Ng Kah Ting
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I ask my supplementary question, may I declare, on behalf of the Member for Kebun Baru and myself, that we are both involved in the building of Montfort Secondary School and Montfort Junior School both of which are Government-aided schools. My question now, Sir, is: when will this take effect?”
“But, Sir, at the end of this debate on the Second Reading and the Bill committed to a Select Committee, I sincerely hope that all those who have the interest of Singapore at heart should come forward and make their contributions, be they critical or ways and means on how better we can improve upon this Bill.”
“But the basic foundation, I submit, and that is, the political stability-honest, efficient and an incorruptible political leadership-is paramount to the future well-being of Singapore, and that is, if we are to continue to enjoy our good standard of living, our good government and of course as an independent, sovereign entity or nation.”
“Sir, I knew that the NCMP would come out and say that-don't mix up the ISA with PPSO because basically it is the same. I say, no. Because in 1958, PAP was not in power. It was the Lim Yew Hock government. That is the difference I am trying to make. So let us not go around in this wild political rhetoric. I understand that.”
“Sir, before I make my observations, I just want to make a couple of points in reply to the Non-Constituency MP, Dr Lee. He said that in 1958 when he was asked to stand as a PAP candidate in Kallang he was afraid of the ISA. I do not think that is quite correct because in 1958, Sir, there was no ISA.”
“We should take advantage of the present political stability to provide for the future. In conclusion, Sir, let me draw an analogy. With Singapore being the No. 1 port in the world, this analogy is not inappropriate.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,870 lines we hold for Ng Kah Ting, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 38.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Hon. Minister know that such infrastructural facilities and services that are to be provided in tandem with the completion of the Hougang New Town does seem to come a bit slow?”
“In that case, Mr Speaker, Sir, could I ask of the Hon. Minister if he will consider not to impose the quid pro quo exchange should the mission concerned be able to give an assurance that the premises to be vacated by the present school will be needed by another of its educational institution for its expansion or extension purposes?”
“To make an exception of any school without very good reasons would create an undesirable and awkward precedent and lead to request for consideration in future cases as well as those previously dealt with.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before asking Question No. 4, I have to state that I have no direct or indirect pecuniary interest on the matter, except that a group of MPs including myself who are old boys of Montfort are getting together to help raise funds for the building of Montfort School. Hence this question is asked in the public interest. Mr Speaker, Sir, Question No. 4. RESITING OF AIDED SCHOOLS (Policy) 4. Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for Law whether he will consider not to impose the general principle requiring an aided school to hand over the land on which the school stands to the Government in exchange for relocation to a new site or to build a new school if the land does not belong to the school. The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar) (for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, Sir, our policy on alienation of State land for the purpose of relocation of an aided school is on the basis of quid pro quo exchange of land whereby the existing school site will be exchanged for the new site. This is to prevent any school site from being used for land speculation. The surrendered school sites will then be put to some other public uses. The Government has consistently adhered to this policy of quid pro quo exchange in all cases of relocation of aided schools, even in cases where the land on which the existing school stood did not belong to the school, such as Paya Lebar Methodist Girls' School and Geylang Methodist Girls' School where the land belonged to the Church. Also, most mission school sites are on land owned by the missions or churches that manage the schools.”
