And Singapore would be at a standstill? It has only got to be stated to be dismissed. So that cannot be a valid reason. It does not stand up.”
“Sir, one Mr Andre Mathiot, writing about the British political system in 1958, had this to say: "If asked to give a single criterion of the democratic Government, I should say that it depended on the status of opposition." An opposition in Parliament and an opposition of sufficient numbers, is essential to a proper working of parliamentary democracy. That is what he is emphasizing: "If I am asked to choose a single criterion, I would say it depended on the status of opposition." So the question that will be asked by visitors to Singapore is: what is the state of the opposition in Singapore today, if you are claiming to be a democratic Government? I am not saying that you should therefore lay out the red carpet for the opposition and just invite them in. What I am saying is that the ruling party should not go out of its way to deny the opposition party an opportunity to get its representatives into Parliament on behalf of citizens who want to see an opposition in Parliament. Sir, with no disrespect to Members, may I say that no amount of Government Backbenchers asking questions of Ministers or no amount of NMPs are a substitute for opposition. So this denial of the opportunity to opposition parties to further the cause of democracy in Singapore by giving them an opportunity to have further representation in Parliament is a blatant denial of the Government's often claim that we are a parliamentary democracy. It is the same as the denial to the opposition parties outside Parliament, the refusal to let them have their meetings, the refusal for them to publicly address the people, the refusal for them to undertake any political activity without getting a licence first. They are all deliberate hindrances to the advancement of the parliamentary democracy system in Singapore.”
“I know that Singapore motorists going over the causeway have to have a three-quarter tank. Why should the voters of Jalan Besar be told: "Be content with the three-quarter tank in Parliament. You cannot have a full tank. We will give you a three-quarter tank." Why should they? Is that not a discrimination from the other GRCs which have a full complement of their representatives in Parliament? In failing to provide for a by-election, may I say that the ruling party and the remaining MPs are failing in their primary duty to the voters in Jalan Besar GRC. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Edmund Burke, the great parliamentarian, in his essay wrote about the primary duty of a Member of Parliament to constituents, and he said that must remain above all the primary concern. Should it not be the primary concern of the MPs in Jalan Besar that their constituents, their voters, have their full rights in Parliament, and not just be content with having a three-quarter representation in Parliament? I say that the remaining MPs have a duty to ensure this if they are to serve the voters in Jalan Besar GRC, let alone the voters in Whampoa. I say to them that if they want to discharge their duty, the only thing they can do is to allow another MP to be elected. If it needs for them to resign and to offer themselves for re-election, that should be done. Their own convenience and the administrative problems that they think may arise should not stand in the way of the rights of the voters. This refusal to hold a by-election is seen and perceived, not just by the Workers' Party, but by many a Singaporean, as a blatant refusal to give the opposition parties an opportunity to get into Parliament. That is again a total breach of the parliamentary system.”
“What happens is that the MPs in the previous single constituencies come together and continue to look after their particular constituencies. And so it was the case in Jalan Besar GRC. In 1988, when Jalan Besar GRC was formed, Dr Lee Boon Yang, who was already the MP for Jalan Besar, continued as one of the group MPs for Jalan Besar, and I have no doubt that he was looking after the constituency that he had been representing in Parliament in previous years. Similarly, Mr Sidek Saniff came over from Kampong Glam, when Kampong Glam became part of the group representation constituency. I see Dr Lee is shaking his head. Maybe I have not got it right. But the point is that you continue with the particular constituencies. In 1991, when Whampoa was added to Jalan Besar GRC, Mr Choo Wee Khiang took the place of Dr Augustine Tan who was the MP for Whampoa. Clearly, there was a delineation. I do not know whether it happens. Members are all shaking their heads, and I do not know how they do it. But, obviously, that must have been the practice. It has been confirmed by the fact that someone has been appointed to look after the voters in Whampoa. He is to go and advise them and take care of their affairs. They are to have a caretaker. They are to have a man appointed by the ruling party. So they are not to worry. The appointment confirms what I say. But it is not just the Whampoa voters that I am concerned with. Under the Constitution as introduced by the ruling party itself, Jalan Besar GRC voters are entitled to four MPs in Parliament. That is their constitutional right. But now they have not got four MPs in Parliament. They have only three MPs in Parliament, if you take the voters collectively in Jalan Besar GRC. Is that not a diminution of their constitutional right?”
