Lee Siew-Choh
Singapore
“Sir, of course, this is going back to old history. He is asking whether such a thing has happened? I say it has. That was in 1972. But it is no use my going back on what had happened then. In fact, I did consult a lawyer and was thinking of taking up an election petition. But, unfortunately, so many other things happened.”
“One final word, Sir. I can assure the Minister that many violations had been committed in past elections. Do you believe that if we make a protest, it will be published in the newspapers?”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 12, to leave out "4" and insert "30". Sir, I have also other amendments (Cols. 291 - 294) to clauses 8, 9, 16, 22, 23, 25, 31 and 36. All my amendments are related to the process of election of the President, though on different aspects. Perhaps it might be convenient to consider all of them here.”
“Consequent on what the Minister has just said, the Government is very keen on market forces and they want conclusive results of the new system. Dr John Chen has already asked the question whether those people who make high bids be made to pay the amount of the bid so that they will not make high bids.”
“Sir, the date of the Observer article was 28th April and it states: 'Arms from China and North Korea are being shipped through Singapore where they are being reloaded.' Is that true or not true? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Standing Order No.”
“Has the Minister read of an article in the Observer in late April about shipments being transhipped in Singapore? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what Observer article the Member is referring to, but we have no records of transfers taking place.”
The complete record
Every one of 828 lines we hold for Lee Siew-Choh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 17.
“And in Singapore recently, we have also an instance in which the Privy Council in the UK has pronounced that grievous wrongs have been done to a famous lawyer/politician by the courts in Singapore. It is understandable and generally accepted by many people that the death penalty may be given for murders and certain horrible crimes committed, for armed robbery, hijacking, kidnapping, and so on. But if I may also quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "It has not been proved to be a better deterrent or to protect the community better than does life imprisonment." And that is why by the 1970s the death penalty has been eliminated as a statutory punishment in many Western and even South American countries. Moreover, some religions are also opposed in principle to the taking of life in giving retribution. And today the world is moving away from the death penalty towards a more humane method of punishment. Singapore has instituted compulsory treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts who have been arrested. But what else has the Government done to get to the root of the problem? There is much talk about a global context in supply and demand, about our geographical exposure and vulnerability as published in magazines and articles, about poor family life and so on. But has the Government conducted an official survey to really find out why many people take to drugs? Or what steps the Government may take to improve the social environment and other factors so that the would-be drug addicts may be directed away from the drugs to more healthy channels of development? Sir, drug problems are problems of people who use drugs as a relief or means of escape from reality on the one side, and of those who hope to gain financially by supplying drugs to the drug addicts on the other.”
“Considering the great harm, Sir, that drug traffickers have done to society, it is easily understandable that such punishment be meted out to them. But how many of those arrested are really the masterminds and kingpins of local or international organised drug syndicates? And how many of these drug kingpins have really been arrested? As is well known, most of those arrested and given the death penalty are in fact mere hirelings and tools who have been tempted with big rewards to do errands for the real culprits who continue to remain free of the law. To me, Sir, the real issue before us should in fact be how best to deal with the drug problem. But Government has taken the easy way out. It seems to believe that the death penalty is a solution to the problem. But is it? Singapore has imposed the death penalty for drug traffickers over the last 12 years. Yet despite the death penalty, now and again we find that more and more drug traffickers have been arrested with more than 15 grammes of heroin on them. Experience, therefore, shows that the death penalty has not proved to be a real deterrent. And certainly it has not solved the drug problem which now and again would surface to become a growing menace to society. Neither has the death penalty been able to solve the problem of small-time pushers called "ant traffickers". Thus, the death penalty as a deterrent clearly does not work. Moreover, there is always the danger of the court making a terrible mistake, as has already been touched on. In the UK, such mistakes have been publicly admitted and the government has to make substantial compensation for wrongful imprisonment of innocent persons.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill with reservation. The so-called necessary amendments proposed in the Bill, apart from the urine test amendment, certainly make the Misuse of Drugs Act one of the toughest in the world against drug addicts and drug traffickers. Firstly, any person convicted a second time, as the Minister has already indicated, having smoked or consumed a controlled drug will now be given a prison term of not less than three years, whether or not he was previously under supervision. That appears to me very unfair. This would be especially harsh on an old opium addict who has been taking the drug almost his whole lifetime. Second, inmates in rehabilitation centres may now be given corporal punishment for breaches of discipline when no such punishment has been given before. The Government seems to take a special delight in inflicting bodily harm and pains with the cane against those afflicted, as Dr Beng has said, with medico-social problems, and at a time when most progressive countries are doing away with using the cane on offenders. Indeed, Sir, it would appear that inflicting harsher and harsher punishments on offenders is the one and only approach of the PAP Government in dealing with social problems in Singapore. For example, vagrants could now be sent to prison for three years when the Government should have gone into why some people have become vagrants. Similarly, the cane is used on illegal immigrants when better supervision by the Immigration authorities could have solved most of the problems of illegal immigrants. Thirdly, and now in the Bill before us, the death penalty is to be further extended to cover also traffickers of cocaine, cannabis and cannabis resin of certain quantities.”
