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 15 of 17.
“I would like this question, Sir, to be settled because they affect quite a number of people. On the question of the sale of premises, in Chinatown for example, quite a number of these buildings have been sold. I would like to know when refurbished and renovated, will the old buildings, now controlled buildings, be sold at reasonable prices to sitting tenants? Secondly, in owner-occupied premises, will the owner be allowed to renovate within his own means? Or will he be forced to adhere strictly to URA guidelines and specifications? In premises recently acquired by URA, where the sitting tenant is the past owner, will the URA release back to the past owner the premises acquired and allow him to carry out renovations according to URA guidelines?”
“Sir, I try to link up all the three Bills since the Minister himself has said that his remarks and comments cover all the three Bills.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I must also say that in the circumstances obtaining in Singapore today, the Workers' Party is not against the decontrol of controlled premises. Some buildings are very old and dilapidated. And together with the planning and all that, I agree that some form of renovations of conservation areas should be carried out. But speaking of conservation area, Sir, now buildings works is defined as "any decorative, painting, renovation or building works......, whether external or internal, of any building, premises or land situated within a conservation area." So from this definition, any painting is considered renovation. In Hill Street, Sir, near the place where I work, a coat of whitewash and a little paint externally is all that the URA has done. Nothing more. If that is considered renovation, then surely that is a fraud on the people. Many buildings have been acquired by the URA and today the Government is the biggest landlord in Singapore. Many people are affected and there is growing concern among sitting tenants, and we would like the Government to give us some clear indication as to how they would deal with certain issues. As these renovated buildings will ultimately be considered developed buildings, I suppose new rentals will be imposed and other plans will be carried out. I would like, the Minister to give us clear indications on certain questions. Mr Speaker: Dr Lee, can I know which Bill you are referring to?”
“If that is the interpretation or meaning, then, of course, I withdraw. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 to 3 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 -”
“I repeatedly said that I do not allege that the judges did it. An hon. Member: Then withdraw.”
“Do those words mean that I said that judges struck him off?”
“I am not against the judges, Sir. I do not see why I should withdraw those words. I do not understand.”
“No, Sir, that was not the meaning. I said it was a political party that was going for him.”
“The Minister has just said that I alleged that the judges had a hand in this. But what I said was that it was a political prosecution, and not a prosecution by the judges. The judges have nothing to do with it.”
“A serious allegation has been made against me. And therefore I have to say a few words in reply. He said that I had accused the judges of saying something about Jeyaretnam. I tried to use the very words that he used, but I think I missed his words. Anyway, Sir, I think his defence of the judges is misplaced. He is acting like a Don Quixote, tilting at the windmills. I made no allegation at all. I asked the Government whether it was prosecuting and disqualifying J.B. Jeyaretnam. Who prosecuted J.B. Jeyaretnam? Not the judges. It is the Government. And therefore to imply that I had alleged that the judges had dealt with Mr Jeyaretnam in that manner is not correct. Moreover, I also said that I agreed with Mr Jeyaretnam's request that the Government ask the Court of Criminal Appeal to decide as to the rights and wrongs of the case. If I could say that, that the judges should give final judgement in this case, how could I mean that the judges were partial or that they had been instrumental in disqualifying Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam?”
“The Minister has reminded us that lawyers are supposed to be officers of the court. They are also supposed to be fearless, I have been told. I do not know how fearless they could be in the defence of their clients. But because in so doing they often have to challenge the Government on points of law, they could run the risk of being victimized by the State in some way. They therefore need more protection than members of other professions and that protection is the opportunity for their conviction to be re-opened, up to the Privy Council if necessary. A good example again is J.B. Jeyaretnam. Sir, the whole issue before the House is not what the Minister has tried to tell us, but the issue of justice. Justice for the people of Singapore. They have recently passed a law to deny justice to the people who have been arbitrarily arrested and detained without trial. Now we have this Bill seeking to deny justice to lawyers. The Privy Council judgment has shown that grievous injustice has been done. And that injustice has yet to be put right. Sir, I have struggled against injustice all my political life, more than 30 years, a longer period than that of our friends have been here, and I will continue to do so, so long as I have life, whether in or outside Parliament. I urge the Government leaders - desist from the wayward path. Uphold justice. Set an example to our people and maybe that will be more educational than all the grandiloquence of Ministers about core values.”
