P. Selvadurai
Singapore
“Why the limitation of the reliefs in each case to a maximum of $10,000 when the loss to revenue is only marginal? Further, why are the reliefs confined to married women only? Why not married men as well? There is no logic in the discrimination.”
“In a letter dated 30th September 1981 written by the Assistant Estates Officer (Sales), Estates and Lands Division of the HDB, it was stated as follows: 'Reinstatement of the former registration number for applicants who have transferred their applications to a bigger flat prior to the implementation of the policy for modified corner flat…”
“Sir, there is only one clarification which I seek from the Hon. Minister of State, and that is with regard to the first case which I cited, i.e. the Bras Basah Complex case.”
“Sir, any decision made by the Registrar under clause 6 must be an administrative decision, and any appeal to the Minister from the Registrar's decision and the consequent decision made by the Minister himself must also be an administrative decision. If the hon.”
“stood up, and addressing himseff to the Clerk of Parliament said: Mr Lopez, I support the proposal. There being no other proposal the Clerk then declared Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng to have been elected as Speaker of Parliament. Mr Speaker, standing at the Table, made an Affirmation of Allegiance. Mr Speaker went to the Chair and sat down.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter merely concerns a piece of open land next to the Philips factory in Lorong 1, Toa Payoh. I believe, Sir, that this lot was originally reserved for a school, in fact, the Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus. I have been informed (I may be wrong though) that the Convent has now turned it down.”
The complete record
Every one of 172 lines we hold for P. Selvadurai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 4.
“I am also not moving my amendment, Sir. Madam Chan Choy Siong (Delta)(In Mandarin):Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch on a certain case concerning the immigration regulations and, at the same time, to air my complaints. With the achievement of independence, it is our duty to create employment opportunities for our own citizens. Therefore, it is necessary for the Immigration Department to take measures against illegal immigrants entering our country to share in our prosperity. I think everyone agrees with this policy. However, I think the Immigration Department should relax some of its regulations. For example, one regulation is that if a person wishes to apply for his relative to come to Singapore, he has to state the age of his relative and their relationship before he or she can be admitted into Singapore. If a son wants to apply for his mother to come to Singapore, he must first prove that she is more than 65 years old and that she has no other people abroad to support her. If a husband wants to apply for his wife to come to Singapore, there are certain regulations which state that she can be allowed into Singapore to be reunited with him provided they have met each other within a certain period. All these regulations are laid down by the Government and everybody must abide by them. Although sometimes I feel that all these regulations must be observed, I still think we should relax them. I have one example of a husband who applied for his wife, who is in China, to come to Singapore to be reunited with him. However, according to the Immigration Department, if the husband has not met his wife for five years, it means that the husband and wife relationship has been broken off.”
“Madam Chan Choy Siong: (4) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0901 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1301.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, one small point -and one would have thought that it was a fairly obvious point! In spite of the fact that we have introduced one-way traffic along most of Singapore's roads, it is not difficult to find buses, lorries and even motor-cars travelling abreast of one another at about 20 miles per hour and preventing other road users from going through. It occurred to me quite a number of times, and I would have thought that it would have occurred to most people, that this problem could have been easily solved by the introduction of lanes on the left-hand side of the road for slow traffic and lanes on the middle and right-hand side of the road for faster traffic. I wonder if this plan can be achieved.”
“I withdraw as well, Sir. The sum of $5,373,150 for Head 0406 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0408 -”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,”
“I wonder if this concession can be extended to the whole island.”
“Sir, I think there is a basic distinction between owner-occupied premises and premises that are rented out. For rented-out premises a rate of 36 per cent is charged. For owner-occupied houses a concession is given. Now even this concession is restricted to particular areas of Singapore.”
“Sir, three orders made sometime in 1960 and 1961 and called the Property Tax Orders limit the areas within which owner-occupied houses must be located before this concession is given. I think the concession is 27 per cent for owner-occupied houses. It is the concession rate I am talking about.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it will not be a tax on income as such. It is a tax on notional income in so far as owner-occupied dwellings are concerned. In the event of the house being rented out to somebody else, then of course, you are deriving income from it. But so far as owner-occupied dwellings are concerned, there is no income at all. What you are really doing is to tax the notional income of the house for what it is worth if it is rented out in the open market. And beyond the limit of $6,000, you tax the owner for income tax purposes. I am being purely puristic; however, I think I am also looking in terms of people who have to pay this tax.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. That the sum to be allocated for Head 0406 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1101. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am really concerned with the practice of assessing for income tax purposes, the annual values of owner-occupied dwellings even though the concession limit has now been mercifully raised to $6000. Income tax is really a tax on income and, as such, must we really persist in the practice of taxing notional income? Will the Minister also consider extending the property tax concession that is now made to owner-occupied dwellings to the entire island of Singapore, instead of confining it to owner-occupied dwellings in particular localities specified in the relevant Property Tax Orders?”