“May I have a few words of clarification, Sir, since the Member has asked for it? May I speak in Mandarin?”
“You can be assured that the First Deputy Prime Minister will not give way to arguments at all. He will push the Bill through. 12.59 pm”
“Just one more word, Sir. Mr Speaker: Could you make your clarification?”
“I have always been singled out for distinction, and this time of having created the dominant party in the PAP. If I had such powers, Sir, I can assure you that it would not have been the PAP but the Barisan. Another thing, Sir, it has always been said that we had taken to the streets. "Taken to the streets" meant that we were almost taking to armed struggle. But what we did was only extra-parliamentary struggle which was, and still is, a form of parliamentary struggle. And if we had to go out into the streets occasionally to demonstrate, that was what was, and is, being carried out by Opposition parties all over the world. There is nothing wild in that. And another thing, Sir, I, as one-time Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, of course had a great say in many of the things that happened in the party then. But to give me the honour of having been the one and only person who decided on the fate of the party is not fair to other Barisan leaders and also not correct. All our decisions were made not by one man. I can assure you, Sir, that our decisions in the Barisan Sosialis at any time were much more democratic than decisions in the PAP. And as you might know, we withdrew from the PAP because there was no intra-party democracy. And even today, I can sense that that is actually what is happening still in the PAP. Decisions are all made by a few people at the top. And after these decisions have been made, the decisions are announced to the Backbenchers and whoever happen to be around, and maybe they are allowed to say a few words. But the decision has been made. They do not listen to your arguments. Even today, the First Deputy Prime Minister has already said that he wants new amendments in the Bill.”
“Even if the Government should not repeal the ISA today, would the Government consider relaxing the conditions on political detainees and release them unconditionally and immediately? I refer in particular to Chia Thye Poh who has been in prison for more than 23 years. The Minister should know that.”
“If it is the intention of the Government to get the better qualified students to go into the better quality schools, wouldn't it be better, to save the spectacle of causing inconvenience and loss of face to parents, for the Government to select a group of students who should be in the better schools rather than asking them to go by themselves?”
“Would it not benefit all the children in all the schools if the Government should raise the standard and quality of all the schools?”
“The Minister has said something about the desirability of a higher quality of education and the wish of parents. Does he imply that the parents of other schools are not desirous of a higher quality of education?”
“Would the Minister agree that the refusal makes nonsense of its claim that it wanted to offer the indemnity to put verifiable facts before the British public?”
“Would the Minister explain why the Government has refused to waive the diplomatic immunity for the High Commission in London for his letter to The Times?”
“Would the Minister agree that any offer of indemnity is quite different from ordinary costs and that in the circumstances permission has to be obtained from Parliament first?”
“If that should be the intention, Sir, should not the Government have first sought permission from Parliament before instituting such an expenditure? Prof. Jayakumar; Mr Speaker, Sir, we have many missions and ambassadors abroad. One of their tasks is to ensure that the reputation and integrity of Singapore and its institutions are not maligned, distorted and discredited without grounds. It is their duty, whenever such attempts are made, to correct and rebut the false allegations and we expect them to do so on their own as quickly as possible without having to come to this House, summon a special meeting of this House and to get permission from this House. It is a normal accepted function of any diplomatic mission of Singapore.”
“Would the Minister say where provisions have been made for such expenditure in the 1989/90 budget?”