“To those who sympathize with Mr Jeyaretnam, his present situation makes him out to be exactly like an "underdog" or a "dog-in-deep-waters" and these people regard things in the light of and with the feelings for such a "fallen dog" or an "underdog". But we should not forget what a modern Chinese literary master, Lu Xun, had taught in his article "Fair Play" where he talked about this question whether a "dog fallen in deep waters" should be hit or not. According to him, it all depends on how this dog has fallen into the water. Sometimes a fallen dog could be hit and should be hit. For instance, if the dog is very fierce and bites you without provocation or without any reason and you strenuously try to defend yourself and personally beat it down into the water, then you could also use a bamboo pole to hit it as much as you like; yet it is not too much ---”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to make a few observations. First of all, I totally disagree with what the Member for Potong Pasir has just mentioned. The Leader of the House, in moving the motion, said that this House doth adopt the First Report of the Committee of Privileges, particularly when the Member for Potong Pasir said, if I got him right, that we are saying a lot of things about the former Member for Anson who is not present and it is just not right. I thought, Sir, that is already covered in this thick volume which the Leader of the House took us through. Since it is a motion that this House adopts the Report, it naturally follows that a debate can take place and I for one, having gone through part of the Report, heard very clearly in this House too, when the Leader took us through, that every opportunity was given to the former Member for Anson to defend himself. As a result, the Committee's findings are presented to Parliament and that the Leader of the House has asked that this House doth accept the Report and its findings. In that respect, Sir, I beg to support the motion. Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, some people think that although Mr Jeyaretnam has lost his seat in this House, yet Parliament is still discussing about what he had done in this House before. They say this is like hitting an underdog, meaning that we should not be doing this. I would not argue whether Mr Jeyaretnam is an "underdog" or "dog-in-deep-waters". I would only talk about whether underdogs or "dogs-in-deep-waters" should be hit.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I ask of the Hon. Prime Minister to enlighten the House as to whether there is any possibility that the CPIB officials who interviewed Mr Teh could have misconstrued Mr Teh's intention behind his offer to pay $800,000 to settle the matter?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, could I ask of the Hon. Minister for National Development when he could disclose the results of the review.”
“Because reading clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill together with sections 51 and 59(1)(a) of the Act, I get the impression that the period of 6 months is still ambiguous. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, whilst I give this Bill my full support, I also hope that the public in general and those interested in particular, would make their contributions so that the Select Committee, in their deliberations, will benefit from them before they finally present their Report to Parliament for the Third Reading of the Bill. Thank you, Sir.”
“It has its own very commendable and strict code of conduct and etiquette. Since the members of the legal profession are already bound by their own code of conduct and etiquette, this Bill does not impose new values on them. This Bill merely ensures that the Council of the Law Society comprises members who have not breached their own code of conduct and etiquette. Finally, Sir, I would categorize the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill as introducing changes mainly in three ways: (1) by adding a new disqualification for those members of the legal profession who hold or who wish to hold office as a member of the Council of the Law Society; (2) by expediting the disciplinary process at the Inquiry Committee stage; and (3) by making various technical improvements upon the present system, in particular to fill the lacuna recently brought to light in the case of James Chia versus the Law Society of Singapore, as contained in (g) of the Explanatory Statement in the Amendment Bill. Sir, I shall not concern myself with the second and third changes as I feel that there are others more qualified than I who could offer their views on them. Therefore, I shall confine my remarks to the first area of change which concerns the disqualification of members from holding office in the Council of the Law Society who have been convicted of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. This I foresee will create more than a few ripples in certain quarters of the legal profession. Here, may I seek further clarification from the Hon. Minister on clauses 2 and 3 of the amendment Bill. To me, Sir, it is not clear enough. Does it mean that the period of 6 months is at any one time or an aggregate of suspension that was imposed previously?”
“It does not speak well of a professional body to be represented by persons whose honesty and integrity have been proved to be not beyond question. Granted there are bound to be a few delinquents, recalcitrants or black sheep in any profession. But the vast majority can safely say that their professional integrity has never been questioned before or has never been undermined by a conviction of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. It follows then that representatives of that profession can be chosen from amongst this vast majority. This must be the case, is it not? Sir, I cannot think how the overall interests of Singapore can be best served if professional bodies are led, managed and represented by members whose professional integrity has been called to question. Here, I am speaking generally; I am not speaking of any professional body in particular. In this respect, I would like to suggest to the Hon. Minister again that similar criteria be extended to all professional bodies in order that we are not seen to suggest that it is only the legal profession that we are more concerned with. Is it not about time that the Government conduct a comprehensive review of all professional bodies in line with this year's motto "Together - Excellence for Singapore" and also looking ahead to the Vision of 1999? Let us now look at the amendments objectively with the national interests uppermost in our minds. I do not think it is too much to require members of the Council of the Law Society to be persons whose good name and professional honesty and integrity have never been besmirched by a conviction of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. I have always held the view that the legal profession is a very noble profession among others.”