“It all depends on the concrete situation and there is always a review. First, an inquiry committee reviews the case. When the committee finds that there is a prima facie case against the convicted doctor or engineer, he is then presented before the Singapore Medical Council or Professional Board. He is allowed representation by counsel and witnesses may be called as already stressed by Dr Beng. In th case of a doctor, it is only after due inquiry and after the council finds him guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect that he is penalized professionally. Therefore, it is entirely different from what the Minister has been saying. There is a recourse to a review and an appeal even to the High Court which could be final. So we must be very clear in our minds as to what we are arguing on. Their cases are reviewed. What I am trying to stress, Sir, as Dr Beng has also said, is why should the lawyers be dealt with differently? Clause 9 seeks to establish the lawyer's conviction in the lower court as final and conclusive. This means that one conviction in any of our courts is enough to seal a lawyer's fate so far as his professional status is concerned. It can be said that he is automatically disbarred from practising as a lawyer by just one conviction in court. Is that fair and just? Is that how the Government hopes to deal with Mr Francis Seow? Is the Government fearful that if given an opportunity to appeal to the higher court and to the Privy Council, that Francis Seow might do another JBJ? A Law Society resolution reads: 'The proposed withdrawal of the power of the courts to review a conviction when appropriate is a serious infringement of the principles of justice.' And so it is - a serious infringement of the principle of justice.”
“The Minister has accepted the advice of the Attorney-General and on one occasion, he quoted the Attorney-General as saying the following: 'The Legal Profession Act was never intended to allow the Council to reconsider such convictions. If what the Council did became a precedent, it would mean that all disciplinary committees dealing with convicted lawyers would have to examine the correctness of the convictions before reaching their decision. This would then place an intolerable burden upon them.' Sir, I have been told that that is not the true position. After all, reviewing of cases is done only in very exceptional circumstances. For example, in J.B. Jeyaretnam's case he was denied the chance to appeal because of certain court procedures. Moreover, how often do lawyers get convicted? Very very rarely, Sir. There are very few J.B. Jeyaretnams. Only one. So there is no real intolerable burden being placed on the disciplinary committees. This denial of the courts to review a conviction, as already mentioned by speakers before me, could be most damaging and ruinous to the convicted lawyer. It leaves him completely helpless. But more - I speak for lawyers because I feel it although I am only a doctor - it is a grave violation of the principles of justice, as has also been stressed by the Law Society in its resolution. The Minister a little while ago referred to other professions and how they deal with their members who have been convicted in a Magistrate's court. And speakers have spoken of disciplinary procedures concerning medical doctors. I do not need to go into that again. But what I want to stress is that all convictions in a magistrate's court in all the professions have not been accepted as final and conclusive, as has been stressed in the Bill.”
“But this contention,even if true, cannot apply to a lawyer appealing against his being struck off the rolls, unless of course the Government admits that the lawyer is struck off because of political reasons. And it is not desirable that the Privy Council should interfere in political affairs. Is that the Government's position? Or is the Government admitting that by this Bill Mr Jeyaretnam was struck off the rolls for political reasons? The Straits Times on the 13th of this month reported that lawyers in the Carib- bean islands were seeking to abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council, but for entirely different reasons. They feel that the Privy Council is very reluctant to overturn decisions of the local courts and "an increasing number face the death penalty without due process of the law". Thus, while the lawyers in the Caribbean islands are complaining that the Privy Council will not interfere with the local courts, our Government here says that the Privy Council only interferes too readily. Which is the truth? The truth is that in Singapore the Privy Council does not interfere unless there is gross injustice following erroneous application of the law as in J.B. Jeyaretnam's case. The Minister has said that the Privy Council "was a litmus test of judicial independence". And the Prime Minister has said that the judgments of judges in Singapore would go up to the Privy Council, thus providing for independence of the judges because they know that their judgments would be examined. And now the Bill seeks to deny appeal to the Privy Council for lawyers. Why? So the key issue again crops up. Is the Government interested in upholding justice?”
“You just cannot separate one part from another, and take only one part in isolation. At a press conference only a few days ago - not reported in the Straits Times though - J.B. Jeyaretnam has suggested that the Public Prosecutor refer questions to the Court of Criminal Appeal, which the Minister has mentioned, so that the court can say whether the conviction of Jeyaretnam was right or wrong, looking at these convictions themselves in the light of the Privy Council judgment. That I agree, would be one good way to resolve the controversy. Will the Government accept the suggestion to put the case before the Court of Criminal Appeal? He can easily do that if he wants to. The law is there. And, of course, Sir, you may ask: has any of all this to do with the Bill? Yes, it has. If the court says that the Privy Council judgment is wrong, then there is at least some justification for doing away with appeals to the Privy Council. But if the Court of Criminal Appeal agrees with the judgment of the Privy Council and if the Government persists in going ahead with the amendment, then it is in fact saying that the Government and Public Prosecutor are not interested in upholding justice. And because the Privy Council tries to uphold justice in this particular case, so the Government has now decided to abolish appeals of lawyers to the Privy Council. It could be said, Sir, that the Government is reacting with childish pique to serious matters of principle. Is that what the Government wants to tell the world? From the reasons given by the Minister, the Government has contended that the Privy Council is interfering in local politics. This is not really true.”