“Does the Government realise that there are people who do not buy these phonecards? They have great difficulty in using phones when they have to queue up for the single coinphone? Mr Ho Kah Leong: Sir, the trouble with the NCMP is that he thinks the world works the way he fancies. In my reply, it is very clear that the cardphones are gaining popularity among our population. Even after the coinphones are phased out, the public who do not buy the cardphones can still use coinaphones, which are widely available in Singapore. So the public will not be inconvenienced. SINGAPORE POLICE OFFICERS IN NAMIBIA (Progress report) 7. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will give a progress report of the activities of the 21 Singapore police officers serving as UNTAG peace monitors in Namibia.”
“I hope, in conclusion, that Singapore will not also be known internationally as a country that enacts uncivilized, barbaric laws against the people. Caning as a form of punishment for non-violent crimes should be abolished. Let Singapore become a really civilized nation.”
“But employers of illegal immigrant workers are merely businessmen with an eye to quick profits, as was pointed out by Mr Philip Tan, and I agree with him. Instead of caning, why not impose on them heavy fines and prison terms, even for aggravated offenders? That should be sufficient punishment to fit the crime. That would be a more civilized punishment for those who traffic in, or employ illegal immigrant workers, than caning which is degrading, brutal and barbaric. We are living in the late 20th century. We are not living in the Dark Ages. After the first amendment to the Immigration Act and the arrest of illegal immigrant workers, overstayers and non-overstayers, there was a great outcry from neighbouring countries. We all remember what a difficult time the Singapore Government had in its relations with Thailand, India and other countries on the matter. Perhaps face was saved all round in the end. And it could be said that all is well. But has all really ended well? The whole affair has exposed the non-caring, callous and sadistic nature of the Singapore Government as well as its braggadocio and unnecessary arrogance in its assertions of Singapore independence in decision-making. Unnecessary! This is not going to help Singapore to win friends from abroad. Instead, it will only go to create unhappy feelings and even hostility among people who are now our friends. The present punishment to provide for caning for traffickers and employers of illegal immigrant workers may not cause any international commotion. But caning as a punishment is not the mark of a modern progressive nation. Singapore has already gained the unsavoury distinction of being a country that does not uphold justice for the people.”
“In fact, the Minister has usurped the functions of the Court. It is the Minister who is passing the sentence, not the Judge. It is not unlike a form of justice meted out by a kangaroo court. The Minister in effect says that the amendment is introduced in an attempt to show the world (well, not in those exact words) that the Government is even-handed. And indeed, that is what the whole idea of the Bill is about. Because the law now inflicts mandatory caning on illegal immigrant workers who are overstayers, Government argues that it is fair to inflict mandatory caning also on traffickers and employers of illegal immigrant workers. But the argument is fallacious. Caning of illegal immigrants is already morally wrong. Caning of traffickers or employers is also morally wrong, in spite of what Dr Beng says. And the two wrongs do not make one right. The press has also pointed out possible difficulties in pinpointing who the employer is in certain cases. Moreover, as we all know, there are various stages of sub-contracting in the construction industry. Some people argue that traffickers of illegal immigrant workers deserve to be punished and punished more severely. I would agree, Sir. However, I disagree that caning be used as a form of punishment in this kind of offence. I believe that punishment must really fit the crime. As far as I know, in general, there are two categories of crimes: violent and non-violent. The punishment of caning could be excused for those who commit violent crimes like armed robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping. But caning could not be excused for the offence of illegal immigrant workers overstaying, trafficking, and employment of illegal immigrant workers. Traffickers of illegal immigrant workers may be said to be unscrupulous.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I had opposed punishment of illegal immigrant workers by mandatory caning in the debate on the amendment to the Immigration Act in January this year. I now similarly oppose punishment by mandatory caning in the present Immigration (Amendment No. 2) Bill, and for good reasons, Sir. Caning is a brutal, barbarous form of punishment. It is demeaning both to those who are punished and to those who inflict the punishment. It is a punishment presently meted out to those who have committed the most serious and heinous crimes like armed robbery and the like. Nevertheless, because caning is a punishment that goes so very much against civilized thinking and morality it now has been abolished in not civilized countries for even the most serious crimes. But Singapore has bucked against the universal trend. Contrary to what Mr Philip Tan has said, caning was not introduced as a punish- ment for criminals. In 1966, the PAP Government introduced caning as a form of punishment against political opponents for so-called vandalism. It was a most savage attack on political opponents by a most undemocratic government. In 1984, the Government introduced caning as a form of punishment for the "offence of engaging in the business of or trade or knowingly transporting prohibited immigrants." But here, the convicted offenders were only liable to caning. There was no mandatory caning. That is, the Judge would decide, on the concrete circumstances obtaining, whether or not to inflict caning on the person to be punished. The present Bill, however, provides for mandatory caning for traffickers, for employers who knowingly employ more than five illegal immigrant workers. In mandatory caning, the Judge no longer has any say in the matter of punishment of the offender.”