“Sir, I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 21 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 103*. (* The same amendment also stood in the names of Mr J. F. Conceicao and Madam Chan Choy Siong.) Mr Speaker, Sir, it would not be an easy task to belittle the achievements of the Housing and Development Board. These are now world famous and we derive justifiable pride from them. In the process of breaking the back of, if not solving, the problems of physical housing, we have created problems of a different dimension involving human beings and their social habits. The progression from the environment of traditional slums to that of high-rise flats implies the need for a change in communal values, attitudes and standards of social cleanliness. It is insufficient for a human being to be impeccably clean within the confines of his flat, but to be careless of what he does in elevators, common stairways and corridors let alone common latrines and baths. Even elevators are mistaken for latrines. Many of our blocks of flats are becoming new slums, with an environment not conducive to the healthy growth of the next and subsequent generations of human beings. It is now necessary for human beings living in blocks of flats to be organised on a corporate basis with their own self-governing institutions, perhaps along the lines of management committees of community centres, with adequate powers to manage the social problems of flat-dwelling. The time has come, Mr Speaker, for the Housing and Development Board to direct part of its energies to solving these new problems which involve not construction but human materials.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important that the Presidential Council to be set up does its work with honour and responsibility and not become a centre of reaction. It is to be hoped that its contribution would always be directed towards the consolidation and not the disruption and weakening of the State. I cannot help feeling, however, that some of the curious features in this amendment Bill would add a few more legal conundrums to the as yet unresolved problem posed by Articles 52 and 90 of the Constitution. It is also questionable if the two-thirds majority in Parliament needed to overcome a report by the Council that a proposed piece of legislation is a differentiating measure or otherwise inconsistent with the fundamental liberties of the subject could not be negatived and overcome by the device of introducing a constitutional amendment in Parliament requiring only a bare majority under Article 90, Rule 1. Further, subsidiary legislation characterised by the Council as a differentiating measure or otherwise inconsistent with the fundamental liberties of the subject could also remain in the statute book as enforceable law for six months before appropriate measures of revocation are taken. I hope, however, that it is not too much to expect that more careful and elegant drafting would be a feature of the new Constitution that we are to have in due course. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister give the House some particulars of the schemes that have been implemented and also the schemes that are under planning at the moment?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is this hallucination or hard historical fact? Does a jury anywhere in the world really live up to the extravagantly romantic claims made on its behalf by its publicists? Inevitably, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I must support this Bill. 5.26 p.m.”
“I might here add that the state of Israel does not have jury trials, and I am sure that not even our eminent jurist, who recently charged at Fullerton Square that the last nail was being driven into the coffin of our basic freedoms, would seriously contend that Israel was a totalitarian state that had destroyed the one thread in the history of the individual's struggle for freedom, The Fullerton Square oration as reported in the Straits Times of Wednesday, 17th December, 1969, while it showed elements of Messianic prophecy, was alien to the modern critical temper and was so unhistorical that it made one sad to think that an otherwise brilliant legal mind was unable to face and accept facts as they were. If the proper lessons were drawn from history, the categorical assertion that the jury was an obstruction to the exercise of absolute power by the executive of the Government could not have been made. This proposition has never been true in Singapore and a study of the treason trials in England would show that it was also not true in England. There is the gravest danger in seeking to run the affairs of state on the basis of pretence. Having misled oneself, one goes on to mislead and confuse the people. For is it really true and tenable, in the light of experience, to assert, without qualification, that the historical reason for the jury in criminal trials, and its major attraction in democratic countries, is that it interposes a group of anonymous persons between the government and the citizens in the administration of criminal justice? That because of its very anonymity, the jury sieves out personal whims and animosities of the Government and provides the best system known of impartial justice? That that is why no jury survives in a totalitarian state?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, nothing that has transpired since the Second Reading of this Bill has moved me to revise my original stand that the removal of the jury system from our machinery of justice would result in fairer, truer and more just criminal trials. It is essential to our system of administration of justice that justice be meted out in our courts of law in accordance with law, explicit written law, by men of integrity trained for the purpose, and there can, in this scheme of things, be no place for the intrusion, in the shape of the jury, of elements of prejudice or subjective, emotional, irrational notions of what justice should constitute. In fact, we have sad modern evidence of the nature of trial by popular prejudice in the people's courts of totalitarian states where popular justice as against justice in accordance with law has taken its ultimate horrendous form. In removing the jury, we remove the final survival of this element from our system and I would indeed venture to state that the step we take today is logical in the context of the rational drive against the jury that is taking place, no doubt circuitously, in other democratic states where the rule of law operates.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister for Culture give us the figures of the amount of savings effected by performing this function for Government and Government agencies?”
