Ling How Doong
Singapore
“If you have six single member constituencies, the opposition has to find six candidates of equal or greater merit than the PAP, and I think it is not an easy task in Singapore to find six people that the electorate will consider to be equal or better than the PAP candidates put against them.”
“You have noticed that when I talked of GRCs, it goes against the very basic and fundamental right of the voters. It is the inability to vote for their own candidate, not so much on the minority. It is only a side issue, a supplement to the whole thing.”
“I am not changing my mind. This is to allay the fear of the minority groups, ie, the Malays, the Indians and the minorities, that they are not represented. When I suggested NCMP, what I mean is that the system should work this way.”
“As I said, in substitution of this, you can surely modify and ensure that they also come in a more representative way. At least, we know how many percent of the people support them. Alternatively, you can hold another election and confine it to all the minorities, ie, the Indians and the Malays, and decide who should represent them.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. Before I start, can I just briefly mention this. Dr John Chen earlier on has mentioned the fact that the advantage of a GRC is that you have more MPs in the same group. I thought this has been in practice by the PAP Town Councils.”
“If you stand in single constituencies you will be guaranteed. It is better than the GRCs. What I mean is that you come in on your own steam and you can be assured. A more equitable aspect is that you ensure both the ruling as well as the Opposition parties.”
The complete record
Every one of 367 lines we hold for Ling How Doong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 8.
“I apologise. He has not even got your permission and he starts to interrupt and speak.”
“No. I would not, because my name has been mentioned. I think I have a right to reply. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel sorry for Mr Peh. I suppose that is his usual style of speech-reading, instead of speech-making here. From what I have seen, he must have prepared his speech. In a parliamentary debate, when someone has made a speech of facts, you should modify your reply. It would appear he cannot do it. He was just repeating what he has written. We have never raised in this House the question of $226 used by Dr Chee. He has even failed to understand what we have been saying, ie, if Dr Chee has been guilty of dishonesty, why in the letter of dismissal it cited clause 4(a), which is a contractual provision in the contract. Why? He apparently does not even understand simple English, I suppose. Mr Peh Chin Hua rose ---”
“Sir, in view of this case, would the Minister consider that, in future, all capital cases, if there is a confession to be made, should be referred to a Magistrate instead of a police officer?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier on Mr Ho Peng Kee mentioned the fact that GST would create jobs without citing examples. Now, he says that some people observe the big picture, and others observe the small picture. I am afraid after his speech, I see no picture at all.”
“Sir, it would appear that most of them are under the impression that the only way of control is by levy. What I am saying is that you could even control by way of regulations, not necessarily by levy. For example, I thought it is in practice now that in certain industries there has to be a worker ratio of two or three foreigners to one local. That is one way of regulating the whole thing. My argument here is that besides the levy, you can control the influx of workers.”
“Sir, as I stated earlier, it is simply this. The Government can control the influx through necessity. In other words, the particular sector must prove to the Government that it has tried and is unable to get local workers. Where is the competition? Where is the depression in wages? It is just not possible, because there are no takers, as I mentioned earlier.”
“The answer is a very simple one. This can be regulated by the Government. As I said earlier, the Government should only allow vacancies where there are no takers at all. If you have clerks who are available locally, the Government should not allow foreigners to fill up the vacancies when you have local takers.”
“How could I tell you when? It depends. Invariably, it must depend on our economy, is it not? Of course, we have to depend on how our economy advances in future, whether we are able to continue to amass surpluses and also continue to have budgetary surpluses every year. It must be dependent on all these factors.”
“I mentioned it in my speech in the budget debate. I mentioned the fact that we now have good reserves and all the budgetary surpluses every year. That is the reason why I say the timing is wrong. We could afford maybe to wait until later on to introduce the GST. An hon. Member: When?”
“That is one thing for sure, it will create jobs.”
