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 16 of 17.
“Yes, Sir, we would get the same thing later on if we carried on with the ISA. We can see for ourselves on TV or in the press that they can hold demonstrations which we are not allowed in Singapore. Can we do it? Do you allow us? Now I see in the new Minor Offences Bill, my God, the penalties are so heavy that once penalised, one could be disqualified from being an MP. That is what it amounts to. You may ask: what is the difference between those countries and Singapore? The difference, Sir, is not in the social conditions. The difference is in the government. We have a government that is intolerant of criticism, that does not allow the development of a political opposition and that is more interested in holding on to power than in upholding justice for the people. And if the amendments in the House are pushed through, our courts will not be allowed to review Executive decisions and actions connected with so-called internal security, and appeals to the Privy Council will be abolished. Then the people will be in for a very very rough time. With no possible curb by the Judiciary on the excesses, misuse and abuse of powers by the Executive, the fears, many people have already expressed, the fear in the minds of many people, will be multiplied manifold. As the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts abolutely. Why have they reaffirmed the principle? They have given some of their reasons. I will tell you what the PAP's real reasons are. The reasons are obvious. The Government just wants to have Executive powers completely unfettered by any form of judicial review. Then it would be able to use the ISA to deal with political opponents, intimidate critics, would-be political opponents, and so cow, even coerce, the people into submission.”
“We have here very good economic development, with everyone going about his business, and there is political stability which the Government stresses again and again with hardly any opposition. I am only a non-representation MP. I could not even vote a little while ago. We have peaceful conditions here, many times better than in South Korea, for example, the Philippines or Sri Lanka. Why then are the people in Singapore denied their basic human rights and freedoms? Why? Why is it necessary? Mr Peter Sung stood up.”
“It is not for the courts to determine the correctness of the order and the court's role is simply restricted to requiring the Executive to show evidence upon which it acted. The courts do not enquire into the adequacy of the evidence or whether the order should have been made in the light of that evidence. The courts are simply seeking to know what the evidence was. This is a fundamental safeguard of liberty. If you detain somebody, you must justify your detention of that person and produce evidence upon which you have detained that person. This is to be found even in our Constitution. But, of course, this Government sometimes considers the Constitution as completely irrelevant. It is absolutely wrong and misleading for the Government to say that the decisions of the courts outside Singapore will result in the courts usurping the power of the Executive. Another oft-repeated excuse for the need of the ISA is that conditions in Singapore are different from those of other countries that practise parliamentary democracy. We ask: Have conditions changed? No. What are the so-called special conditions of Singapore? Have they listed them out? Even the Prime Minister's letter does not say so. Do we have frequent strikes, demonstrations, riots? No! Do we have gun battles, armed intervention, war? No! Communist threat? Whenever they arrest anybody, it is always because of the communist threat. So you can put the word "communist" into the basket. Sir, there is no crisis of any sort, no emergencies whatsoever. On the contrary, we have the same conditions that you can find in other western countries. In fact, we are more peaceful than many of those large cities of the western countries where they have regular demonstrations, fire-bombs, stoning, everything.”
“The Privy Council or other tribunals outside Singapore are not intervening in Singapore's internal affairs. What these courts outside Singapore have declared is that in the name of justice, liberty and freedom, which they have sworn to uphold, that where an Executive arrests and detains a person, the courts can call upon the Executive to show whether there is any evidence for the exercise of the power. And because the Singapore courts have now, after a long time, applied this principle of law dedicated to justice and freedom, the Government is saying that the foreign courts are intervening in Singapore's affairs. It is utter rubbish. It is also nonsense to say that the decisions of the courts abroad, which the Court of Appeal accepted on the 8th December 1988, amount to the courts usurping the powers of the Executive. They speak of independence of Singapore and the need to safeguard our sovereignty. We have heard a lot of that today. How correct. I agree wholeheartedly that we should try as far as possible to safeguard our sovereignty. If they brought this up in 1959 or 1965, they would have found widespread support. But the issue of sovereignty is raised only now, now, after many many years, and only as a response to the Privy Council's judgment which has criticized the grievous injustice done to Jeyaretnam. Therefore, the reason why the PAP has brought in this Bill is quite clear in the minds of the people. It is not to safeguard the sovereignty of Singapore. The Government has brought put in this Bill more as a pique reaction, than anything else. The courts outside Singapore have clearly said time and time again that it is not for the courts to usurp the power of the Executive. It is for the courts to determine whether the order should or should not have been made.”