“Question No. 15. The Acting Minister for Culture (Mr Wee Toon Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, by non-profit making institutions, I presume the Member for Katong is referring to Government departments, statutory boards, cultural organisations and charitable bodies. The Treasury has ruled that with effect from 1st August, 1969, all Government departments and statutory boards have to pay for advertising over radio and TV at rates currently applicable to all advertisers. Consequently, the Broadcasting Division decided that an anomalous situation will arise if cultural organisations and charitable bodies were not charged advertising fees. The rationale behind Treasury's ruling is that from the cost effectiveness point of view, it is essential that departments and statutory boards be able to show the results of its efforts in the true light of costs. This rationale is equally applicable to cultural organisations and statutory bodies. Government departments now pay for their advertising by journal adjustments. Statutory boards pay by cheque or cash along commercial lines. It is possible that certain cultural organisations and charitable bodies may not be financially capable of paying for radio and TV advertisements. Administratively, a procedure has to be evolved whereby such bodies with worthy objectives may apply to the Treasury for a grant for such advertising. In such cases, the merits of each effort can be scrutinised and evaluated. RADIO AND TELEVISION AUDIENCE RATING SURVEY BY RTS The following Question stood in the name of Mr J. F. Conceicao - 16. To ask the Minister for Culture whether RTS will conduct a Television and Radio audience rating survey for various programmes.”
“It only remains for me to say that clause 3 (3) of the Bill should be deleted. If three Judges of the High Court are unable to arrive at a decision either unanimously or by majority, the Court must acquit and discharge the accused, and there should be no question of a retrial. The next step, Mr Speaker, Sir, in legal reform should now have to do with the whole problem of capital punishment. 5.05 p.m.”
“The irrational prejudices, the attendant lack of certainty and uniformity and the havoc that would be injected into the system of administration of justice should be sufficient to make any sensible person sit up and re-examine the foundations of our society. It is always dangerous to think in vacuo. When Lord Devlin assessed the virtues of trials by jury, he rested his views upon the matrix of British experience. He dealt with particulars and postulated no universals; and this is reason enough for us to ensure that these traditional notions and institutions are so adjusted as to fit squarely into the fabric of a multi-racial society. Justice must be seen to be done. I firmly believe that the proposed trial by three Judges would make for more rational, uniform and fairer trials. The accused will have the same old safeguards. The allegations against him must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He can only be convicted of an offence known to and defined by a written law. Judges, by their very training and experience, would be and should be free from caprice and prejudice in the performance of their functions. It has been very oddly remarked that abolition of juries would lead to executive interference with the judiciary. This must inevitably imply that our Judges lack integrity and a sense of their own responsibilities in the performance of their functions. I should rather think, however, that they would respond more easily to problems of conscience and the basic rights of citizens than any jury is able to do. For the nature of their work requires that Judges should be much more than mere legal technicians. They would, for the most part, be men who understand values and have deep convictions on great social questions.”