“Yes, Mr Goh Chee Wee. Both of them seem to mention the fact that if we do not impose a levy, it will cause the depression of wages of the locals here. I disagree with this. Why are we having foreign workers and maids here? Because of shortage of labour. Why is there a shortage of labour? Because these foreign workers and maids are here to fill vacancies shunned by locals. They are here in substitution of and not in competition with local workers here. How could the levy cause depression of wages of local workers here? The next point: it is not as if foreign workers just come in at random and in any numbers. I thought it is the policy of the Government to regulate and to admit the foreign workers according to local demand. It is only in the sectors where there are no takers that foreign workers are being admitted here. So how could it depress the wages of the local workers here? I do not understand the logic behind all this. Furthermore, I also do not follow the logic of the argument that only the levy can control the influx of workers. It is not true. You can have regulations, you can have rules and you can actually restrict the number of workers coming here without the levy. You could, in fact, insist on the employer or the manufacturer to prove to the satisfaction of the Government that they require these workers and there are no local takers. I fail to understand the logic that it is going to depress the wages of the locals here. Next, the hon. Member, Mr Koo Tsai Kee, mentioned the fact that the GST will create jobs, but he has not cited any examples how it will create jobs. But I know one thing for sure. It would create jobs because with the GST, the manufacturers and construction companies would have to engage more staff to service the GST.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I maintain the position I adopted when I spoke at the Budget debate. There are a number of reasons why I am not in favour of GST. Firstly, it is the timing; secondly, is the fact that we have, in practice, a number of indirect GSTs. I cited examples like diesel tax where the taxi driver has to pass on to the passengers. So they are paying a tax. Because of the diesel levy, the fare has to be increased. The other one is the ad valorem duty on petrol. This is also an indirect GST. COE and the foreign worker and maid levies are also indirect taxes, because when you impose a levy on foreign workers, invariably, the cost of manufacture or construction goes up. So, ultimately, the manufacturer would pass on to the consumer. Indirectly, it is a GST. Perhaps I would like to reply to Mr Goh Chee Wai and Mr Koo Tsai Kee who mentioned the fact that --- An hon. Member: Mr Goh Chee Wee.”
“I am surprised at the reply of the Minister. Here is a case of a layman. You do not expect her to know. She may be frightened and she is shy of everything. We wrote the letter. What is so difficult for the Police to write to her to tell her: Come to the Police Station and lodge a report. I am surprised at the Minister's reply.”
“I am not aware of this. Whether she has filed a complaint or not is not important at all because the complaint could be in the form of a report to the MP in that sense. The complaint was for the Police to initiate investigation from there because she came to me and I wrote in the complaint.”
“Mr Speaker, I must apologise for intruding just now because the Member asked me which model I supported. So in answer, I said that I did not support this. I merely drew an analogy by giving a comparison whereby the public seems to have the impression that if New Zealand has 12 1/2% GST and, Singapore has 3%, it is very reasonable. I said that if you want to draw a comparison, you must put all the facts on the table. You do not just say, "There, 12 1/2%, here, 3%." You must tell them what they get for 12 1/2% and what we get for 3%. I am not supporting the practice in New Zealand and Australia. And I do not support a welfare state at all costs. So I want to make it clear. I meant to draw a comparison here. Do not get me wrong.”
“I am not supporting. I am only drawing a comparison.”
“" Therefore, I urge this House to seriously consider this aspect - in good times, everybody enjoys the benefit for the sake of the country; in bad times, the people will share the burden of the country.”
“But then the comparison must not just stop there. New Zealand is a welfare state. They get social security. They get welfare services from the time they are born until they are dead. They get unemployment benefits. They get superannuation benefits when they reach the age of 60. The handicap will get assistance, and so on and so forth. And New Zealand paid $10 billion in welfare payments. Look at Australia. It is also a welfare state but with certain modifications. They have to pay now for their tertiary education and health, like New Zealand. For New Zealand, they have recently introduced that anyone with an income of $1,300 has to pay ward charges of $44 a day. For those earning below $1,300, they do not have to pay any charges in the hospital at all. We are not even talking about a welfare state. We are talking of ploughing back the huge surpluses of $4.9 billion that we have, and we are only ploughing back $1.1 billion. And out of this $1.1 billion, part of it is considered investment to get foreigners to invest in Singapore. Why not? Why are we in such a hurry? Why are we so obsessed with increasing our budget surpluses every year? We have not even touched the reserves, which we should not, because we have very healthy budgetary surpluses every year. For all you know, if we introduce the measure to induce foreigners to invest in Singapore, surely we must have confidence that it will give us good returns and they may even be more than the $1.1 billion we are sinking in now. Even the Prime Minister of Australia has said that the GST is a monstrous tax which intrudes into every aspect of life. And he also said, "Don't have the GST at any cost.”