“According to the QC's opinion that was published in the papers sometime ago when the case was being heard in Singapore, it is only part of the administrative process to determine whether the detention order should be issued or extended. It is also emphasized that the Advisory Board is only advisory, not an independent judicial process. Its recommendations are not binding and therefore nowhere near the doctrine of separation of powers. The secrecy surrounding the hearing before the Advisory Board is completely contrary to judicial safeguard. The Board's recommendations are not made known to the public, and not even to the detainee himself or herself. This makes it impossible to appeal against the decision reached or to seek judicial review. And according to what was published in the newspapers, the principle of administrative law detention must be subjected to the test of whether it is legal, rational and proportional to whatever infringement of law alleged. This has not been done. If I may remind the House, Sir, all those detainees who were detained in the 1963 "Operation coldstore", after going before the Board the first time, never bothered about the Advisory Board reviews again, because they knew what was happening. You merely appear before the Advisory Board, and that is all. Then you go back to prison and nothing more would be heard from it. So the detainees called it a farce and never bothered to appear before the Advisory Board again after that. Sir, statements have been made that this Bill is designed to stop the Privy Council or other tribunals outside Singapore from intervening in the affairs of our country, and particularly when it comes to internal security. This is a complete distortion of the truth.”
“If that should be done, at least one could credit the Government with some honesty. I do not have to remind the Government, Sir, and particularly the Prime Minister who was here a little while ago, that before the Government took power in 1959, the PAP was second to none in protesting against the detention without trial. I supported the PAP wholeheartedly then. Time does not allow me to repeat what the Prime Minister said of detention without trial when the party was in opposition between 1955 and 1959. His statements can be found in the reports of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly for those years. Mr David Marshall, who was the first Chief Minister at that time, had a conscience, and he introduced an amendment which gave the Appeal Tribunal the power to release any detainee, if the Tribunal considered that there was no evidence on which the order could have been made. What did the Government do when it took power? After protesting against detention without trial as being a complete violation of the rule of law, this Government, no sooner had it got into power, removed the one safeguard that David Marshall had introduced. It took away the power in the Appeal Tribunal to order the release of detainees and instead substituted the Advisory Board. A party that proclaimed itself opposed to detention without trial did a complete somersault when it was given the power to enact its own principles and made it impossible for any detainee to be released. That was one of the major reasons, Sir, why we rebelled then against the leadership in the PAP. And what is the Advisory Board which has been spoken about a little while ago?”
“And because the Court of Appeal did not go into the merits and order the release of the applicants on the merits, ie, there was no evidence before the Minister on which he could reasonably have exercised the power given to him under the Act, the Executive were left free to re-arrest the applicants. The Bill that we have before us in the House is the clearest admission, if any further admission were needed, that the Government had no evidence at all against the detainees who were detained originally in May 1987 and re-detained in April 1988. This view, Sir, that the Government had no evidence at all against the detainees was held by people and institutions inside and outside Singapore. It is a view that is shared by some Congressmen in the United States and legislators in Australia, New Zealand and other parts of the world. Because the Government has no evidence, it is now introducing this Bill to shut the door on what it has done and put up a notice, "You shall not inquire into anything we have done or may do." That is what they say "Out. You don't look into what I have done." This Bill does not take away the jurisdiction of the courts to pronounce that any order made by the executive under the Act is invalid because of some procedural or technical defect. This is some protection in a way, but a hollow protection because it does not avail the citizen anything. As we have seen, the Government can re-arrest the person immediately and put right a technical defect. I would suggest that instead of wasting the time of the courts and the time of the executive in attempting to meet any application, the Government should be honest with itself and to the people and just legislate for the abolition of judicial review altogether in detentions under the Internal Security Act.”