“The next day with unerring accuracy the plaintiff struck out 12 out of 13 Liberals, whilst the defendant said he objected to the 12 "most violent Tories". That left 23 Conservatives and one Liberal. At the Assizes the one Liberal got in on the ballot and because he was a quiet, unobtrusive Liberal, he was made foreman of the jury and he brought down the verdict from �500 to �100 by "sticking out". Had that particular panel been 36 Conservatives to 12 Liberals, the trial jury would have been all Conservatives. One is left with the question as to whether there is any need to introduce these picturesque imponderables into a mature system of administration of justice, the essential characteristics of which should be certainty and uniformity. The predominant tendency in Britain today is to have fewer and fewer jury trials, and it is doubtful indeed that if Britain were given a chance to start anew, she would deliberately choose to have jury trials. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must seek to discover the meaning of the assertion that in being tried by a jury, one is tried by one's peers or by one's neighbourhood. The formula goes as follows. "Was the prisoner willing to be judged by the neighbourhood? Would he put himself upon his country? If so, let him plead not guilty and take their verdict." In Britain it is still true that a working class prisoner is never tried by his peers or his neighbourhood. More so in a multi-cultural society like Singapore. Strictly, we should allow that a Malay-speaking prisoner should be tried by a Malay jury, a Chinese prisoner by a Chinese jury, a Tamil prisoner by a Tamil jury, and an English-speaking prisoner by an English-speaking jury.”
“An examination of the qualifications and mode of selection of jurors would throw further light on the character of British juries. A juror must be a �10 freeholder or a �20 leaseholder, or a householder in a valuation list of �30 in London and Middlesex or �20 elsewhere, or occupy a house with not less than 15 windows. This meant that jury service was largely confined to the middle and upper classes. It is only by some stretch of the imagination that a lower class prisoner could be said to be tried by "twelve representatives of his countrymen". The views and prejudices of jurors were more apt to be those of the middle classes than those of the poorer classes. In political terms it is true to say that jurors tend by and large to be supporters of the Conservative Party than the Labour Party. Before the Juries Act, 1922, the quaint practice of striking a jury from a panel of jurors obtained. A case decided early this century illustrates how this is done. Mr Lygon, M.P. (Conservative) brought a libel action against Mr Greenwood, M.P. (Liberal) and a newspaper owned by Mr Winfrey, M.P. (Liberal). Mr Lygon had said that he was against feeding school children out of the rates, and he was cited as being against feeding school children, the words "out of the rates" being omitted, so that a fearsome innuendo arose. A special jury was ordered to be struck. The venue was Northamptonshire, so the Sheriff of that country sent the special jury list to his London agent before whom the parties appeared and balloted for 48 names. Another appointment, a day later, was made for 'striking'. The plaintiffs' solicitor at once set off for Northampton, followed by the defendants' solicitor, to find out the politics of the panel. The result showed 35 Conservatives and 13 Liberals.”
“In attempting to analyse the British attitude towards jury trial, two major matters ought to be kept in mind. The first is that jury trial has for long been regarded as a bulwark against oppression; it is part of British tradition and still surrounded by sentiment and emotion. The second is that whilst there have been attempts to assess its efficacy, these are based on suppositions and not on hard facts. Now, these assertions made in support of juries should be tested against decided cases. If all the cases cited in Wade and Phillip's Constitutional Law, in the section on the Citizen and the State are examined, it will be found that juries played an insignificant part. When a jury was used, the jury either answered questions so put that the jury could not have known in whose favour they were finding, or followed the Judge's opinion. Those of us who take seriously the assertion that the jury is a safeguard of the liberty of the subject should read Howell's State Trials where all the political trials worth noting are recorded. Many of them are sedition trials and for every acquittal there was a conviction to balance it. In 1792 Paine was convicted for publishing the Rights of Man, while in 1793 his publisher Eaton was virtually acquitted. Daniel Holt was convicted in 1793, and completely ruined, for publishing suggestions for mild reform of the franchise and parliamentary constituencies. Further examples could be multiplied if need be. The only cure for the admiration of these juries is to read the State Trials and to ponder over the question of whether these juries were lamps that showed that freedom lived or instruments of oppression and prejudice.”