“Yes, he is a lawyer. I call him my learned Friend, what's wrong with that? Now, Sir, what about the silent majority, those who are in full support? I would urge them to come forward to express their agreement so as to reflect a more realistic and fair response. If the majority choose to remain silent, then only the dissenters will be heard and the result is that an erroneous impression will be created. To this end, that is, to allow exchange of views, may I suggest to the Hon. Minister that a comprehensive explanation presenting a complete picture of the necessity for this Amendment Bill be given through the mass media when referring the Bill to a Select Committee, so that everyone, including the man-in-the-street, may understand and participate in the exchange. Sir, suffice to say, I give my support for this particular amendment as being very necessary, namely, the disqualification of members of the Council of the Law Society. Let me explain. Professional integrity is vital to Singapore's development as a Centre of Excellence in the field of communications, business, finance, trade and professional services. There must be no doubt whatsoever in anybody's mind, whether that of an investor, amulti-national corporation, our trade partners or our neighbours, that we Singaporeans can render clean, honest and competent services here. Since honesty and integrity cannot be enforced on individual professionals in the course of their work, surely we can at least require that their representatives should not have a conviction of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty as it would put a question mark against the good name of their profession.”
“Let it not be said that this Government introduces changes in a high-handed manner without consulting the people or that the Government sweeps things under the carpet. Let us be open about this and have a free exchange of views. Notice, Sir, I used the word "exchange". From experience, I have noticed that it is the dissenters who are the ones to come forward to strongly express their dissent and, to some extent, try to impose their views on others which form the majority. Such people who voice their dissent are normally in the minority. As can best be illustrated by the statement from my learned Friend, the Member for MacPherson ---”
“Yes, this is all explained very carefully in the Explanatory Statement. Mr Speaker, Sir, what I wish to say is, I totally disagree with the Member for Anson's views. He insinuated that there is a political motive behind this Amendment Bill. He does so by way of asking an innocuous question that the Hon. Minister should, and I quote him, "explain the real motives for this Bill and not hide behind platitudes." Sir, then he asserts that it is quite plain to everyone, his words. And he goes on further to make a preposterous suggestion that this Bill is, again I quote him, "prompted for one reason only." And it is because, again I quote him, "the Law Society has done the unforgivable thing in Singapore" to criticize openly the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill. Therefore, again he said, "the Government took umbrage" over the criticism. This is absolutely untrue because one needs only to take a look at the Amendment Bill before the House. It lists in page 6 all the reasons, whys and wherefores, from (a) to (i) inclusive. Mr Speaker, Sir, therefore, in the course of my contribution, I shall be making reference to these. In some ways also I shall be at the same time making rebuttals on the points made by the Member for Potong Pasir. Sir, I fully support the move to have this Bill referred to a Select Committee after its Second Reading. In my view, it is primarily because a certain amount of adverse reaction is foreseen, that the Government, by referring this Amendment Bill to a Select Committee, would give ample opportunity to the public, and most certainly, Sir, to the legal profession, to come forward and air their views be they suggestions or criticisms.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think in answer to the last query ---”
“Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the House whether he has any proposals to deal with a recalcitrant Member who chooses to defy the Speaker and the House and continues with his unscrupulous abuse of privilege in the House? What I would like to know, Sir, is what can be done, what remedies the House has in such a case?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this House should give its fullest support to the Bill. The amendments proposed by the Bill are, as I said earlier, extremely necessary and very timely. They were not needed earlier because there was always decorum in the House. They are needed now because we have seen several instances of blatant abuse of privilege of late. I am at a loss as to understand how an "honourable" Member can make allegations and then cast the onus of proving those allegations untrue on those against whom they are made. He certainly cannot get away with it in a court of law. In a court, as I understand it, the onus of proof is on the person making the allegations. What he alleges, he must prove that it is true. As an example, an enormous amount of time and effort, not to mention money and manpower, was wasted in setting up the Commission of Inquiry to investigate alleged Executive interference in the Subordinate Courts and the Judiciary. As it turned out, the person who made the allegations refused to substantiate them. I say that enough is enough. Abuse of Parliamentary privilege is a serious matter. I applaud the powers given to Parliament to suspend the privilege in such a case. It is a right step. If MPs cannot conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the special privilege accorded to them, then I say that Parliament collectively has a right to intervene. After all, Parliament has the right to regulate how its proceedings are to be conducted. Whilst I give my wholehearted support to this Amendment Bill, I have one last point and question. May I ask of the Hon.”