“I understand that in UK, which is the home of this habeas corpus, habeas corpus applications have priority over all other proceedings in court and are heard immediately so soon as arrangements can be made to hear the applications. The saying, I understand, Sir, is that one can disturb a Judge in his bath with a habeas corpus application and he has to come out of his bath and give directions for the immediate hearing of the habeas corpus application. It is a matter of great regret that in Singapore these applications, which were filed soon after 8th December, have still not been heard although some six weeks have now elapsed since the applications were filed. It is a very sad state of affairs for all of us in Singapore, because what is the point of filing habeas corpus applications if they are not to be heard immediately, and the Executive is allowed to change the law, as they intend to do now, before they are heard? It is a big farce. It is also a matter of profound regret that the Court of Appeal in delivering its judgment on 8th December 1988 did not go on to decide the applications on their merits, having now accepted that the previous law applied by the courts in Singapore were wrong and that the correct and proper law should be as laid down in numerous decisions, in not only UK but also other parts of the Commonwealth, where similar legislation is to be found. And it is a great pity, Sir, that the Court of Appeal refrained from going into the merits, and confined itself purely to a technical and procedural defects in the making of the order for detention.”
“What this Bill does is to say that justice is completely irrelevant and will not be available to any citizen in this country if the Executive should so much as desire to arrest and imprison people for alleged activities which the Executive may consider, threatens not the security of Singapore but their continued rule over Singapore. And here in Singapore, Sir, this institution, which is expected to defend, protect and preserve public liberty and justice of the people, is today legislating for the denial of this freedom, liberty and justice to those amongst us who may incur the wrath of the Executive. It is indeed a mockery of this Parliament and it is a mockery of justice. When this Bill becomes law, the Executive can pick up any person, maybe because they do not like the looks of him, may be he has got some red hair or blue hair, and detain him under the provisions of this Act and nobody, I repeat, Sir, nobody, not even the courts which are the traditional guardians of liberty of the subject, can do anything about it. That is what it really means. They cannot question why the Executive has found it necessary to lock up an individual. So I repeat, it is indeed a very black day for Singapore and a day in which all Singaporeans should go into mourning. This Bill is being rushed through this Parliament whilst there are proceedings pending before the courts. I understand that after the Court of Appeal ordered on 8th December 1988 the applicants in the four habeas corpus applications to be released, the Executive immediately re-arrested them. After that, the applicants made fresh habeas corpus applications in court. These applications have not yet been heard.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first a word of clarification for Mr Shanmugam although he is not here and although he spoke on the Bill which has just been passed. Because I did not catch what you said, so I missed the chance to clarify a little while ago. I just want to say that when he paraphrased what I said as "beholden", that is not correct. When he kept saying that I meant that, I want to put it on record that I did not miss his point whereas he has missed mine, namely, that he has misread the Article whereas I have not. My point was that because of the misreading of Article 94(3), serious mistakes were made and, because of those mistakes, the PAP Government is now trying to backtrack and cover up those mistakes. Mr Wee Chong Jin's name was mentioned not because I launched any personal attack on him and neither did I mean that he was beholden to anyone. He just happened to be in the centre of the argument. That is all. Now, Sir, let me come to the Bill that we are supposed to debate on. I believe, Sir, future historians and, of course, I do not mean the PAP historians, but historians who have regard to the objective truth, will surely regard today as one of the blackest days of Singapore, equated perhaps to 15th February 1942, when Singapore fell to the advancing Japanese forces. It is indeed ironical, Sir, that this Parliament which we have borrowed from other Parliaments in freedom-loving countries, and notably the United Kingdom, should today sit to legislate for the abolition of freedom and justice in this land of ours. Make no mistakes, Sir.”
“I do not know what he meant by "beholden".”
“And the other one too, Sir. He also said something about all political parties having funked the issue on ISA. That is not true, Sir. They have a record of all our speeches. I am sure they can play them over and listen to them.”
“The Minister was referring to the violence by Chia Thye Poh. What sort of violence had he been carrying out?”
“But I want to ask the question of the Minister about the violence that he talked about. Since when has this violence that he talked about ---”
“I want some clarification, Sir, from the Minister. First of all, I must congratulate a new champion for Chia Thye Poh. Some people have been saying that he is trying to jump onto the bandwagon. I am not sure if he is. But anyway we welcome all this, Sir.”
“With this amendment, Sir, the office of the CJ is made more tenuous and less secure than the office of a judge of the Supreme Court. Is that what the Government wants a CJ who can be hired and fired by the Prime Minister at his will when other judges appointed under Article 95 cannot be hired and fired until they reach the age of 65? Sir, the whole amendment, as has been mentioned by some of the speakers a little while ago, has been broached as a result of the Privy Council's judgment on Jeyaretnam and I wish to come to that section a little while later when I speak on the ISA.”