“With the GST, they will collect about $221 million. Of course, there is a loss of over $100 million. But bearing in mind, the $1.1 billion loss in revenue was meant partly to induce or to get foreigners to invest in Singapore. Surely, there will be returns for this investment. And as the Prime Minister has said earlier, in good times, the Government is prepared to give back whatever the state has. Why not set an example here? In good times, we should put the budget in practice. Without the GST, the loss in revenue will be $1.1 billion. Set this amount against the budget surplus of $4.9 billion, the Government will still have a surplus of over $3 billion. Why not plough this money back in good times? I am quite sure that the people will go all out to support the Government in bad times. We are worrying about the greying population 20-30 years from now. The ratio is 8:1 but it will be 3:1 later on. With the CPF net being widened now, long before the 20 years, you would have got nearly every Singaporean under the CPF. With the new law to raise the retirement age to 60 years, and with more and more people buying health insurance, MediShield, even the ratio of 3:1 should pose no problem to Singaporeans because all these people would be self-sufficient. And as we pump so much money into education, more and more people will be educated. They will be the working population including the female. Therefore, why are we worrying about 20-30 years from now? We said we model our system after the New Zealand GST. New Zealand introduced the GST in 1986 at 10% and, in 1989, increased it to 12.5%. But we are way-off from New Zealand. Of course, if you compare the percentage point, Singapore at 3% GST and, New Zealand at 12 1/2%, it is a wonderful proposition to Singaporeans.”
“This is again indirect taxation made through the people. The next item is diesel tax. With the imposition of $7,000-odd diesel tax on taxis, the taxi companies will have to raise taxi fares. Had it not been for the imposition of the diesel tax, and had it not been for the imposition of duties on petroleum products, the taxi fare could have been $2, instead of $2.20. So the people are paying indirect tax on the service in this sense. The money has been collected by the Government and the taxi drivers have been made, in a way, the agents for the collection of revenue for the Government. The duties collected from petrol in 1990 came to $499 million and, in 1991, $531 million. Then the statutory boards, like TAS and PUB, are monopolistic bodies. You either get their services or none at all. You cannot go elsewhere for water, neither can you go elsewhere for electricity. Similarly for TAS, their prices will keep going up. They will never lose money. So that explains why all these statutory bodies have got surpluses. And the services rendered to the people through these monopolistic bodies will result in the people paying more for the services. This, in a way, is also service tax. The next point is the reserves of over $70 billion. These reserves have been invested somewhere. Even on a very conservative calculation, based on 4% interest, $25 billion would generate $1 billion in return annually. Where are these returns? And I am sure all these reserves are not just invested by putting them in the bank to collect the 4% interest. They are invested elsewhere. I am quite sure the return would be much higher than just the 4% interest. In the new budget, the Government would lose a revenue of $1.1 billion if they are not implementing the GST.”
“Similarly, we depend heavily on foreign workers. With the imposition of this levy, the construction industry has to pay more, resulting in rising cost for building condominiums, including HDB flats. Ordinarily, before the levy was imposed, for example, a flat cost $100,000. Now, with the imposition of the levy of $450, probably the cost has gone up to $120,000. But the $20,000 would have gone back to the Government. When the flat is completed, and when the Government sells it to members of the public or its citizens, they would consider this as the cost of increase for the new HDB flats. Therefore, the Government benefits twice over. The first time, they collect the levy, but when the property is for sale, it has not taken into consideration that the increase of $20,000 has already been collected by Government through the levy. That is why the price of the property has gone up. That is also a form of GST. The next form is HDB rentals. HDB rentals have gone up, and hawkers will have to charge more for their food. It is very obvious. Ultimately, it will be the people, the consumers, who have to pay more for this. That itself, I consider, is an indirect taxation in the form of GST. Another form is the COE, PARF, ARF, and the road tax. The Government has collected in excess of $1.7 billion from this source of revenue. Quite obviously, this would have resulted in the increase in cost of transport and production. It will again land on the laps of consumers. This, I consider, is also a form of indirect taxation. Like petrol, for example, the ad valorem duty on petrol is about 60 cents per litre. The people have to pay. I know in the Budget there is this provision for reduction. But we do not know what percentage it will be reduced.