“Yes, when the pain hurts. I am therefore with the Hon. Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the House when he explained the need for this Bill to be taken on a Certificate of Urgency. This House must continue to uphold its integrity, dignity and honour. The Amendment Bill will have a sobering effect and I am beginning to feel right down deep in my bones that it has on all present and future Members of Parliament and also on those wishing to offer themselves as candidates in the elections. Members of this House ought to bear in mind that their conduct, both inside and outside Parliament, must be honourable and exemplary. It must be that what they say in this House, they are prepared to repeat outside when challenged to do so or else at least have the courtesy to extend an apology if circumstances are such that it is not possible or unwise to repeat them outside. Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to point out that, notwithstanding the additional powers that Parliament will have upon the passage of this Bill, there will be no curtailment or restriction whatsoever on the freedom of speech in Parliament. But this freedom must be tempered with responsibility. Innocent parties must not be dragged in and made to suffer. Their rights must be considered as well. Sir, this Parliament is now under public scrutiny because, at the flick of a switch, Singaporeans can turn on their television sets and watch what their elected representatives say and do on their behalf in Parliament. They can see their MPs talking, whether they are talking sense or no-sense. But words when twisted can mislead and only upon reflection will the truth be unravelled from the tangle of untruths. The initial impact will stay and, for people who are unable to perceive the truth, they will remain misled.”
“Thank you, Sir. I beg your pardon. I was coming to this point on breach of privilege and abuse. Privilege is the protection and not for abuse. Yes, Sir, the privilege is there but for protection and not for abuse. If there is any integrity and sincerity at all in making such allegations, surely it would not be asking too much of the Member to repeat them outside Parliament. This is all I am asking. When challenged without the immunity afforded by Parliamentary privilege, the parties concerned then would at least have the opportunity to defend themselves or to seek redress if such allegations were totally unsubstantiated and untrue. It is only fair, isn't it?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when I was asked, I come prepared. I did a little bit of homework. I checked through. In the case of S. R. Nathan, the newspaper report had his statement challenging the Member to repeat them outside without the privilege of this House. He has not done so. I did not say "Howe Yoon Chong", Sir. I said "the Howe family."”
“You asked me to repeat, I will do it now.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not a point of order. He just wants me to repeat what he has said. And let me do this in quick time, Sir. (1) Defamatory words about S.R. Nathan. (2) Defamatory words about the Howe family. (3) Words impugning the integrity of---”
“Never before has a Member of this House made so many allegations as he did or uttered defamatory words against persons who were unable to seek redress in a Court of law agaianst him.”