“Not different, Sir. Abortion is $5. Fees for fourth baby, $1,300. I am asking: why the difference?”
“Since abortion and sterilization is charged only $5/- each , how is it that the third, the fourth and the fifth child are charged exorbitant fees?”
“Does retention in the Singapore Pools Limited mean that it is somewhat the same as paid to the Consolidated Fund in any way?”
“Sir, what period of education does the Minister envisage?”
“If they were here, surely they know what they are going to do?”
“Will the Government give an assurance that when a treaty or an agreement comes about, no nuclear weapons will be stationed in Singapore? Mr Peter Sung: That is a very hypothetical question. We will deal with that question, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when it arises.”
“It is not hypothetical, Sir. I said "envisage".”
“Does the Government envisage having nuclear weapons stationed in Singapore?”
“How does one differentiate a Minister from an MP who is very closely connected with the Minister?”
“How is the present system of the PAP raising money different from the Recruit affair in Japan?”
“Were these guests in some way connected with the business of government?”
“Were guests told or was it suggested to the guests that they had to pay certain sums as in America?”
“Were the guests selected only on a party basis or was there a public announcement that it was a public donation dinner?”
“How were the guests selected? Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that question should actually be addressed to the PAP. But since he has asked, I will answer. We have a fund-raising committee comprising Backbenchers. Ministers are not involved. As you know, the Party has supporters amongst all strata of the population and we leave it to the fund-raising committee to select our supporters who feel a desire to contribute to the Party.”
“It is not difficult to understand why people like him. Anyone who sees him will know his unassuming attitude and character. His smiling face, his easy and loving manner in which he talks to the people have won the hearts of all the people. He does not exhibit the arrogance of power. Nor does he exhibit the overwhelming pride which goes with that post. Mr Wee is indeed a true and excellent President of the people. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the word "People's President" has been mentioned by the speakers who spoke before me. We have used these words in different contexts. That shows his true character. He is indeed a President of the people. There is a Tamil proverb which very aptly describes in four words how Government leaders should behave. It says, "people follow their king". The meaning of this proverb is that the conduct and character of Government leaders set an example for the people. The state of the nation reflects the state of its leaders. This is very important indeed, more so for the highest post in the nation. In fact, President Wee acts as an example for all citizens of Singapore. We look at President Wee and are proud to say that he is our President. I give my wholehearted support to this motion to re-elect him as President.”
“Another related issue, Sir, is the Elected President. When first elected President in 1985, there was some uncertainty as to how long Mr Wee Kim Wee would remain in office. The Prime Minister had said then that Mr Wee's term of office might be less than four years. Those words were widely interpreted as semi-official intimation that the Prime Minister would soon step down from the premiership and that he would then take over from Mr Wee to become the first Elected Executive President of Singapore. It would appear, Sir, that the time-table of Government plans have now been changed. Or have these plans been shelved? I am sure the Prime Minister would like to enlighten the House on such an important matter, if not today then in the near future. Finally, Sir, let me say that we are all indeed very happy to learn that Mr Wee has fully recovered from his recent illness. It is my earnest hope and, I believe, that of all the people in Singapore that the President and Mrs Wee Kim Wee will continue to enjoy the best of health during the next four years and long after that to a ripe old age. Mr K. Shanmugam (Sembawang GRC)( In Tamil): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am happy to support the motion standing in the name of the Hon. Prime Minister. Of all the motions accepted by this House till tocay, I have no doubt that this motion to re-elect Mr Wee Kim Wee as the President will get the overwhelming support of all the people. Before his election as President, Mr Wee Kim Wee has served our country in various posts and fields. In 1985 and this year, many Members who have known him well, have described him and spoken about his character and qualifications. I do not know him personally. Like other citizens, I have seen him in public functions.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we in the Workers' Party fully support the election of Mr Wee Kim Wee as President of the Republic of Singapore for a further term of office. I also fully endorse the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister and the other two speakers before me. On this issue, I would dare say that both Government and the Opposition, although Mr Chiam has not yet spoken, have complete identity of views. Singapore has been most fortunate in having Mr Wee Kim Wee as President. He is friendly and he gets on very well with everyone. He is unassuming, he is well-respected, and popularly accepted as President of Singapore by people of all strata in our society. Far back in 1985 when Mr Wee was first elected President of Singapore and I was asked my personal opinion about him, my answer then was that Mr Wee was the most suitable choice and that the Government had done a good job in electing him. Today, I would like to say the same again. I believe that Mr Wee is easily the best choice in the land for this high office. However, we in the Workers' Party, and I dare say the great majority of people in Singapore, have been most disappointed that the President has not agreed to remove the conviction of our Party Secretary-General, Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, though of course we realize that the President has no choice in the matter.”