“Unfortunately, Sir, because this has not helped to settle the controversy but, on the contrary, has only helped to fuel the controversy even more. The nub of the whole question is this. Is the Government interested in the pursuit of truth and justice? If it is, should it not consider other people's views in addition to its own? As very pointedly stated in the letter in the Straits Times on 2nd February 1989, and I quote: 'the Executive should have seen that the weight of opinion of a five-man final appellate court far outweighs the opinion of one man. It is important that justice must be seen to be done.' Yes, justice must be seen to be done. But justice has not been done nor has justice been seen to be done. The AG says the Privy Council is not infallible. Few people would disagree on that if it was taken as an abstract statement. But by the same token, the Government should realize that the public prosecutor, or anyone for that matter, is also not infallible. Therefore, there is a real mix-up of rights and wrongs, and the whole thing would be laughable if it was not so tragic for the people involved. And the Government should have got all its eyes and ears reporting to it as to what is really happening. Public sentiment is not unknown to the Government. The Minister says that the Privy Council has converted the inquiry of a disciplinary appeal into an inquiry of criminal appeal. Although I am not a lawyer, anyone should be able to tell the Minister that the issues involved all form parts of the appeal. How was Jeyaretnam disqualified in the first place? He was disqualified as a result of certain prosecutions which led to his criminal conviction, and that is why everything has to be taken together.”
“Many people outside the House (as already lightly touched on by the Minister) see this amendment as a knee-jerk reaction of Government to the recent judgment of the Privy Council on the appeal of J.B. Jeyaretnam. Is that correct? Would the Government inform the people if that is the real reason why it has brought in the amendment? If that is not correct, then the Government should explain convincingly what its real reasons are and that they have nothing to do with the reaction to the judgment of the Privy Council. In connection with this, Sir, let me touch on some recent events connected with the issue. We have witnessed the Attorney-General publicly pronouncing that the Privy Council is wrong in its conclusions. This sounds rather odd to me, as I have been taught that in a democratic society, the prosecutor must be separate from the judge. Now it would appear that the AG acts first as a prosecutor and then again as the judge on the Privy Council judgment which, in fact, is the final outcome of a sequence of events initially started from prosecutions in the courts of Singapore. This anomalous spectacle has been clearly brought out in the letter in the Straits Times on the 2nd February 1989. And I myself have sent in a Question for oral answer which you have disallowed. I asked whether the President should be advised to appoint a special committee of persons of personal integrity to inquire into and make recommendations as to whether the stand taken by the AG on the Privy Council judgment is morally correct. I feel that the controversy which has arisen should be settled, one way or the other. But unfortunately in this instance, the Government has chosen to simply accept its own officers' statement as true and correct.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill is a Bill of concern not only to the legal profession. The changes proposed involve principles, important principles, which affect not only lawyers but also all the people of Singapore. What I have in mind, Sir, are some of the basic principles and values that underscore the proposed amendment. The Government has made great play about core values as the basis for our National Ideology. Our Prime Minister has stressed that Ministers and MPs must be men and women of integrity and be honest. And our 1 DPM and other Minis- ters have often stressed other universal core values, including social justice. We agree with what the Prime Minister and all the Ministers have said. And since all these values are to be taught in schools and will form part of our future lifestyles, we must ask: Is Honesty one of those core values? Is the pursuit of truth one of those core values? Is the pursuit of justice one of those core values? The Government on previous occasions had never given an answer. I suppose the Government should give an answer because the answers given will in many ways tell us how they will react to criticisms concerning the Bill. The Minister has given some reasons as regards why they have brought in the Bill, speaking of Singapore courts having control of our lawyers, of our Singapore judges having the final say on the admission of lawyers and of Singapore standards. With respect, Sir, they do not sound very convincing to me. For a start, I suggest that the Government should be honest with itself and with the people and truly explain why this amendment is being introduced.”