“Aren't you jealous? Not to say that they have been uneventful. The early and mid-sixties was a tumultuous period, with vigorous and often boisterous opposition from the Barisan Sosialis and the United People's Party. Of course, the political climate was different then. The Opposition were a hard hitting and bare-knuckled lot. Parliamentary sessions were often stormy, with both sides standing up for what they believed in. But there was not one occasion to give the then Legislative Assembly, and later Parliament, cause to set up its Committee of Privileges to deal with a complaint of breach of privilege. Why? Because decorum prevailed as the Speaker was always heard in silence and with great respect. Sir, in the late 60s and 70s when Parliament was dominated by the PAP, the Backbenchers had to double-up as the Opposition by making constructive and positive criticisms in and outside Parliament. This was in addition to their role as PAP MPs which was to explain Government policies to the people and to help them adjust to the policies. Sometimes Ministers were even taken to task on certain issues. There was no want of debate on any issue. At times some of us were even branded as being too oppositionistic in our debates and in putting across our views. This dual role was not an easy one. Yet, Sir, for all our enthusiasm in providing the voice of an Opposition, there was always decorum in the House. The Speaker was always and will be accorded due respect by us in the PAP. Sir, I hope Members will excuse my little excursion into the past. It is to illustrate how disturbed I am at the change in the proceedings in this House since December 1981, with the entry of the Member for Anson.”
“Yes. Listen. When I give you my ear. Why else, Sir, is an MP given the title "Honourable Member of Parliament"? In accordance with the sobriety and import of the proceedings in Parliament, in recognition of the privilege accorded to him, an MP is expected to conduct himself or herself with decorum, with distinction, honour and integrity. He owes it to the people who elected him to that seat, to be responsible for what he says in Parliament, and to ensure that what he says is credible and can be substantiated. Sir, in all the years that I have been part of this august House, some 23 years, Sir, come this September, the proceedings have always been conducted with decorum.”
“And because it is a privilege it is not to be used as a shield under which to make allegations and statements according to a Member's whims and fancies nor to take pot-shots at persons which could not have been done outside Parliament without the Member having to answer for it in the Courts. Sir, when such a privilege is accorded, it is expected, it goes without saying, that an MP conducts himself in a manner befitting and worthy of it.”
“Sir, the all-important difference between making such allegations or statements in Parliament and outside Parliament is that the maker can be taken to task in respect of what is said outside Parliament. And may I elaborate, Sir. People who suffer damage as a result of such allegations and statements have legal redress against the maker, and if the allegations and statements amount to an offence, the maker may even be charged in the appropriate court of law. But, and this is a crucial "but", when such allegations and statements are made in Parliament, the maker of such allegations and statements is protected from liability in every respect because he is accorded Parliamentary privilege and immunity. This privilege gives complete freedom of speech to a Member of Parliament speaking in Parliament, so that he can utter anything under the sun and whatever that comes into his head and no matter who or what he hurts or causes damage to, to whatever extent, he is completely immune to any criminal and civil proceedings that could be brought against him if he had spoken them outside Parliament. Why? The word "why" is the natural question to ask. Why is an MP given freedom of speech and is immune from criminal and civil liability? The rationale for this is simply a protection to MPs to enable them to conduct themselves in the affairs of their constituents, their constituencies and the nation without the fear of criminal and civil actions being brought against them hanging like the Sword of Damocles over their heads. I repeat. It is a protection; a privilege accorded to Members speaking in Parliament. It is not a right to which a Member is entitled. A right cannot be withdrawn. A privilege can.”