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a good budget, save for the GST. I therefore suspect that, on the one hand, it encourages investments from foreigners and, on the other hand, it is a sugar-coating over the GST bitter pill. And like contact pills, once swallowed, it takes a period of time to react accordingly. I question the timing of the introduction of GST, simply because at the moment we have a very sound economy and we have a healthy reserve of over $70 billion. And every year we have huge budgetary surpluses. In 1989, we had $3.7 billion, 1990 we had $3.4 billion, in 1991 we had $5.7 billion, and now we have $4.9 billion surplus. With such strong financial standing, I therefore question the timing of the introduction of the GST. The Budget is introducing a very radical change to our tax system - from direct to indirect taxation with a broad base. The question before this House is whether the middle and lower-income groups have in the past been paying something like a GST. I am going to say, in fact, they have been paying GST, though not called GST as such. It is a way of indirect taxation by the Government. For example, the foreign workers levy. Because of the foreign workers levy, in the manufacturing sector and the construction sector, costs have gone up and, invariably, the costs have been passed on to the consumers. So that is indirect taxation to that extent and, therefore, they have to pay more, because costs have gone up. And costs have gone up because of the imposition of levy by the Government, bearing in mind the foreign workers levy amounts to $975 million. The foreign workers levy amounts to $975 million which the Government has received in advance and later on you get the people to pay this back to the Government. It is indirect taxation, which amounts to GST.”
“While SBC and ROV could remind licensees, "Your licence fee is due next month." or "Your road tax is due two months later.", I see no reason why this aspect cannot be introduced rather than penalising someone who applies for a driving licence, bearing in mind that disqualification varies from one year to 10 years. So during this long period, surely you do not expect an ordinary motorist to remember, "Is my licence going to expire or not?" If he applies, you penalise him. My suggestion is that we have a proper computerised recording system. This particular clause should be deleted from the Bill, and we should not penalise people merely for applying for a driving licence while under disqualification. I feel that this ought to be run that way. Sir, the next point I would like to bring up is this. The Bill seems to discriminate against an owner of a vehicle and a non-owner of a vehicle because under the provision if you are convicted the second time, and on the application of the DPP, your vehicle can be confiscated. Whereas if you do not own any vehicle, you do not have to suffer this extra penalty here. The next point is what would happen to someone buying a car under hire purchase. I suppose he would not be penalised because the hire purchase company would not know whether this man, in his lifetime, is going to drive his vehicle while under disqualification. So this is another discrimination. Would it then lead to a result that every time one buys a car under hire purchase he drags his instalments over a long period of time so that he would not get penalised under this Bill? Sir, while I support the Bill, as I said earlier, I would urge this House to really consider the necessity of the provisions I have mentioned earlier.”
“With all those punishments I have mentioned earlier, I feel that they are sufficient to deter anyone, other than caning. Caning should be reserved for really violent crimes. Of course, I am not saying about a person who has been banned and then he committed reckless and dangerous driving. Probably in those circumstances, one may consider that punishment as a necessity. But as I said earlier, we are a civilised society, and caning should be reserved for violent crimes, but not for this offence. The Minister mentioned that if you are caught driving under disqualification for a third time and if you cause injuries and death, you will be subject to all these punishments. May I suggest that he must be convicted for causing injury or death, because one could be driving but, through no fault of his, he knocks somebody down, especially when he is disqualified on non-technical grounds. He was in control of the vehicle but he caused that injury through no fault of his. And yet he will get this sort of punishment. He must be convicted for causing grievous hurt or death before this particular provision is brought to bear. The next point I would like to bring to the Minister's attention is this. One of the amendments is that it is an offence now merely to apply or obtain a driving licence while under disqualification. I thought in this modern era of high-tech and computers, the Police or the ROV should have the proper machinery to keep a record of those disqualified in the computer and when you apply, they will inform you, "Sorry, you can't apply because you are under disqualification.", rather than having this all-embracing clause where once you apply for a driving licence, you have committed an offence and you can get a fine of up to $5,000.”