“Sir, he has not explained. He has confused me more! Clauses 1 to 26 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.55 pm”
“May I say something, Sir, concerning these clauses?”
“Sir, may I point out to the Minister the misinformation he has given to the House? He says that there is nothing new in the provisions. I just want to remind him, in clause 6, what was previously written down as "Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police", the word is now "Minister". Therefore, there is a big difference. A Minister deals with political affairs whereas the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of Police deal with ordinary administrative affairs. The other thing is that he says I must apologize for the interpretation of Article 4. Who is he to say that. Is he a judge? These kinds of things can only be interpreted by a judge. I say there is a violation. He says no. Let it be. Let the judge decide. And again he says there is no change. The whole of this old section has been deleted and they have put in a new section. Previously, the section says "Deputy Commissioner of Police" who could make an order. Now it says "any police officer". Therefore, all these are new things which are different from what they were before. And he has not been giving us the correct information. I just want to point that out.”
“May I remind the House, Sir, that in spite of what the Prime Minister has just said that dictators who have ruled by the gun and by force have all gone away one after another. And the day may not be that distant when the same will happen in Singapore. Therefore, Sir, if the Government really want to tell us that they are only putting in a Bill for touting, we ask them to tell that to the marines. 3.15 pm”
“Under section 5 of the present law, the fine is just $200. The proposed Bill increases it to $5,000 and $10,000 whereas builders who cause the death of many many people are fined only $50,000. And any person who organizes or assists in any assembly is fined $5,000 and $10,000. It is 25-50 times the original sum. This is not updating. Updating means at the most twice the sum. Why is the Government doing all this I must ask? Why is the Government so afraid of the people, in spite of all the powers that they have in their hands? They can arrest people any time they like, put them in chinks and forget about them, for 22 years. We would like to get a very clear answer from the Prime Minister since he is here. Why does the Government have to use threats instead of persuasion to rule in Singapore? Is it also intended to disqualify Opposition leaders as election candidates or MPs if they should infringe any of the regulations in the what is the name of the new Bill? It is not the Minor Offences Bill any more.”
“She said that it would be a sad day for the whole of Britain if the government were to give orders to the police. In Singapore, we have sad days and sad days. The PAP calls this political stability. What an irony of the use of words. In Britain, for a long time, the police act quite independently of the government under the powers given to them by the law. And they are unanswerable in court for wrongful exercise of their powers. But Singapore has long been a police state, although they may want to deny it, with the Government misusing the police as an instrument of oppression against critics, political opponents and other people. Such is political stability in Singapore. And look at clause 11, Sir. After this Bill becomes law, in spite of the explanation given by the Minister, any police officer however junior he may be can enter into the house of any of our people on the ground that someone had complained to him that some noise or other in the house has caused a nuisance. So if an occupier of a house plays, for example, the Workers' Party's song, "Make It Right for Singapore", and either a Minister or a PAP sympathizer should hear the song and complains to a policeman that the song is annoying him, the policeman can enter the house and remove the cassette player and the tape. Is this not evidence of a police state in Singapore? Why is the Government doing all this? Is the Government really so frightened of the people that it must terrorize them by giving these powers to the police force? Then there is the inordinately gross increase in the fines provided. The Minister has said that he has changed the name of the Bill. Anyway, it is a misnomer. It is not a Minor Offences Bill. It is a major offences Bill as far as I can see!”
“To quote an example, I understand from the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party that every application of the party for a licence under the Public Entertainments Licensing Act to hold a rally has been sent to the Minister for a decision, when under the Act, the decision should be made by a civil servant. The power now given for the purpose of regulating meetings is being misused by the Government for the harassment and oppression of political parties that are in the Opposition. Another instance, Sir, three members of the Workers' Party were arrested outside the Istana at the end of May 1987 for peacefully demonstrating against the arrest of detainees. They were arrested, roughly handled and kept in the police station for six hours before they were released. And then they were charged with promoting an unlawful assembly. The members were however acquitted when the court saw on the evidence that there were only three members and the law requires five members before it can become an unlawful assembly. The law was used in that case quite purposely to harass and even to intimidate the opposition party. What are the real reasons for the transference of power from the police to the Minister? Is it that the Commissioner of Police has refused to allow himself to be used as an instrument of oppression against political parties and others who may wish to protest peacefully against Government decisions? In Singapore, the police are under the Government Ministers whereas in other countries that practise parliamentary democracy, the police act independently under the powers given to them by the law. I would remind the House of what the British Prime Minister said not so very long ago.”