“Clarification, Sir. The Minister says that I have contradicted myself. I do not think so. What he is trying to tell us is that because there is a good crime situation today, that is entirely because of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. What I am suggesting to him is that the situation is good and it is not necessary to have such a law because, in the first place, such laws are only used when there is a bad crime situation. Has he ever tried, for example, to see what sort of crime a situation there is if no detendtion orders are issued? Has he compared the results? If he says the ASEAN Parliamentarians have recommended detention without trial, have these countries really implemented that law? In which case, how can he bring that example to show that we need such a law?”
“No country that claims to be a democracy, parliamentary or otherwise, should have such detention laws except in a real emergency, in which case Parliament should meet to decide on the powers necessary to deal with the situation. But we have no emergency in Singapore today. All is peace and quiet. There is hardly any strike, no riots, nor are there large scale organized crimes. If there are illegal strikes in essential services, Government could easily deal with them through other existing laws, for example, the Industrial Relations Act. If there are drug traffickers, there is the Misuse of Drugs Act. If there are other serious crimes, then there is the Penal Code. So what is there that makes it so necessary to continue with this law of detention without trial? There is no good reason and the Government extends the life of this law with but one full intention, namely to strike fear in the hearts of the people. I suggest, Sir, it is time that the law be scrapped.”
“And following that, the next year, the maximum period of detention of 2 years was lifted and the detention order can now be extended again and again ad infinitum. The result is that a criminal law detainee could be detained for 10 or 20 years. Of course, the longer a person can be detained, the longer he will be subject to fear, and that is what the PAP is trying to do. Sir, everybody knows that South Africa is a fascist state. Yet, a detention order in South Africa does not exceed 3 years. A life sentence is after all only 20 years, and with remissions, the prison term may be reduced to only 13 years. Does the Government also intend to detain criminal law detainees for 23 years or more as it has detained Chia Thye Poh? Is such a detention fair and just? According to press reports, there were 1,500 criminal law detainees at the beginning of this year. I have been told that some criminal law detainees have been detained for more than 10 years. How many have been detained for 10 years? The Minister has not told us. How many have been detained for 5 years? Neither has this been revealed. How many have been put under supervision, and how many have been issued with special identity cards? From the figures that the Minister has revealed, how many are real drug traffickers and drug abusers? We would like the Minister to give us the true facts and figures. Sir, we give our fullest support to the fight against crime, especially drug traffickers. We also give our fullest support to the fight against gangsterism and secret society lawlessness. But the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, like the Internal Security Act which provides for detention without trial, is an anomaly in our modern society today.”
“The law gives very wide powers to the Police and there is always a possibility of abuse. If the Police has insufficent evidence, then the criminal detention law should not be made as a short cut to laborious and painstaking investigations. The law provides certain safeguards as the Minister has tried to tell us. But much hinges on the police report. And the Advisory Committee is after all only advisory. It does not have executive powers and cannot order the release of any person already detained by the Police. Ultimately, all decisions rest in the hands of the Minister. Section 30 tells us that all that is required is that the Minister is "satisfied" with the material provided in the police report and the person can well lose his liberty and be detained for many years. "Satisfied". How can we be sure that this satisfaction is not whimsical? Detention without trial may accord with legislation passed in Parliament by the PAP government, but that is not in accordance with the concept of the rule of law, as I have been told, that is accepted by all civilized countries. It is, in fact, the very negation of the rule of law, also guaranteed by Article 9 of the Constitution. Therefore, Government should not continue to ignore the concept of law that is practised by all civilized countries. Section 30 of the Act also deals with the period of detention and supervision. In 1958, the period of detention was only for 6 months, with a maximum of 2 years in all if the detention order was extended from time to time. In 1959, after the PAP took office, the Government quickly extended the period of detention from 6 months to 1 year.”