“What difference does it make? I represent the Workers' Party today and I must refer to what has happened in the past as what was done by my Party. Anyway, Sir, my Party's view is that the judges cannot be seen to be independent if they can be appointed by the Prime Minister for fixed periods during the pleasure of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can terminate the appointment of the person at any time during the period. This I understand is provided for in the Interpretation and General Clauses Act. So how can a judge or judges appointed under this Article be seen to be independent of the Prime Minister and his Executive? But the proposed amendment compounds the matter further. The power of appointment of the CJ is now contained in Article 95(1) of the Constitution, and under that appointment the CJ continues until he is 65. Article 95 also confers the power to appoint other judges. Now the Government proposes to vest the power of appointment of the Chief Justice in an additional Article 94(3). Have they not overlooked the fact, Sir, that with this new amendment, the Prime Minister can appoint anyone not just someone who has ceased to be CJ or even a judge in the Supreme Court but anyone who qualifies for appontment to the High Court Bench as Chief Justice. The difference is that while the appointment is made under Article 95(1) the CJ's tenure is secure until he reaches the age of 65 but if he is appointed under Article 94(3), even though he has not reached the age of 65, the Prime Minister may terminate his appointment at any time during the period of his appointment, and in any event his appointment lapses at the end of that period.”
“No lie, Sir. That is a word which must be withdrawn. It is a fact and I am now a member of the Workers' Party, and therefore I refer to that Party as my Party.”
“No, Sir, at that time, I did not. But there is no harm in objecting now, though a bit late. Better late than never.”
“But beyond all this, Sir, there is a point of principle which I want to stress. My Party has objected from way back in 1972, after Article 94(3) was introduced to the Constitution, to the power given to the Prime Minister by that amendment, to appoint persons to the High Court for periods of time at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, and my Party's objection was that this would undermine the independence of the judiciary.”
“It would now appear that Wee Chong Jin was acting ultra vires the Constitution when he decided to transfer the Senior District Judge from his office in August 1984. I do not know what other functions and duties Wee Chong Jin performed and discharged by virtue of his purported office as Chief Justice after 28th September 1982. But it is now quite clear that a grave question mark hangs over all the functions and powers exercised by Wee Chong Jin as Chief Justice after 28th September 1982. Sir, may I express my amazement that this Government which prides itself on its competency could have overlooked that Article 94(3) did not give the Prime Minister the power to appoint Wee Chong Jin as Chief Justice on 28th September 1982 in spite of what the Minister has said. The Prime Minister himself is a lawyer. I am not sure whether he looked up the Constitution when he made the appointment and I am not sure whether the Home Affairs Minister looked up this Article too when the appointment was made. Or was the Prime Minister merely content to rely on the advice of the Attorney-General? May I say, apropos another advice that he has recently given to the Government, that I understand the legal fraternity is surprised that he should consider reasons given by the Privy Council in allowing the appeal by the former MP for Anson, to be mere comments, things said by the way, which according to some people, is not true. This amendment seeks to legalize the wrongs and make them right. Can the Government really set right all that has been done wrongly by the Government through this amendment? I understand that the Chief Justice also draws a higher salary than the other judges of the Supreme Court. Therefore, it would follow that there has also been misuse of public funds.”
“I am afraid that whatever the Minister for Home Affairs or anybody in the Government may say, the public will conclude that the appointment of Wee Chong Jin in 1982 as Chief Justice had been made outside the Constitution. Now the Government seeks to ratify something which was done illegally, outside the Constitution, as legal and within the Constitution by back-dating the amendment to 19th November 1971, the very date when Article 94(3) was first introduced into the Constitution. It must follow that if Wee Chong Jin was not validly appointed Chief Justice from 28th September 1982, the functions and duties which he discharged as Chief Justice were irregular and ultra vires the Constitution. Wee Chong Jin, by virtue of his appointment on the 28th September 1982, continued to preside as Chairman of the Legal Service Commission. If this appointment was invalid, then his functioning as Chairman of the Legal Service Commission was also invalid and contrary to the Constitution - contrary to Article 112 (2) of the Constitution which sets up the Legal Service Commission. Whatever Wee Chong Jin did in his capacity as Chairman of the Legal Service Commission is now called into question. The Workers' Party member in Parliament, that is Mr Jeyaretnam in the last session, in the January and March 1986 sittings of Parliament, raised the question of the transfer of the Senior District Judge from his office in August 1984. Wee Chong Jin handed in a memo to the Prime Minister, which the Prime Minister tendered in Parliament, saying that he had transferred the Senior District Judge in his capacity as Chairman of the Legal Service Commission after consulting the Attorney-General.”