“The Bill now before the House, however, proposes to give blanket powers to the Government to restrain the exercise of that constitutional right by the people, a right given to them by Article 14 of the Constitution. Clause 6 of the Bill gives the Minister power to prohibit any assembly or procession. Therefore, Parliament is now being asked to enact a law which conflicts with specific provisions of the Constitution. Again, under section 5 of the present Act, it is the police who make rules to regulate and prohibit assemblies or processions. The present Bill proposes to give this power to the Minister. Why? Under the old Act, powers were given to the police so that they would only exercise it, if necessary, for the purpose of facilitating traffic flow, ensuring no obstruction or annoyance to other people. Now the Minister is being charged with this function. Why? Is the Minister going to look into matters which are essentially matters for the police just free flow of traffic, obstruction, etc? Has the Minister not got enough work to do that he should take on what are essentially police functions? The reason, Sir, for these provisions is not because they are outdated as stated by the Minister. The reason, to us, is quite obvious. The proposed amendments are directed against political opposition and others who may wish to show their disagreement with Government policies by the holding of peaceful demonstrations and assemblies. The law that was meant to regulate traffic and to prevent obstruction on the road is now being used blatantly for political purposes, to control not traffic but political opposition.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, much publicity has been given to offences of touting in the press. And the Minister has taken almost a full speech to tell us what a serious offence touting is. He even brought up letters from tourists to buttress his arguments. Let me say that all these are red herrings. He wants to turn us into a fish market so that we can see only red herrings. Touting is a comparatively unimportant and minor offence. There are other provisions which he just glossed over, provisions which the Government has intended to smuggle in together with other offences. These provisions are of an entirely different nature. They are political and have to be read together with the recent amendments to the ISA and to the Constitution which have been passed by the House and also with the proposed Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill yet to be passed. All these amendments, Sir, together form a general tightening of control of dissenting views and of the Opposition. It would appear that the new style of government of the PAP is but a refurbished version of the old style, a mere instance of putting new wine into old bottles. Big brother here wants tighter and more absolute control in this more and more brazen police state of Singapore. The provisions of this Bill fly in the face of the provisions in Part IV of the Constitution. Article 14(1)(b) of the Constitution states: 'all citizens ... have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;' This is a constitutional right. Article 14(2)(b) states that this right can only be taken away if such assembly threatens the security of Singapore.”
“I propose that the fine to be imposed on persons responsible for construction defects in high-rise buildings be increased, at least five- or six-fold plus prison terms, if necessary. A small fine would only encourage defective works. Indeed, Sir, I would support the suggestion given in the Select Cmmittee that the penalty be related to the size and value of the project. In this instance, the punishment should be made to fit the crime. Finally, I must also stress that the human factor be not overlooked. Those who are responsible for the supervision, checking and testing of construction works in high-rise buildings, to my mind, should be paid adequately. I understand many of them have big complaints that they are not being paid adequatgely. Perhaps the Government could help indicate to those people involved in the construction industry that this matter is intimately related to and connected with the slogan "Safety First" in high-rise buildings. Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I also rise in support of this Bill. I have only one or two queries to make. Apparently there is a heavy shortage of site supervisors and the Government is taking steps to train these people. I am just wondering in the past who have been supervising our massive building jobs all this while. No wonder we had the collapse of the Hotel New World! Sir, under a new amendment for minor works as listed in the Schedule, I notice that under paragraph 2 (f) any dog kennel not exceeding an area of 5 square metres need not have a licence. Sir, you will remember that the former Minister for National Development said that he did not trust me even to build a dog kennel! I had to apply for a licence then if I wanted to. But now I need not. So I can just go ahead and build one.”