“And however convenient these may appear at first (as doubtless all arbitrary powers, well executed, are the most convenient), yet let it be again remembered that delays, and little inconveniences in the form of justice, are the price that all free nations must pay for their liberty in more substantial matters; that these inroads upon this sacred bulwark of the nation are fundamentally opposite to the spirit of our constitution; and that, though begun in trifles, the precedent may gradually increase and spread, to the utter disuse of juries in questions of the most momentous concern.' A rudimentary knowledge of British social history would be sufficient to show that at the time he wrote, Blackstone's liberties were but the property of but a very small class of British society. Parliamentary democracy based on adult suffrage is only one generation old in Britain; and yet the palladium of liberties has become a catchphrase among some of our own legal luminaries. Next, Lord Devlin in writing about juries was able to say: 'Each jury is a little Parliament. The jury sense is the Parliament sense. I cannot see the one dying and the other one surviving. The first object of any tyrant would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trail by jury, for no tyrant could afford to have a subject's freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen. So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.' This can only be a piece of delightful rhetoric as the hard facts of British constitutional history would appear to militate against this assessment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, only offences that carry the death penalty are subject to trial by judge and jury and this Bill seeks to amend section 178 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code by abolishing this form of trial and substituting it with a trial by three Judges of the High Court. To state this in another way, henceforth, a human being charged with a capital offence would be convicted, if at all, not by the simple verdict of a jury, but by the reasoned judgments of three Judges. Ever since the Bill was published, informed opinion has become inflamed and agitated by forebodings of dire consequences. An institution that had worked reasonably well for about 140 years should not be lightly tampered with. It has an aura of age; and the issue now has become one on which the principal disputants are the traditionalists supporting the jury and the rationalists questioning the rational foundation or otherwise of jury trials. Romantic and emotional statements have been made about the nature and character of jury trials by brilliant legal luminaries in England. Two such statements would bear quoting if only to lay bare the historical inaccuracies that they contain. About 200 years ago Lord Blackstone writing about jury trials stated: 'The liberties of England cannot but subsist, so long as this palladium remains sacred and inviolate; not only from open attacks (which none will be so hardy as to make), but also from all secret machinations, which may sap and undermine it; by introducing new and arbitrary methods of trial, by justices of the peace, commissioners of the revenue, and courts of conscience.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, no government would be able to give such a certificate of statelessness to any of its citizens.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, what happens in the event of a person getting a certificate from the Malaysian Government to the effect that he is not a citizen of Malaysia? Will that be satisfactory?”
“May I crave your indulgence, Mr Speaker, Sir? The consequence of what the Minister said just now is that we should not sign the International Convention on Copyrights and Patents. If we do, then, of course, we might have to amend clause 6, which might otherwise become illegal.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on the question of children who are born out of wedlock, I do not think there is any difficulty in so far as citizenship is concerned, because the child will follow the citizenship of the mother. There is no need for the child to have a parent or father who is a citizen of Singapore for the purpose of becoming a citizen of Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think the Minister has replied to the specific problem to which I have referred, that of the widow who is a Singapore citizen and who is not able to bring her children into Singapore. Mr Lim Kim San: Sir, on humane grounds, if the case is referred to me, I will have a further look into it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to give two more illustrations on this matter. There may, on principle, be a difference between a female citizen of Singapore getting married to a male foreigner and a male citizen of Singapore getting married to a female foreigner. So far as the law is concerned, a girl who gets married to a foreigner will have to follow the domicile of the foreigner and there are a number of legal consequences that follow from this fact. But I am much more concerned with a male Singapore citizen getting married to a female foreigner who is not allowed to bring his wife into Singapore. The Immigration Department steps in and says that she cannot be allowed the necessary permits. Sir, a much more harassing situation is this. It has, in fact, happened in Singapore and I have come across this case personally. A female Singapore citizen got married to a teacher in the Federation who was a Federal citizen. She went to the Federation to stay with him and in the process had two children. Unfortunately, her husband died in a car crash and she came back to stay with her mother because she did not have any relatives in the Federation. The Immigration Department stepped in and said that she could not bring her children in. In other words, the children could not stay in Singapore although she could. These matters must be rationalised because they are patently inhuman.”
“The Ministry could start an educative campaign for people - especially before they die - so that they may be able to convert their respective families to the view that once they die they would want their bodies to be cremated instead of buried. If this kind of transformation can be brought about,, then, of course, a lot of land will be saved and we will not have to go into the problem of exhumation. In the context of the severe penal clauses, I would also like to refer to clauses 109 and 110. Severe inroads have already been made into the rights of private property. I think these two clauses are a bit too much. They give unnecessary powers to the authorities concerned with regard to the payment of compensation to the owners of property. Clause 109 deals with the power to enter on lands adjacent to works and to take over the lands for specific purposes. Clause 110 exonerates people who take over the lands from whatever misdemeanours they may have committed in the course of their duties. I wonder sometimes whether such provisions are necessary not merely in this particular Bill but also in other Bills which are being brought up in this Parliament by the Government. Apart from this, I would like to congratulate the Minister on having introduced this Bill. It may be a necessarily painful Bill, but I think many of the penal clauses could have been watered down and made far more humane. Perhaps in the application of the Bill itself, some form of humanism will be shown by the authorities concerned. 9.09 p.m.”