“It is not "may be filled at the discretion of the government or of the ruling party", but "shall be filled". That was ignored by the ruling party after a by-election, which they have never forgotten, which took place in 1981. Previous to that, there were regular by-elections to fill vacancies. But after the by-election on 31st October 1981, suddenly the ruling party woke up to the fact that it would not be in the interest of the party to hold a by-election if it might mean an Opposition Member getting into Parliament. The voters in Anson were denied any representation in Parliament after the Member was forced out and they were told, "Oh, don't worry, we'll have caretaker MPs. We'll have caretakers for you." But you cannot fend off voters with nannies/caretakers. Their constitutional right is a representative in Parliament, chosen by them, not appointed by anyone, but chosen by them. So the Anson voters were denied any representation in Parliament for quite a while from 1986 until the 1988 elections, and that was for 2-2 1/2 years. It was a blatant denial of their rights and a total breach of the parliamentary democracy requirement that every voter should have a representative in Parliament. Now, it will, of course, be said, "but you have other MPs in Jalan Besar, have you not?" And so they are being represented in Parliament. But are they? And I am referring to the voters in Whampoa where Mr Choo Wee Khiang represented the voters. I know the Workers' Party has never had a GRC, but if I may explain, as I understand the anatomy of the GRC, it is that you merge three or four constituencies into a single group representation constituency.”
“This right was secured by Articles in the Constitution which required the holding of by-elections to fill any vacancy. You will find that in Article 54 of the Constitution of Malaysia which became our Constitution when we broke away from British rule and went into Malaysia as part of an independent country. If I may read Article 54 of the Constitution which we, as I said, accepted for ourselves as part of Malaysia: 'Whenever there is a casual vacancy among the Members of either House of Parliament, it shall be filled within 60 days [I repeat, it shall be filled within 60 days] from the date on which it is established that there is a vacancy and an election shall be held.' Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I repeat from that Article, "it shall be filled within 60 days . and an election shall be held." That was the Article in the Constitution when we were part of Malaysia. When we came out of Malaysia, that Article was amended, and that was possible because there were not enough Opposition Members in Parliament, probably not a single Opposition Member in Parliament, and substituted by Article 49 of our present Constitution. If I may read the first part of the Article: 'Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force.' That is all I wish to read from that Article. May I again point out that whilst this Article removes the requirement of 60 days within which the vacancy had to be filled, it still requires the vacancy to be filled, because the words are "the vacancy shall be filled by election".”
“That when we proclaim ourselves to be practising a Parliamentary system of government, do we really mean it and do we believe in it or is it merely lip service? May I say that a parliamentary system of government does not consist of having a fine building for Parliament. I do not know how much will be spent on the erection of the new Parliament House. But fine buildings do not equate with a parliamentary system of government. A parliamentary system of government can only be found in countries where Parliament is encouraged and allowed to play its full role in the parliamentary system of government, and that, as I shall say later, is only possible if every opportunity is given for Parliament to play its role. And the central gem of Parliament is that it is an institution where every voter has a representative in the institution. The parliamentary system requires that in every Parliament there should be a representative, representing every single voter in the land, and if he is denied that right, then it is a mockery of the parliamentary system of government. So, it is essential that every voter be represented in the institution that we call Parliament. And this right, of course, was inherent when, in the 1950s, we chose, as a people, the parliamentary system through the All-Party Delegation to the United Kingdom. That we would prefer to have a parliamentary system of government in preference to any other system of government. We wanted Parliament with representatives elected by the people, every single voter represented in Parliament to be the supreme body. This right was recognised and enacted in the Constitution that was handed to us in 1954, and after that. It recognised that no single voter should remain without a representation in Parliament for any length of time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House resolves that in all the circumstances it is only right and proper a Writ should be issued now to fill the vacancy in Parliament created by the resignation of Mr Choo Wee Khiang. By this motion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am asking for answers to questions which my Party has asked and which have not been answered. I hope to demonstrate in the time allotted to me the importance of the Government, the party, that is, in Singapore responsible for elections, unlike other countries where they have a National Elections Commission, giving proper and satisfactory reasons for not holding elections. We boast all the time of being accountable, transparent in all our actions. But we see very little of it in practice coming from the Government. As I said, we have asked questions which remain unanswered. We have asked for further clarification. All we get is silence. Sir, I am asking in this House today and hoping that we will get the answers here. Why is there no by-election for the constituency in Jalan Besar? This is a question that not only my Party has asked, but several Singaporeans have asked. I have been asked by many a person, "Jeyaretnam, do you think there will be a by-election for Jalan Besar?" And even before I could answer them, they say, "There never will, lah. The PAP will not hold a by-election. You know." So, I hope that we will have satisfactory answers if the decision is still not to hold a by-election. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 4.28 pm The answer to the question on whether there should be or should not be a by-election depends, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on what we understand to be a Parliamentary system of government, and whether we believe in what we say.”
“May I ask whether the Senior Parliamentary Secretary will answer my question about releasing the investigation report when it is all completed. Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Yes, of course. Once the charges are preferred the Professional Engineers' Board would take action, and at the same time the Building and Construction Authority is likely to prefer charges. Once these charges are made, the due process of appeal must be allowed, and these would obviously be made public.”
“Give the name of the company. Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: The names of the developer, the contractor, the M&E engineers, the structural engineers and the quantity surveyors are all there.”