“However, there are one or two aspects of the Bill which the Government could well look into, in spite of all the explanations that I have heard, and perhaps further improved on, if not today, at least sometime in the future. Originally, the Bill was supposed to affect only private buildings. I learn from the Minister that PWD and other Government buildings will also be checked. This is imperative because one can never tell when defective work creeps in. Now I also see that the contractor's responsibility has been somewhat defined, though not very clearly. But what about the developer? There are owner developers, as in the case of the Hotel New World, who could cause some trouble as regards safety of high-rise buildings. Therefore, the responsibility of the owner developer has also to be clearly defined and apportioned, if possible. The point on which I want to stress today and which has already been touched upon a little while ago is that many high-rise buildings cost tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars, vast sums of money. And defective works, especially those that involve the key structural elements, could easily affect the safety of the buildings and cause disasters leading to great loss of life and property. These are very serious crimes, unlike ordinary theft or being an illegal immigrant worker or even a bookie or touting. The penalty of a maximum of $50,000 fine is really laughable. It is chicken-feed for people who deal in millions. If it is proposed that any person who organizes or assists in organizing any assembly or procession a very minor offence can be liable to a fine of $10,000, I see no reason why such a serious crime in construction works should be liable to a fine of only a paltry $50,000.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill fulfills a very urgent and real need and we in the Workers' Party fully support it. We also applaud the Government for replacing the old law with the new proposed Building Control Act. If this Bill had been enacted earlier, probably it might well have averted the tragedy of the collapse of Hotel New World with loss of so many lives. Now we hear that other than Cheng Hong Mansion there are also quite a number of structural defects in many buildings which have not yet been publicly made known. Because of our limited land area, high-rise buildings are inevitable. And it is very important that public safety must be ensured. After all, we know that many people come along to Singapore, many people stay inside these buildings, many people work inside these buildings including our Ministers nowadays. Therefore, I think their safety is important for all of us. The putting up of high-rise buildings is a very complex process and many people are involved. I am very glad that the Minister has already indicated the responsibility in the various stages that he has just mentioned. At any stage in the construction, the urge to minimize cost and maximize the margin of profits on the part of a developer or contractor is great. Any dereliction of duty or negligence on the part of those responsible for the planning, structural design or construction supervision could lead to the most serious consequences for the safety of the public. And the new provisions for the supervision of the building, mandatory inspection and tests as well as checking in clauses 8 to 12 and 15 to 17 are absolutely essential.”
“Explanation, Sir. It was not a social problem. It was a political problem.”
“Sir, "mandatory" does not even give a judge any option or discretion to order other forms of punishment. I believe that for any violation of our laws, a longer term imprisonment is severe enough. We should do away with such barbaric punishment like caning.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I object very strongly to the penalty of caning, mandatory caning, that is, in the Bill. Dr Arthur Beng has already very clearly indicated that caning is a very severe punishment. It takes more than a week - I understand between one week and two weeks for a person who has been caned - to recover. And why should he be caned, for what? Just because he is a worker? After all, he works to earn money by the sweat of his brow. He does not go and rob, he does not go and steal. The illegl immigrants are doing jobs which are lowpaid with long hours, and jobs which not very many Singaporeans are doing. Therefore, they are doing a good service in many ways to Singapore. In the circumstances, we should not cane them. Caning, Sir, is a very severe punishment as I have said and Dr Ho has also said the same. There are also possible reasons why they happen to be illegal immigrants. They have already been touched on and therefore I will not go into that. For example, forged documents. Some have paid a lot of money for them. They have been tricked, and they are victims. In fact, they need our help. They should not be victims for the cane, for the punishment that we are to inflict on them. They should not be singled out for punishment. Caning was introduced into Singapore in the 1960s. All other Commonwealth countries had abolished caning. But our PAP Government introduced that. And why? Because they introduced caning in the Vandalism Act in order to punish political opponents. At that time, some of you may not know, many of our activists used to paint slogans on the roads, on the walls, on posters, and merely putting up a poster would be considered vandalism. The way the PAP used to deal with such slogan painting was mandatory caning.”
“If I had the salary of the Minister, I would not mind giving them more.”
“First, about my trying to impose myself on the welfare home. It was not true, Sir. I went there, true, without informing them well beforehand but that was because I wanted to know what was actually happening inside the Home. And if the officer-in-charge had said no, we would have walked away. That was all there was to it. He agreed to show us around. To say that these people have enough to eat, well, it is almost like a case of Oliver Twist, Sir, always asking for more. If they really had enough food to eat, why should they ask for more? Simple common sense should tell the Minister that. I must also remind the Minister as well as Dr Vasoo, that all these people who have been considered destitute are usually old, who cannot do any work, and who are in many ways disabled. Therefore special considerations must be given to them. The fact that the Minister seems to have known so very quickly that I had gone to visit the welfare home shows what tight control the PAP has over all the organizations in Singapore. So can you imagine what happens if you have Big Brother there? He has his eyes all over you. You do not know what he is going to say or what he is going to do. I think the Government should relax a bit and not impose its views too much, on the officers who are looking after the place. Then maybe we can have a better Singapore.”
“Is the Minister saying that we have to be invited in order to visit a welfare home?”