“And I have been given to understand that if you take two big glasses of beer, not surprisingly enough, the alcohol content has gone up to the 80 milligrammes mark as spelt out in the law. In other words, not everyone with this alcohol content in the blood would be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. There are people with alcohol content of 120 mg or 150 mg, and they are still very steady on the road. But of course this is a safeguard to prevent this. Sir, the recalcitrant person ought to be punished. What I am saying here is that some people could be just attending some social gathering and after having one or two drinks too many, he was in a position to control his vehicle but yet, because of this particular provision, he was disqualified. Sir, imagine for a moment, on this groun-d, he drove a vehicle, say, a second time, and then a third time. The point here is that one must look at the enhanced penalties now to deal with them. I agree that at present, six months' jail is insufficient. With this amendment, in respect of the other proviso, the point is whether it is sufficient deterrent for the people who have been caught driving while under prohibition. If you are caught the third time, you can get a fine of up to $30,000 and you can be imprisoned up to nine years, your vehicle will be confiscated, and you will face a life ban. These are the four punishments you can get. My question is: are these sufficient deterrents for any would-be wrongdoer? As I said, do we need to include caning as another aspect of the punishment? Sir, one must draw a distinction between criminal and quasi-criminal activities or offences here. I feel that in a civilised society, whatever it needs to introduce would have to conform to that sort of norm.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first declare my interest. I am a practising lawyer. Mr Speaker, while I support the Bill, I have my reservation in respect of certain provisos in this particular Bill. Firstly, one must really consider what are the grounds where one can be disqualified from driving. The grounds one can be disqualified would be, one, having a drink or drug and incapable of having control of the vehicle. The second one would be reckless or dangerous driving and the next one would be if he is convicted of causing death by reckless or dangerous driving. I do not know whether you cover a case where one is disqualified by way of the demerit system. If one examines these grounds carefully, one would have noticed that one could be disqualified on technical ground. I cite you a very simple example, like driving while under the influence of alcohol. At one time, driving while under the influence of liquor was not an offence. The prosecution must prove that he has consumed alcohol to an extent where he was incapable of having control of the vehicle, because there is a presumption in law. We have a presumption in law under the Road Traffic Act that one is presumed to be not capable of having control of the vehicle if, on examination, they discover that you have 80 milligrammes of liquor in 100 millilitres of your blood. But you have to prove the content of alcohol in your blood. One must do that. In a court of law, in the past, besides proving the content of alcohol in your blood, they must also prove that you were incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. It would appear that in a few recent decisions of the court of appeal, the moment they have discovered the content of alcohol in your blood, it becomes an irrebuttable presumption.”
“Is it true that so long as the RC and CCC members obtain a season parking ticket within one constituency, they are allowed to park in other constituencies within the GRC zone?”
“Sir, presently we have 14 golf courses. Under the Concept Plan, we are going to have another 15 golf courses. I would like to know how this projection was arrived at when the population reaches four million.”
“Sir, in land-scarce Singapore, why are we allotting more and more land to less and less people for their enjoyment and benefit?”
“Sir, what is the total membership of these golf clubs?”
“May I know whether the total amount donated has been fully disbursed to all the victims and their families?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Wong Kan Seng has just said that we need the NMPs to point out the mistakes of the Opposition. Is he suggesting that the present Members have failed in their duty and you need NMPs to come to this Parliament to point out the flaws of the Opposition MPs? Clarify this point for us.”
“Of course, we are in trouble. That is why I am speaking against the motion. If we are not in trouble, I would not be speaking against this idea of NMPs. Therefore, we owe a duty to the people who voted us into Parliament, and for the very reason that there must be safeguards that anyone who wants to be in Parliament, anyone who wants to hold the post of Cabinet Minister, must be duly elected by the people, and not nominated by Members of Parliament here. I have heard Members here referring to the Secretary of State in America. One cannot just draw a comparison in that way because America has got a very different system. The President is elected but the rest of his colleagues are all appointed by the President. We do not. We have the British parliamentary system here. Therefore, one cannot draw a comparison and say, "Look at the United States of America." Sir, the next point is, if anyone who is not prepared to be examined in public, if anyone who is not prepared to go through the rough-and-tumble of politics and get elected through the due process of election, he is not fit to be here.”