“Sir, Parliament is a place where the elected Representatives of the people debate and discuss serious matters. Proceedings must be conducted with decorum and due sobriety. Mr Speaker, Sir, I must reiterate what the Leader of the House just now said. Parliament is not a theatre. It is not a source of entertainment; neither is it just another ordinary television programme to watch. Parliament is the most public of public forums. The public has access to the gallery and also access to the proceedings via the radio, the television and the newspapers. Because of wide media coverage, unscrupulous people can make use of Parliament as a means of manipulating the people to cast aspersions on the integrity of persons, for example, those in public service, and to sow seeds of dissension by twisting words to mislead others and the listeners. Just as a few well-placed malicious rumours can cripple a thriving business and inflict irreparable damage to its goodwill, so the same can be done in Parliament. And what better place than Parliament, the proceedings of which are a favourite conversational topic in the coffee shops, in taxis, at the office, at the dinner table, at private parties, and, Sir, I would not be at all surprised, in schools as well. Irresponsible remarks, unsubstantiated allegations, half-truths or, worse still, untruths, dressed up so as to sound like truths, can cause harm and damage to innocent parties, and on a more serious scale, Sir, because they are made in the course of Parliamentary proceedings, can even undermine the political stability and economy of the nation by causing undue and unnecessary alarm to our neighbours, to our trade partners and would-be investors observing and listening to our proceedings.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, both Members of the Opposition seem to have asked the same question of the Hon. Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the House, ie, what is the urgency for this Bill? If only both had listened carefully to the Leader of the House when he presented the Certificate of Urgency and laid it on the Table and moved on to make the necessary explanations in detail on the various clauses of this amendment Bill, they would have got all the answers. On the question of the Member for Potong Pasir just now, I am surprised that he has forgotten what he said only on the 30th of July. He said: 'Does he not realize that Parliament has the power of suspension, of expulsion and even committal?' Sir, at that time, Parliament could not do this. And he said that Parliament had the right and the power. This is section 11 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, Chapter 49, and this is to be repealed. I think he did not realize that he had anticipated this. In fact, what I am trying to say is that he did not realize what he was talking. Sir, I now come to the debate proper on this amendment. This amendment Bill heralds a significant change in parliamentary practice and procedure. It recognizes that the Singapore Parliament is a fully sovereign legislature by according to it all the powers the UK House of Commons has without any qualifications. It also confers additional powers to Parliament, and to the Speaker, which powers are peculiar to us, and of which there are no corresponding powers in the UK House of Commons, and not Commons House. Sir, I therefore welcome the amendment as a timely step in the right direction. It is time for us to evolve our own code of conduct in Parliament to suit the needs and sensitivities of our local climate.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in the light of the Minister's reply, can he assure this House that the security officers will be more efficient in the discharge of their duties in the light of the recent incident?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask of the Hon. Minister how long will this vacant land be leased out for other agricultural purposes?”
“I am asking a supplementary question, Sir. Does he not speak like a spokesman for a foreign country?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the hon. Member for Anson whether it is not true to conclude that he seems to act as a spokesman for a foreign country?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask of the Hon. Minister what would be the optimal utilization of the land finally reclaimed?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Hon. Minister has misunderstood my question. I was asking whether his rescue operations are being hampered by people who are not supposed to be around. Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to assure Members of the House that all aspects of the operation are under control. Private sector groups, as well as individuals who have offered help, have been told that their help will be considered, their offers have been taken note of; in fact, in some cases we have already used their equipment and their personnel. To others who have helped, we have assured them that should it occur that we need their services and equipment, we would get in touch with them. As of the present time, I would not say that there is any hampering of rescue efforts. I think that all those who have offered help, including individuals, are well-intentioned, and naturally so, because I think all Singaporeans have been touched by this disaster. There is good coordination now and all things are under control.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask of the Hon. Minister one more question? Since this disaster has occurred, what plans does his Ministry have to declare it as a disaster area and to allow only authorized personnel to do rescue work so that such operations would not be hampered?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask of the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs why did they take such a long time (according to him it was 12.40 pm) for rescue operations to begin? Secondly, has the rescue operation worked satisfactorily, and how long will such operation take to rescue as many lives as possible? Finally, what assistance will Government render to those affected? Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just ask one question in amplification of the previous Member's question? Is the Minister aware of the disappointment among residents in the neighbourhood that the rescue vehicles, apart from the fire engine tenders, took more than an hour to reach the scene? Is that true and, if so, what was the reason?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the assurance from the Minister for Finance, may I seek leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $3,330,000 for Head W ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1985 to 31st March, 1986. Question, "The sum of $3,330,000 shall be supplied to the Government under the head of expenditure for the public services shown in the First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1985 to 31st March, 1986 contained in Paper Cmd. 4 of 1986", put and agreed to. Resolution to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“Sir, I thank the Hon. Minister for his kind reply. I do not think the apology was necessary anyhow. But I would like to ask him whether the Civil Aviation Authority, which is now in charge of the Changi Airport, could not redeploy these 59 DREs, as stated by him, and at the same time meet such an expenditure.”