“Therefore, Sir, we must give jobs with adequate pay to the person and also make sure that the person can do the job in his usual way. The Minister says that no one needs to beg for a living. If that should really be true, there would not be beggars around. There could not be so many professional beggars having so much money, as he says. This idea of arresting everybody along the streets and keeping them away reminds me, Sir, of the old days when the Prime Minister used to order that all attap huts by the road-side be fenced off with some painted-up fencing so as not to allow visitors coming in to Singapore see the dilapidated houses and thus think that everything was nice and OK. You remember, Sir, the Old Airport Road. All the houses there were very old and people were living there. The Government ordered fencings to be put to cover up the slums in order to show that Singapore was not so bad after all. Similarly, in this case, there is this little bit of a cover-up. And what reason is there for imposing a sentence of $3,000 and two years? Surely they are not criminals. We might as well ask them to hang themselves. Has a beggar $3,000 to pay? And if he has not, what does he do? Go to prison and get worse food there? I wonder whether the Minister has ever been inside a prison. I have. Thanks to Lee Kuan Yew. Therefore, Sir, I believe these clauses are all too draconian. They are too severe. Taking fingerprint impressions and photographs of them means treating them all as criminals. That should not be done. I would suggest that more attention be paid to investigations as to why these people have to beg in the streets and the Government should do everything it can to rehabilitate the beggars.”
“I went to a welfare home only a couple of weeks back and there was one person who complained to me about how he was picked up although he was not a vagrant and was only going about his usual routine. He was very well dressed. He managed to earn his own living. But he was, I suppose, treated as a vagrant. I asked the officer who was with us what he thought of the explanation given to me, and he said that probably the Government thought he was a vagrant and therefore took him along to the welfare home. Therefore, Sir, mistakes can be made. And if people want to run away from these welfare homes, it must tell the Government that there is something very wrong there. If the home is good and people do enjoy living under such circumstances, why should they want to run away? There is no point. Therefore, the Government must find out why people beg. The Minister says they do not care to work for a living. How does the Government know that? Have they been given the proper jobs which they could do? It is no use asking an engineer to sweep the drain. Or a doctor to do something which he is not trained for.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that, in spite of the explanation given by the Minister a little while ago, many provisions here do not seem to treat a person as a human being. Very severe penalties are imposed and a person who is called a destitute is treated almost like a criminal. No real efforts can be seen for rehabilitation and the whole thing is intended more as a cover-up than an attempt to help the destitute. The Minister himself has just mentioned the fact that 159 people have absconded yearly. Why should people abscond if the welfare homes are so very good? Has he ever tasted the food given in one of those welfare homes? "Three meals are given a day", he said. Has he ever been there, I wonder? I have been. I do not know whether he has. You know, they have to get food from everywhere. If anyone takes food to them, however small a quantity, they are so happy which only shows that they never really have enough. Sir, the extension of detention of 30 days gives the officer too much power. And there is always the tendency to misuse and abuse this power, the power similar to section 55 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, to keep a person under detention for one whole month. Surely the person should be given some of his basic human rights. If they find it so difficult to check on these people, why can the department not increase the staff? That should be the more rational way of doing things, rather than merely keeping them under lock and key for a certain length of time. I would like to refer to the penalties which are meted out to destitutes, however you may want to define them. Because, after all, this definition is all very subjective and it all depends on the officer who is doing the job. As I said, mistakes can always to made.”
“Well, Sir, many of these tax incentives and allowances are, in fact, subsidies given to many of these big companies. If they should be given to the local companies, one can quite understand that. But if they are all given to the big companies, they are unnecessary because these big companies anyway are making big profits and if they want to make further profits they have to make further investments and, of course, ultimately these subsidies will only help them to increase their profits. Generally speaking, we do not mind people coming here to invest and make profits but, as I said, Sir, while on the one hand the Government gives all these subsidies, on the other hand they impose more taxes on the people. Therefore, under those circumstances, I think, generally that is not correct. I would like to know, Sir, for example, with this reduction of taxes from 40% to 33%, how much tax has been foregone for the year of assessment 1987 and 1988? We would like to know the figures, Sir.”
“My relevance, Sir, is that income tax goes towards building up a more and more regressive tax structure in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, generally speaking, everybody would like to see a reduction of taxes. But sometimes while the Government reduces its taxes for big companies, it also imposes taxes on the people in different ways. For example, now reductions of taxes have been made from 40% to 33%. But diesel taxes are up, levies on foreign workers are up, all these things have gone up. So it amounts to ---”
“That I am the living example of PAP democracy because I happen to be free. The same question has been asked of me on many occasions as to why, if I said that there was no democracy, I was free to go about. If the Minister, in his younger days when he was still a student or a semi-student, had listened to me in the University forums, lectures and talks, he would have known that my answer has always been that the PAP has no reason to arrest any of my colleagues and no reason to arrest me, and that they did not arrest me simply because they wanted to use me as a facade of democracy. Yes, Sir, you must understand that. The PAP had very bad publicity all over the world on the way the PAP had been dealing with the Opposition.”