“Sir, I certainly would not like to be accused of approaching this Bill with a pitiless heart as evinced by the Member for J00 Chiat and perhaps even by the Minister for Health. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 9.04 p.m. But I think it may be proper for me to say that the Bill has come at the right time after the right psychological attitudes have been developed among the people of Singapore as a result of the recent health campaign. The Bill introduces for the first time, under pain of penal sanctions, a complete system of hygiene which is necessary if we are to cash in and see to it that we do not fall back on past misdemeanours after the health campaign that we have gone through. It is true to say that the penal clauses introduced all over the Bill are a bit severe. In fact, as a lawyer trained in the rudiments of humanism, I think the penal clauses go against the grain. It may be difficult for doctors to understand this! I would like to expand a little bit on Part XIII of the Bill which, as the Minister has said, consolidates existing provisions in so far as a crematorium is concerned. We have an old crematorium in Mount Vernon which, unfortunately, is not being used as effectively as it ought to be. Most people do not know of its existence. I would like to say that, for all these people who are not inhibited by either convictions or religion, some kind of campaign ought to be started by the Ministry of Health to encourage the use of this crematorium so that we can be spared the use of a lot of land which is a very precious commodity in Singa pore.”
“Here, I would like to say that the responsibility of the employers and the captains of industry is indeed great, to devise a system of incentives that would bring out the best in every worker and produce the necessary attitudes and responses so that the change is made on the basis of representative parliamentary institutions which, historically in most societies, was made on the basis of dictatorship. Sir, I support this Bill. 2.40 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when we rose yesterday, I said that in looking at the development process of backward and developing countries, the factors which stood in the way of the necessary social change are a compound of outmoded usages in production and historical survivors which in any event the political leadership are not either capable or strong enough either to eradicate or sublimate. The second one is, of course, corruption on the part of the political elite. Fortunately for us, Sir, we do not - mercifully, in fact -face this problem in Singapore. I think, institutionally, we are poised to bring about the necessary change to usher in an industrial society. This must be the whole purpose of this Bill. And if this Bill does not ultimately bring about this change, then, of course, it has failed. What is curious about our present organisation and economy is this. We have a tertiary sector which is, in fact, the social apparatus of the secondary sector. We have a tertiary sector without a secondary sector and, curiously enough, we will have to reverse the process of development for the purpose of creating an industrial sector. Studies have been made on the growth of societies changing from one state to another. I think it is recognised by most critics that the change from one stage to another is not a continuous simple change, but that it is a mutation, which means that in order to make the grade, you will have to take, in fact, some giant strides and leaps. This can only he brought about, as I have said earlier, by changes in attitude on the part of our citizens and workers who would be vitally concerned with this change.”
“And worse still is corruption in high places, especially among the political leadership and among the Ministers and others who go into politics because they feel it is a very attractive business.”
“We will have to create a manufacturing capacity which will build the tools which will set up the factories and produce the machinery. There are two ways in which industrialisation in a country can be induced. One is indigenously from the inside which is the method that has obtained in the Western countries and possibly Japan, and the other one is to induce industrialisation from the outside, from impulses from developed countries into the developing country, which is what is happening all over the world today. We, unfortunately, because of our serious physical limitations and our lack of scientific capabilities for the purpose of inducing internal industrialisation, belong to the second category. And a price has got to be paid for this. Unfortunately, the price that we have got to pay today is this Bill. It may not be completely humanistic in terms of the minimum standards that obtain in advanced countries, but at least, as has been pointed out by a number of speakers, it is humanistic in relation to what obtains in surrounding countries. The factors that really stand in the way of the conversion into an industrial society are manifold, especially in developing countries. The first one, of course, is a backward leadership that does not understand modernism. Secondly, the allowance in the political process of the emergence of ghosts from the past. In other words, linguistic chauvinism in a multi-racial society, communal clashes and the lack of ability on the part of the political leadership to organise scientifically their policies in such a way as to mute whatever conflicts and contradictions there might be between communities and languages.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, what is really striking in the discussion that has taken place on this Bill up till now is the remarkable degree of sobriety with which we have discussed it. Perhaps this is due to the increasing awareness that politics in Singapore now is not a venture in recklessness but that it is the science of the possible. In the present historical context, I believe there are two main factors which have conspired with each other to make the introduction of this Bill inevitable. The first is the increasing need to build up a completely rationalised economic system that would in toto, not merely in its parts, be able to compete with the economies of countries such as. Hong Kong and Japan who are our main competitors for international markets. This first factor is merely the function of the second one which is the need to convert our society into art industrial society as swiftly as possible. There are a few specifics when one talks about the industrial society which needs to be created. All over the developing world, the under-developed world or the backward world, the ambition of governments is to create as quickly as possible an industrial society with a manufacturing base. Although it is difficult to define clearly what is meant by an industrial society, there are a number of attributes that can be pinpointed. Primarily, it is the application of a scientific mentality to the production process. Secondly, to change the psychology of the human beings, especially the workers, who participate in the industrial process. In other words, to convert the individual digit that works in the factory itself, to change its attitude towards work and play, and to change its attitude towards tools, which means that we have got to create the scientific capability.”