“I accept the rationale of the argument as contained in this statement but what I cannot agree with is the uncalled for remark contained in paragraph 2, third last line, and I quote: 'Therefore, on strict technical grounds, there is no justification to increase the Singapore Allowance at this time.' And in the next breath, first line of the third paragraph, it states: 'Nonetheless, the Minister for Finance feels that there is a case for increasing the allowance on compassionate grounds.' I totally agree with the second observation. We have been talking so much about courtesy. Let us show it. I do not think the first part of that observation is necessary. Sir, I submit that this is uncalled for and unfortunate. I hope the Government will not allow its bureaucracy to say things or do things which hurt people's feelings even though the Allowance has been increased by 33 1/3%. It is appreciated but let the appreciation stand. I hope the Minister will take note of this and comment on my remarks.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head W be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead Code WA-02. Sir, in moving this amendment I would just like to seek further elucidation from the Hon. Minister for Finance with regard to the need to provide a sum of $3.33 million as contained in Paper Cmd. 4 of 1986, ie, the First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1985 to 31st March, 1986. The explanation as stated therein, in my view, does not give a clear picture of the need to appropriate this sum of $3.33 million; for example, the kind of staff who have been "superannuated following the completion of engineering projects and improvement in work procedures, and contracting out of airport maintenance services." In this respect, could the Hon. Minister enlighten this House why such an expenditure could not be foreseen at the time of preparing the budget for FY 85? Thirdly, Sir, may I ask the Minister whether there will be other supplementary expenditure needed. Since it concerns Head W, which is Pensions, may I, with your kind indulgence, make a comment on the recent announcement by the Ministry of Finance? A letter addressed to the Hon. Secretary, Government Pensioners Association, dated 1st March 1986, was copied to me and the Accountant-General for his notice and necessary action. I note that there will be an increase of $25 to the Singapore Allowance, ie, from $75 to $100, to those pensioners whose gross pensions do not exceed $850 per month.”
“But what is the Government's response to its own call? Mr Speaker, Sir, I said before that our Ministers are grossly overpaid. They have been overpaid for mismanaging our economy. Do we realize that? We pay our Ministers huge salaries for mismanaging our economy and bringing us to this present impasse. I presented a table showing a comparison of the salaries between those paid in Singapore and those paid in other Commonwealth countries particularly. Time does not allow me to go all over again. What is the Government's response to its own call whilst the recession is still on, whilst there is a call for restraint in the public sector? What does the Government do? It increases the number in the Cabinet posts. It adds more onto the public debt. Last year, I presented a motion in this House for a 25% voluntary reduction of all salaries and allowances of Members in this House. Did the Government take that seriously as a responsible government? On the contrary, they tried to turn it into a cheap comic act. We had a Minister of State as he then was, jumping up and saying, "I'm going to give for one time half my salary to the Community Chest. Will you do it?" Cheap trick, as I said. After that, I asked him whether it came out of his own pocket or whether he was reimbursed for it, and I have never had an answer for it.”