“Sir, may I follow up on the question asked by Mdm Claire Chiang about releasing the names of the structural consultants? We were told that it cannot be released. May I know why not? What is the reason for not releasing the names? The second question is this. We were told that there will be no Commission of Inquiry but there is an investigation underfoot. Has the investigation been completed and will it be made public? When they are completed, will we have a full report? Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee: Sir, while a Commission of Inquiry is not necessary, the BCA has done preliminary investigations and they would likely prefer charges against the engineers or parties involved in the faulty design. The Senior Minister of State for Education did not release the names of the engineers involved because this is already obvious. If he goes to the school that was under construction, he will see the names of the developer, the consultants and the M&E plastered on the board. Because we are taking legal advice from the Attorney-General's Chambers, and there are likely to be some charges preferred against the parties concerned, we would not release their names in this Parliament. But if he wants to know their names, he could just go to the school and he would see their names plastered on the board there.”
“We should not prosecute any Opposition politician because he seeks to address Singaporeans on issues that concern them, because he has not got a permit from the Police. If that is how Singapore is going to be run, then we are never going to get Singaporeans feeling passionately, becoming active participants and deciding on the goals. We must remove them from being just passive spectators, unable to do anything about deciding the country's policies and its future, into people who feel that they are active players and they can only do this if you remove all the restraints. If you do not, we will continue as we have over the last 45 years, and this talk about the vision for Singapore 21st century will only remain as mere words, platitudes with no political will on the part of the Government to bring it into reality.”
“Yes, you will get Singaporeans who are only anxious to make their own progress joining in. But Singaporeans who feel passionately about the goals and values will not join in if they are told this is it, these are the four lines, and you must work within it. No self-respecting person will want to come into that. I say this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from experience that I have found from the time I went into politics in 1971. The Opposition have been made to feel that they had no place in Singapore, they were not Singaporeans, they were the enemies of the people. When I was in Parliament in 1981 to 1986, I was told by the present Senior Minister, then the Prime Minister, that I had to be destroyed because I was against the system. Of course, the question is: what was the system that I was against? It was not the democratic system. I was against the system that was operating in Singapore. So this is it. In Singapore today, and it has been over the last 40 years, anyone who gets out of the line, steps out, is dealt with very harshly. It would appear that loyalty to Singapore is equated with loyalty to the Government and to the PAP. But that conception has to be erased completely. People have to be told quite deliberately that loyalty to Singapore can mean, and may mean, at times differing from whatever the Government puts up as the goal or policy for Singapore and they would be allowed and given every opportunity to voice their views. That is not possible in Singapore. So I do not know how we can talk about the vision for the next century or the next millennium without first freeing our people from the straitjackets into which they have been put. We have got to loosen up, and that has no place in this report at all. We should allow public meetings.”
“How do we get Singaporeans to find answers collectively to the problems of the country? The Report is a complete silence. And then it says again somewhere, "we must become active citizens who are participants, not mere observers in building the Singapore we want for the future." Yes, we agree. But what do we propose should be done to make Singaporeans become active citizens, participants, in building the society we want for the future? One would have expected all that in this Report, but there is nothing in it. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have, in this House, moved a number of motions, attempting to place before the House what I thought were necessary for Singapore's progress into the 21st century. One of these was my motion on the removal of fear. You cannot, Mr Deputy Speaker, just poo-poo the idea that Singaporeans are living in fear. It is a reality. One encounters it everywhere. And unless this fear is removed and Government goes about it deliberately to remove the fear, Singaporeans will not participate actively in building the society. Singaporeans will not feel passionate about the goals that the Government has laid out for them. The Minister says that Singapore 21 is not a Government concept. I beg to disagree. It reads very much like what the Government wants the people to be. It is social engineering all over again of our society for the 21st century. It does not come from the citizens. In Singapore, it would appear that the rule is: you can only participate within the parameters that we lay down, that is, the Government, the ruling Party, lays down. If you step outside the parameters, then, you suffer; you pay the consequences for that. Can you get Singaporeans to be involved and participate actively if that is the rule?”
“" So the lesson that one can learn from this survey is that if we wish to motivate our citizens, if we wish to drive them to greater heights, then we should give them more direct participation in the policy making. And, of course, we know that in Switzerland, they have a referendum for almost every new law that they wish to pass or make any changes. The citizens feel that they are part of the country and they are asked their views on what should be done for the country. The Report reproduces part of the Prime Minister's speech at the National Day Rally in 1996, where the Prime Minister is reported to have said, "I say to all Singaporeans, you have to feel passionately about Singapore. Being Singaporeans should resonate in our hearts and minds." May I ask, when does one feel passionate about anything? Does one feel passionate when one has had no hand in the creation of something of which one is asked to feel passionate, if one is made to feel that he is an outsider, he has got nothing to do with the creation of that thing? Or does he feel passionate when he is invited to work together to create whatever he is asked to feel passionate about? I should have thought the answer was obvious. Singaporeans would feel passionate if they felt that they were being consulted, they were being listened to and they were being given a hand in formulating the policies and goals for this society. Another statement in this Report that I found amusing was that it says that Singaporeans must all put on our thinking caps together to find answers. This is all, as I said, great words. But the Report is abysmally silent on how we reach these goals. How do we get Singaporeans to feel passionate about Singapore?”