“Would the people accept this NMP if he is in the Cabinet? It is against our parliamentary system, as there can be no accountability in this respect. Sir, accountability is one of the pillars of democracy. If he is elected by the people there can be checks and balances, and the people would not vote for him if he were to stand for election again. Sir, the next point I would like to say is this. With the appointment of NMP, we have created a very dangerous precedent in Parliament. It is the first time in history that we have created a very dangerous precedent. The logic and reason is not difficult to follow. What is there to prevent this House from appointing a non-citizen to be an NMP? It is simply because the Constitution can be amended. At the moment, you require that a candidate must be a Singapore citizen to stand for election. Sir, imagine for a moment you have a Government which is formed of crooks and unreliable people. What is there to prevent this group of people from amending the Constitution and making non-citizens to be NMPs? What is there to prevent this from happening? An hon. Member: We are in trouble.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, most of the pros and cons in respect of NMPs have been well canvassed before, and most of them are stale ones. Of course, mine would not be the exception. Sir, we, in the SDP, are not in favour of NMPs on the following grounds. Firstly, it is repugnant to our parliamentary democracy as it strikes at the foundation of one-man-one-vote system. Secondly, it infringes the principle of delegatus non potest delegare. In law, a delegate cannot delegate. In other words, when powers are given to a person, that person cannot delegate that power to another person. More so, when it involves Parliament. When the people voted for the Members of Parliament, I am quite sure they have complete trust and faith in the respective Members of Parliament. They trust them, they vote for them, and they expect them to carry out their duties and functions as Members of Parliament. You must go back to them to ask them whether they are prepared to give MPs these extra powers to delegate this power to someone else. Quite obviously, NMPs are not the representatives of the people. We are a representative Government. What sort of representative Government can we have when Members of Parliament are not the representatives of the people? Of course, for the time being there is only provision for six NMPs. What is there to prevent this House from amending the Constitution and make provision for 40 NMPs? If you can have six, I say we have no reason not to have more. Where is the check to increase the number of NMPs in Parliament? What is there to prevent an NMP from becoming a Cabinet Minister? If you look at the Constitution, an NMP can become a Cabinet Minister. Sir, imagine for a moment you have an NMP who becomes a Cabinet Minister. Where is the accountability?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would you give me a chance to explain what a PI is all about? At least, the House will have the benefit of knowing what a PI is all about.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would you be prepared to make an exception for such an important Bill before the House?”
“Sir, it is to clarify the misconception.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in my earlier submission I raised the point about a preliminary inquiry (PI). Mr Ho, in his speech, would appear to give the impression that a PI is a safeguard. Let me tell this House what a preliminary inquiry is all about.”
“Can I reply to Mr Ho before the Minister replies? Mr Speaker: Mr Ling, you can only speak once to a question and you can only rise again if it is to clarify some parts of your speech which have been misunderstood. Can I ask you whether it is to clarify?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not ask for the cases pending trial. My question is: from 1969 until now, how many cases have been delayed and, after hearing, have been acquitted? I am not asking for how many cases pending. I am asking for statistics because the argument appears to be that innocent people have been imprisoned for a long time and then acquitted. You have got me all wrong.”
“When you are found guilty, the only sentence that can be passed is death. There is no in-between to say that he may not be sentenced to death. Then the court will say, "Fair enough. I give you 10 years in prison. Or I give you life imprisonment." But it is going to be death, and death only. Sir, in this respect, I am not in favour of this amendment. As I said earlier, firstly, there are no statistics; secondly, can we afford to stint on time when a man is facing a life-and-death struggle? I urge this House to seriously consider this matter because even in the UK we have cases of innocent men being hanged. And to follow the British justice, it is better that 10 accused go free than one innocent man hanged.”
“Because those facts which may help the accused cannot be adduced at the trial Court. There is this danger there. And is there an assurance to this House that qualified counsel will be assigned to defend the accused? Sir, not very long ago, there was one case of a counsel who had got no experience in criminal law. It was reported in the Straits Times. Because the accused was too poor, the State assigned a counsel for him. And what happened at the trial half-way? He did not know what questions to ask at all. And, in fact, when he was assigned, he objected very strongly to the Registrar and said, "I have no experience in criminal law." But they insisted that he carried on with the defence. And at the trial stage he stood up and said, "Well, I told you in the first place I don't understand criminal law. Yet I have been forced to take on the defence." And he was discharged. Sir, imagine for a moment, when a counsel who has no criminal experience being assigned to do a job, and he does not tell the Court that he has got no experience because he feels that it is a duty to the Court to take the assignment. It will result in tremendous injustice to the man. And not just imprisonment, his life might be taken away. Is it fair, therefore, that we should amend the law where you have a single judge hearing the last trial of this man? Unless there are better safeguards than this, and unless there are better reasons other than it takes the court a longer time to hear such cases, I think there is no reason at all to amend the law. Delay in the trial is no reason at all to reduce from two judges to one, especially in the case of capital punishment. All of you are aware of the fact that, and I repeat again, in Singapore, the death penalty is mandatory.”