“Are you? Mr Jeyaretnam: Be honest and accept the responsibility and explain why you did not take the corrective measures. What went wrong in your management of the economy between 1982 and 1985? Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Government now apologized, then it will appease our people. I say that quite seriously and they will feel more comfortable about it and the thousands of our unemployed, 30,000 or so, it must be more by now, the Ministry of Labour does not even have up-to-date statistics, they will feel better if the Government now said, "We are sorry." The thousands of investors who lost their money as a result of the Government's failure to act in the Pan-El crisis will feel better if the Government said, "We are sorry." The thousands and thousands of the small businessmen, the stallholders, the taxi drivers, the hawkers, they will feel better if the Government accepted its responsibility and said, "We are sorry." Is it too much for this Government to accept the responsibility and to say sorry? It would appear that, in fact, it is too much for this Government. That is the trouble with this Government. It is not prepared to accept that it has gone wrong and to say sorry. Now, may I turn to the other aspects of the President's Address? In page 6 of the President's Address, the Government says if need be, the people of Singapore must reduce their standard of living. Sacrifices to be made by all, not just the workers. Brave words, Mr Speaker, Sir. A Japanese economist, I am told, has remarked that Singapore is a place of high salaries, particularly in the public sector, and low wages. The disparity is great between wages and salaries paid to senior staff, particularly in the public sector. And the Government calls for sacrifices to be made by all our people.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with the three examples tabled by the Hon. Minister, could he enlighten the House as to when his Ministry will be able to fully discharge item (e) Amount of Investable CPF savings? At the moment, it is only 10% of item (e), as given in item (f). And by that stage, will the CPF have enough money to fully meet the requirements of those seeking to make use of that amount?”
“That is what he says, to be Singapore citizens, Mr Speaker, Sir. And I think that is the point I am trying to make.”
“He sits in the Chair, I can call him "Mr Speaker," Sir, just out of respect. He mentioned refugees and the convention.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if we were to play back - An hon. Member: Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“So I would like to seek enlightenment from the Hon. Minister: who are these cases, and why were these people who claim to have been born in Singapore choose to come back now? Of course, I have taken note of what he has explained in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. But I thought I ought to make a few points along the way because, when I heard the Member for Anson trying to make out a case, I said, "Here we go again, as he has always been seen to be." Are we for or against Singapore? On that note, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“I am not a lawyer, I do not represent any case, except to mention this. Probably for the amusement of this House, he mentioned "1977", a time when he was not in this House. He said he knew of a number of cases of people who were persuaded to give up the right of appeal. As is his usual way of trying to distort and confuse the situation, he has chosen to bring in issues on refugees not having the intention of giving up citizenship: what good reasons to deprive them? I would like to reiterate, in today's debate, that Articles 134 and 135 have been redrafted and re-enacted, as the Hon. Minister has pointed out, to avoid duplication. And here, I must congratulate the Government for its assurance that this amendment, being an empowering one, that in its implementation the Government would be very selective with regard to the deprivation of citizenship. So I agree with what my good friend, the Member for Clementi, has said, that the Member for Anson has been the champion of non-citizens or of taking up questions of citizenship. I tried to dig up Hansard, and I found the questions very similar in March 1982,1983 and 1984, Sir. So I am not at all surprised. But I thought I ought to point out that when the voters of Anson voted him in, their interests should be looked after, and not the interests of non-citizens. There is a stake for all those who are in Singapore today as citizens. As has been rightly pointed out by the Second Minister for Law, why do these people - 726 in 1984 and 729 for the first six months of this year - file claims of citizenship now? I am surprised why his Ministry is considering their claims. It must have cost taxpayers some money. If we go through the reasons thereto in the clauses, these claims could be rejected outright.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank you for giving me the chance to speak. I think the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law has made out a case in moving the amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, particularly Articles 134 and 135. As I see in the explanatory statement, these are very explicit, Therefore, I would like to refer my remarks to what was said by the Member for Anson. The first point that he made was on nationality and citizenship which, he said, is a very personal right. I would have thought that nationality and citizenship are two different things. In the case of nationality, a nation can be made of one kind of people. The same goes with citizenship. But when he mentioned deprivation as a retrogressive step, I do not think I can accept that kind of argument. How could deprivation be a retrogressive step? In this particular case, today [Interruption]. I am not a student of law.”