“May I suggest to him, with all the deepest respect, that professors are not infallible and many a professor has been shown to be wrong in his views on the subject on which he claims to have expert knowledge. The Minister for Home Affairs said on the 19th January that this amendment was prompted by a ground raised by Jeyaretnam, the former MP for Anson, in his appeal to the Privy Council on the validity of the appointment of Wee Chong Jin as Chief Justice. He has mentioned it again today. The Minister for Home Affairs went on, however, to give the impression, and he mentioned this again, that after raising this point in the petition of appeal, it was not pursued before the Privy Council, thereby giving the impression that Jeyaretnam had abandoned the point on the advice of his counsel, there being no merit in the ground. I have ascertained, Sir, from Jeyaretnam that that was not so. The point was not pursued before the Privy Council simply because it had not been reached in his appeal; there being a few grounds in the appeal. There were several grounds raised by Jeyaretnam in his petition and I understand that their Lordships in the Privy Council, after hearing Jeyaretnam's counsel on the first two grounds relating to the validity of the convictions, indicated to his counsel that they did not wish to hear him further, but wished to hear the Counsel for the Law Society. Therefore, it is not true to say that the ground was abandoned or not pursued before the Privy Council. I understand, Sir, from Jeyaretnam that it was the considered opinion of his counsel that Wee Chong Jin's appointment as Chief Justice from 1982 onwards was ultra vires Article 94(3) of the Constitution.”
“Thank you. When I raised at the sitting of the House on the 19th January on the validity of the appoint- ment of Wee Chong Jin as Chief Justice in 1982 and continued thereafter, the Minister for Home Affairs gave it as his opinion that the power for that appointment in 1982 was to be found in Article 94(3). Wee Chong Jin had reached the retiring age of 65 on the 27th September 1982, and under Article 98 could not hold the office of Chief Justice after six months from that date. The Prime Minister, by Gazette Notification, purported to appoint him again as Chief Justice on the 28th September 1982, and the Minister for Home Affairs said on Thursday (19th January 1989) that the Prime Minister had this power under Article 94(3) when he made the appointment in 1982. But he had to explain away why, if in fact and in law, the Prime Minister had this power, it was necessary to bring in an amendment now to that Article. That is vital, Sir, very, very important. If the Government were convinced that Article 94(3) gave the Prime Minister the power, why now raise doubts in the minds of the public - whether the Prime Minister had this power or not - by bringing in an amendment? The truth is, however the Minister for Home Affairs may try to hide it, that the Government has now realized that the Prime Minister did not have the power in 1982 when he continued Wee Chong Jin in the office of Chief Justice and renewed that appointment in 1985 and 1988. The Minister for Home Affairs in Parliament has urged me to accept his advice and opinion since he was a Professor of Law at the University and could be expected to know the law much better than I do.”
“Yes. So I will speak, then wait for the next time again.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose now to speak only on clause 2 of the Bill seeking to amend Article 94 of the Constitution. Clause 3 merely prepares the way to amend the ISA. So I will touch on clause 3 of the Bill when the amendment to the ISA comes up. In spite of what the Minister has said, I wish to speak separately on the two different Bills. I need the full time, Sir, allowed under Standing Orders, and if I am allowed one full hour for the two Bills I will carry on straightaway. Otherwise I will speak now on the Bills wait a while and then speak again.”
“It is not a matter of representation or mandate. Some people have more votes than other people and think that they have more mandate than others. That is not true. I want to make it very clear that I come from the Eunos GRC. As has already been admitted by the Leader of the House, we represent a very good proportion of the voters there; and also near 40% of the total electorate, which comes to hundreds of thousands of votes. Therefore, it is not non-representation at all. Maybe he wishes to confine himself to one constituency, maybe Potong Pasir. So, Sir, on the matter of representation, I do represent many voters. Let us not just harp on it again and say I do not, otherwise I will have to say something more.”
“No, I am not talking about the Ideology at all. I was merely giving an example of how we look at things.”