“It is reduced straightaway from death penalty, perhaps, to life imprisonment. If you have a trial by a single judge, it is going to be mandatory death penalty. I am urging this House to consider this factor. If time is an important factor, because it is going to take too much of the judges' time to hear these cases, I would like to know the statistics. Show us the statistics from 1969 until now, how many such cases have gone on trial, and how long was he detained before he was acquitted? Give us the statistics. Do not compare with Malaysia. Because, in Malaysia, I read in the newspapers that some cases are even 20 years old. Judgment has not been written for 20 years. Can we compare with Malaysia? No. If you want to support the amendment, give us the statistics. Tell us how many people have been detained for a long period of time, and after the trial, they have been acquitted. We hear nothing of that sort. Supply us with statistics to convince us that this amendment is necessary. Sir, despite the fact that we are going to have two DPPs and two defence counsels to be assigned to the accused, one must fully understand the working of a trial. You may have five judges in a Court of Appeal. At the appeal stage, only evidence adduced at the trial can be considered by the appeal judges, and you must always remember the trial judge would only consider a question of law, and not of fact. What happens if the law had been shut out at the trial stage? In other words, at the lower Court, ie, at the trial Court of the first instance, where you have one judge hearing the case, certain questions may be disallowed. If the counsel fails to proceed further on that, and you are going to appeal to the Court of Appeal, it is of no use.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1969 when the jury system was abolished, and in its place substituted by two judges, I am quite sure Parliament must have got reason why, instead of one judge, a law was passed to have two judges sitting over the hearing of all capital punishment cases, which means the death penalty. And in Singapore, it is mandatory death penalty. It is not like in some other countries where a person may be sentenced to death. In Singapore, it is mandatory death sentence. From 1969 until now, has there been a change in the circumstance that warrants such a very serious amendment? Has there been a change? The only point made by the Minister was the question of time, that is, it takes too much of the judges' time to hear capital punishment cases, and we therefore need to amend the law to reduce the time required. My question is this. In a trial for capital punishment cases, a man's life is at stake. It may be his last chance before the court, and it may be his last chance on this earth to plead for innocence. I am not one who supports the guilty. I say the guilty must be sentenced and be dealt with in strict accordance with the law. But I am voicing the view whether there is a likelihood of an innocent person being convicted. You have read in the newspapers of late that in England, they have a spate of miscarriages of justice. This has been reported, I think, two weeks ago. If that could happen in England, I see no reason why it could not happen here. The advantage of having two judges is very obvious. As Dr Arthur Beng has mentioned earlier, the wisdom of two men is always better than one. Furthermore, if you have two judges hearing the trial involving capital punishment, it means that if there is disagreement among the two, the man's life is spared.”
“But they will have to stay in the open air. If they stay in the open air, is the Ministry of Community Development willing to help these people? Sir, I would not want to dwell on this any further. The next point is, if I remember correctly, sometime back, before the introduction of the tax on telephone bills, the Government wanted to give the first number of calls free, and then impose a charge for every subsequent call. Later on, I believe a compromise came about, ie, the Government imposed a tax on the total bill. Now, with the introduction of the time-based charging system, I am wondering why the tax is still there. The tax should be abolished now, because it is based on the number of calls made. Therefore, the tax should be abolished.”
“Sir, when the private sector upgrades, they sell to the people. In the case of HDB flats, most of the tenants would be stuck there for good. This is simply because, if they sell, most of them would not be able to buy another one as the price keeps going up. So it will be beyond the ability of most of the HDB flat dwellers to buy another flat, Sir. An hon. Member: You sell your flat at a higher price.”
“Sir, I would not give way. Because at the last debate, I was not given a chance to reply. So why should I give him a chance to reply now? I am not going to give him a chance to reply.”
“But you cannot sell to anybody you want. Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, point of clarification. He must give me a chance to clarify, other-wise he will make a fool of himself.”
“That person must be qualified in the first place. An hon. Member: Of course, you can.”