“It would appear, Sir, to be more correct for him to say that the PAP cannot rule Singapore without the ISA and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. The law is entitled "Temporary". It is a misnomer. Criminal detention without trial has become a permanent feature of PAP rule and Government should therefore give the Act its proper title. Since it is a law of detention of criminals without trial, why not simply call it "Criminal Law Detention Without Trial Act", rather than say "Temporary Provisions"? Government should call a spade a spade, and it could at least honestly say that it does not camouflage the title in order to mislead the people. A frequently used excuse for the need of the criminal detention law is that it is difficult to get witnesses to give evidence in court because of the fear of reprisals from accomplices of the convicted gangster. In certain cases, Sir, if there is such a fear, then it is the duty of the police to provide all the protection that is necessary. Also, the judge could decide whether or not it is appropriate for the person to give evidence in open court in the concrete circumstances. It is difficult to imagine that with all the modern equipment and cooperation from the public today, the Police should still find it almost impossible to collect sufficient evidence to convict a criminal if he is really guilty, even if he should be a drug trafficker. The Workers' Party feels that if the Police has enough evidence to detain a person, then that evidence should be placed before an open court, and the person concerned should be given an opportunity to present his case so that an impartial judge may determine whether or not a mistake has been made by the Police.”
“The short answer, Sir, is that there are no good reasons, no really valid reasons. Powers of detention without trial are exceptional, extraordinary powers and there is no exceptional, extraordinary crime situation in Singapore today to justify the continued extension of such powers. But the PAP Government, nevertheless, wants to extend the life of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. What then is the real reason? The only reason, I believe, is that the PAP Government does not want to give up any of the powers it now holds and it, in fact, wants to arm itself with even more and more dictatorial powers over the people. The PAP has ruled Singapore for 30 years. How has this been done? Mainly, I suggest, by striking fear in the hearts of would-be opponents. Section 30, (previously to be section 55) of this criminal law is intended to, and indeed does, terrorize many people with fear of prolonged detention without trial. Think of the recent amendments, Sir, to the Constitution, the Internal Security Act, the Legal Profession Act, and the Judicial Committee Act. All of them are intended to strike fear in the hearts of political opponents in various ways. Now, add to these amendments, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. Powers in the hands of Government are now total and complete, and armed with powers from these laws Government may arbitrarily arrest and detain without trial for prolonged periods any person, political opponent, critic, or anyone called a "criminal". This is how the PAP has ruled Singapore for 30 years and hopes to maintain its rule for years to come. The First Deputy Prime Minister said that the PAP cannot rule Singapore without the ISA.”
“There are comparatively few cases of gang lawlessness and of secret society thugs brazenly terrorizing law-abiding people going about their normal business. Where then is the need for the laws of criminal detention without trial? I object to criminal detention without trial. In 1958 when the British colonialists introduced detention without trial, they said that it was "only the exceptional gravity of the present state of gang lawlessness which compels the Government to seek these exceptional powers for immediate use". That is, the crime situation then was of exceptional gravity. In 1959, the then PAP Government said in a similar vein, that "the situation is extraordinary and, therefore, it is necessary that the Government seeks extraordinary powers to deal with this very abnormal criminal situation". That is, it was only because of the crime situation in the 1950's being of exceptional gravity, extraordinary and very abnormal, that the Government sought exceptional, extraordinary powers of detention without trial. Such extraordinary, very abnormal crime situations no longer exist in Singapore today. Moreover, we have a much more professional and efficient Police Force, armed with the most modern up-to-date equipment aided by the Neighbourhood Watch Groups and crime prevention committees. And the press has also highlighted the effective policing and its close cooperation with the public. The YearBook does not fail to praise the Police. Sir, in short, everything tells us that the crime situation in Singapore is well under control. Even foreign visitors, as the Minister has said, have said that only very minor crimes are seen in our city. Why then the need to extend the life of criminal detention law for another five years? What good reason is there?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot support this Bill because there are several aspects of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act which are very unsatisfactory. The criminal detention law, as its very name implies and makes clear, was supposed to have been a temporary law, operational for only a limited period, and to have been revoked the moment it was deemed unnecessary. But except for a part of the law concerning the control of supplies to the then Federation of Malaya, the law has not been revoked. Instead, more provisions like the special identity cards for criminal supervisees have been added. Government has always found excuses to say that the Act is needed. Their pet excuse, as the Minister has aptly put it, is for the maintenance of public safety, peace and good order, and because it happens to be an effective weapon. Is the Government saying that, without the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, there will be no public safety, peace and good order? If that is so, then all the funds spent on modernizing the Police Force and the Singapore Armed Forces would have been totally wasted. How real is this need to keep extending the life of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act? Are conditions in the late 1980's today the same conditions that existed in the 1950's? What is our crime situation today? The Minister has already said that the crime rate has gone down. The Straits Times echoes that. Sir, it is true that all types of crimes still abound. They are part and parcel of the free market, free enterprise system that we have in Singapore. But these crimes are mostly crimes committed by individuals. They are certainly not committed in most cases by organized or major gangs and secret societies. Gang fights are very infrequent.”