“No, Sir, I will make it short and quick. There was another talk about representation. Mr Speaker: Dr Lee, I am allowing you to clarify your position regarding what Mr Chiam has said about NCMPs. But I think you should not embark on another speech on the National Ideology.”
“And, Sir, if the PAP had the choice when Mr Seow and myself came in, they would have knocked us out. They have knocked Mr Seow out. They are waiting for a chance to get me! Because they know that I know quite a lot of how the PAP works. I have analyzed, for example, why they created this National Ideology. And I have given you the steps as to how it came about. If you look at it, you will find that it is historically correct. I analyze events and things on the basis of facts and reasoned arguments.”
“I am surprised, Sir, the NCMP seems to be the butt of so many comments. Earlier on, the Government Ministers and MPs have been saying that the NCMP is here because of democracy. Let us go back and analyze how the NCMP came about. Very easy, Sir. At that time, you remember 1984, there were lots of people asking for representation from the Opposition. They wanted more Opposition in Parliament. And to create an image that the Government was not opposing any Opposition, they created this NCMP scheme, a facade, to create the impression that they would like to have Opposition, but that the only thing was that the Opposition could not make it. That was the whole idea. And now, of course, once it is in the Constitution, nobody can stop it, not even the Prime Minister. Of course, Mr Chiam has his own views. I do not want to disabuse him of them. We disagree on quite a number of points. I do not want to make any comments on that. But let us not forget that at this point, the NCMP is part of the Constitution. Hon. Members: Yes.”
“May I be allowed to say few words, Sir? Some hon. Members: Yes.”
“Would the Minister consider those people who work a couple of months a year and are actually semi-jobless as jobless people, Sir?”
“Would the Minister tell us that there are quite a number of people who have not registered and whether the numbers are included in his calculations?”
“Sir, the Minister has given us the percentage. Would he be good enough to let us know the numbers?”
“Can the Minister tell us whether residents have been forced to get out of their flats? Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, once a block has been identified for re-location and everybody who is in that block is given notice to move, they can move to another rental flat or they can purchase another flat. If they want to purchase another flat, of course as I mentioned, they will have priority. In addition, they will be able to purchase a flat without having to make any downpayment. They will get 100% loan for the purchase of a flat provided it is not bigger than a 4-room flat. So every assistance is given for them to move. But they have to move because the block cannot be demolished and the place cannot be redeveloped if it is occupied. MRT NORTH-EAST ROUTE (Construction of) 2. Mr Goh Choon Kang asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether any decision has been taken with regard to the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation's plan for a North-East route which will cover Serangoon New Town, Jalan Kayu and Punggol.”
“Yes. Since there is a possibility that there were mistakes made, although he denies it, can he say that there were times when there were improper use of powers of the Chief Justice?”
“I do not wish to argue with him on points of law. But does it not appear that the Government in making the amendment that it has really admitted that he has made a mistake.”
“By virtue of the proposed amendment to the Constitution that is now before the House, does he not admit that in fact Mr Wee Chong Jin has been functioning only as the Chief Justice contrary to the Constitution and therefore illegally?”
“Sir, is there any reason why anybody should take his word for everything?”
“But since the Minister says there is an element of doubt in the Constitution, would he agree that Article 94(3) does not say that he could have appointed a Judge as the Chief Justice. It only says "to sit as a Judge". That does not mean that he is the Judge or the Chief Justice.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister again is not here to answer this question.”
“No. WORK PERMIT HOLDERS AND LABOUR SHORTAGE 3. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for Labour (a) if he will give the number of work permit holders as at the latest convenient date; and (b) what are his Ministry's plans to meet the labour shortage in some employment sectors.”
“Were those conditions for the PAP connected with Swing Singapore and other treats?”
“Were treats like Swing Singapore on two occasions and treats in the community centres not part of what he has been saying?”
“Were the celebrations held during the National Day month to take advantage of the many treats that would be provided out of public funds during the month?”
“Was the decision to dissolve Parliament on 17th August and to hold fresh elections immediately taken after it was known early in August that the Privy Council would hear the appeal of Mr Jeyaretnam in October?”
“If that was the case, Sir, was the decision taken to prevent Francis T. Seow from taking his seat in Parliament, in the hope that he would be disqualified following his convictions?”
“When was the decision to enlarge the seating of the House made? Before or after the elections?”
“In spite of his explanation, does he not agree that the Prime Minister should carry out promises made under solemn conditions.”