“I agree with the Minister for saying that we should be dealing with the affairs concerning the people of Singapore and not be bothered with what the Australians or the US Congressmen say. Nevertheless, these people have expressed opinions and opinions are taken into account the world over. As regards the other point --”
“It is simple, Sir. We do not have those powers but we have the power to discuss issues concerning how things are being done in Singapore. We are not going into the full merits of the case itself. I think as a lawyer he should know that. The other matter about Mr Lim Yew Hock, mandate and all that. First, if you want to talk about mandate, the PAP never had any mandate for the conscription law. They pushed it through. The National Service. The other matter is the ISA. Has he ever read the 1954 manifesto of the PAP? That would tell him exactly what the position is.”
“I did not catch the first question, Sir, but I will reply to the second question. And if he will let me know what the first question is, then I will reply to that one too. I was in the PAP at one time and it was quite clear to many of us at that time that the Prime Minister had not lived up to his words. That was why there was a rebellion inside the PAP. As regards the actual words, unless Mr Shanmugam is willing to quote the exact words to me, I do not know what he really wants me to tell him. What is the second question?”
“Let me just finish this, Sir, the last part.”
“They try, if possible, to go one stage further, to fool all the people all the time. But I think long before that they would be overthrown.”
“Yes, many people have realized that he has been in prison for more than 20 years, the second-longest term prisoner in the world, after Nelson Mandella. Have they no compassion on the person himself or on the family? Does the PAP really intend to keep him there until he is old and feeble and cannot even move about? We have been fighting against the ISA for years and years. During the elections, we criticise it everytime. And everytime we remind people of Chia Thye Poh and other people who are still being kept in prison. But has the press ever given any publicity to what we said? No. Only PAP Ministers, only PAP MPs and Backbenchers, will get all the advertisements that they want. We have no chance whatsoever. Sir, you can see from Chia Thye Poh's case alone the abuse of powers by the PAP Government and the PAP Executive. The courts, we say, should be allowed to review the case. Would the Government dare argue its case in open court, before a review committee or court? The Ministers frequently say that they cannot rule without the ISA. Why? Why can they not rule without the ISA? They have 80 out of 81 MPs in Parliament. They can rule. They can push through any legislation they want. What they really mean is that if they do not have the ISA to coerce and create fears in the hearts and minds of the people, their days will be numbered. They themselves fear the people. That is why they keep the ISA, and the ISA is intended to keep the PAP in power, nothing more, nothing less. All this talk about other reasons is just, shall I use a new phrase, sheer unadulterated bunkum. A little while ago, Sir, someone, I cannot remember the name, quoted Abraham Lincoln. He said: you can fool some people all the time and all the people some of the time. And that is what the PAP have done.”
“Is it any wonder that not very many professionals have joined up with the opposition parties to openly oppose the PAP? In its 30 years of rule, the Government has arbitrarily arrested hundreds and hundreds of political opponents who have been conveniently labelled as Communists, pro-communists, Marxists, chauvinists, what-nots. But so far, it has not been able to produce a shred of evidence against the detainees in open court. Take the case of Chia Thye Poh, arrested in 1966 and still in prison today. He has been called a Communist who wants to overthrow the constitutional government by force. Some Ministers have said that he was violent. I can tell you, Sir, when he was arrested, he was just sitting by my side in our Party headquarters discussing matters with me. There was no demonstration, no stone throwing, nothing. The secret police just went in to arrest someone who was sitting down quietly. That is what the ISA does. Yes, Sir, that was the last time I saw him. In days gone by, we were allowed to pay visits to detainees in the prison. But the Prime Minister soon changed all that. After one or two years, they stopped us from visiting the detainees. Previous to that, we could. After that, no. Sir, the Speaker initially over-ruled the Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister has more powers than the Speaker. And all visits to detainees in prison were stopped. They do not have any evidence against Chia Thye Poh. If the PAP had the evidence, why then have they not produced him in court? Charge him in open court. Communism is illegal. Using violence is illegal. Charge him in court and nobody will complain that he has been kept in prison.”