“Would the Minister still explain what is "misleading"?”
“The amendments moved by the Minister will give them more powers and facilities to enable them to conduct investigations into corrupt cases with better efficiency and thoroughness. It is hoped that CPIB officers with added powers will also be able to exercise such powers with care and fairness to ensure that innocent people will not be victimized or suffer any unfair treatment. After the passage of this amendment Bill, cases of corruption will naturally decrease. Senior officers both in the Government services and in the private sector will also be able to continue to set good examples of integrity to the people of Singapore. This kind of corruption-free society of equal opportunity will encourage the people of Singapore to achieve success through their own effort and merits. It is not easy to achieve integrity of public organizations which is a precious asset to our country. Through this amendment Bill, we will be able to continue to preserve suchstate of integrity in Singapore. I support the amendment Bill moved by the Minister.”
“Thanks to the relentless efforts and the determination of the Government in combating corruption for the past 29 years, Singapore has now achieved international reputation as a clean, honest and efficient country. It is an achievement not easily attained, and it has brought about prosperity and peace to all our citizens. Sir, last week we read in the Business Times that Singapore has been rated highest in terms of competitiveness (ahead of Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea) in a group of 10 Newly Industrialised Economies (NIEs). This finding is contained in "The World Competitiveness Report of 1989" - a clear reference to Singapore's attractiveness as an investment centre. I believe, Sir, the amendments prescribing heavier penalties in this Bill would be welcomed by many of our citizens and viewed in its correct perspective, that is, as a means to safeguard, protect and preserve a valuable national asset (the integrity and honesty of our public institutions). This is a priceless asset that has taken us three decades to build. With regard to the additional powers granted to the CPIB, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Law whether there will be sufficient check against any abuse of power although he has informed the Housethat these additional powers will be used only in "exceptional situations". On this note, Sir, I once again support the amendments in this Bill. 2.30 pm. Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill moved by the Minister for Law. I have read the Hansard report of the previous Parliament regarding the investigation committee on Teh Cheang Wan's case. Obviously all people would like the CPIB to be very meticulous and thorough in their investigation into corrupt cases.”
“As I said, Sir, information is difficult to come by and we should encourage whatever information that is available if we are serious in detecting and preventing corruption. But the Bill does not encourage but discourage people from giving information to the CPIB. Information honestly given should not be penalized. Otherwise no one would dare give any information about suspected corruption offences to the CPIB. I support the principle of prevention of corruption but I cannot support the Bill that discourages the giving of information. Indeed, Sir, the Bill gives the impression that it is intended not to encourage the giving of information but, on the contrary, to discourage the giving of information. Therefore, Sir, I cannot support the Bill. Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Eunos GRC)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, I support the amendments proposed in the Bill. Having listened to the arguments put forward by the Minister for Law, I am convinced of the necessity to impose stiffer penalties in today's circumstances to check corrupt practices. Sir, all of us know that corruption is something that is not easily seen or detected and that it takes long time to uncover. More often than not, its detection depends on the willingness of the parties involved to volunteer information and cooperate closely with the CPIB by reporting such malpractices. And in this regard, I disagree with Dr Lee that the amendments in this Bill well discourage people from giving information. Corruption is a serious offence and anybody who wishes to offer information must be serious about it, because the penalty involved is severe.”