“Or, on the other hand, if the habeas corpus procedure is a simpler one, then, of course, it should be made to apply to a Malaysian offender as well. It may not be a fundamental point, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I think it will make for clarity and symmetry in the law if this can be rationalised. Clause 45 gives the Minister the power to vary the Schedules of this Bill and I am very concerned with the First Schedule which lays down the various offences for which an offender can be extradited. What I am concerned with is that in making a variation, we should make sure that a person who is already in Singapore, having committed an offence which is not covered by the Schedule, should not be brought under this purview merely by a change in the Schedule itself. These are the small points which I really want to discuss, Sir. I would like to make one other point. I notice that in this Bill and in one other Bill, there is an index laid out. I notice that most of the other Bills that have been brought before Parliament from time to time do not have an index at all. Can I make a suggestion, Sir? In future, all Bills should have indexes like this because it makes it simpler for reference.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very interesting Bill and I must commend it. For the first time in a very long while, we have a Bill which is really well drafted. Over the ages all over the world two principles have contested with each other for final expression. Both are civilised principles. One, of course, is that no state must allow its territory to be used as a haven for common criminals. The second one, especially after the French Revolution, is that no political offender should be extradited. Even to this day the battle between these two principles has not been finally resolved. I am glad to note that we have made adequate provisions in this Bill to safeguard political offenders who come to Singapore and find haven here. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are, however, a few provisions which I would like to consider in detail, at least for the purpose of rationalising the faults. We have three clauses - clause 26, clause 37 and clause 45 of the Bill. All these three clauses deal with an order made by a magistrate for committal. If the committed person is not happy with the order of the magistrate, he has got two different types of redress. Clause 37 deals with Malaysia. It lays down that if the committed person is not satisfied with the order of the magistrate he can make an application to the High Court. It is a very simple procedure. Whereas clause 12, dealing with a foreign country, and clause 26, dealing with a Commonwealth country, lay down that he can bring the matter up in the High Court by way of habeas corpus proceedings. I do not see logically why we should maintain this difference in this Bill. If the procedure in clause 37 is the more rational and simple, then, of course, it should apply to the other two clauses as well.”
“I feel that this proposal should be deleted and the provisions of sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Control of Rent Ordinance should be substituted in its place. Over and above this, I would support the intent of the Bill which I think is timely if the economic development of Singapore is to move apace.”
“Even in the case of the lesser powers exercisable by the Rent Conciliation Board, the Legislature had wisely seen fit to make the proceedings before the Board judicial proceedings. I would strongly recommend that, in view of this, section 8 (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) of the Control of Rent Ordinance ought to be adopted as parts of clause 6 of this Bill. I would also like to draw attention to clause 6 (10) of the Bill which intends to allow a non-qualified person to appear before the Board. I am not a protagonist of a closed-shop policy insofar as lawyers are concerned. But having regard to the gravity of the issues which would be before the Board and the need to make the Board observe the principles inherent in judicial proceedings, I would suggest that all persons appearing before the Board should be practising advocates and solicitors. They are not only capable of assisting the Board in a judicial manner, but are also subject to disciplinary proceedings if they should fail to observe the rules of professional conduct and the regulations applicable to such proceedings. Clause 7 (3) of the Bill seeks to define the expression "commercial purposes" and "residential purposes". The Bill has overlooked, it would appear, cases where controlled premises may be used both for commercial and residential purposes. It is, therefore, suggested that the House should consider how compensation should be awarded in cases where the premises are used for these mixed purposes. One views with concern the provisions of clause 15 (3) of the Bill making the order of the Board not only final but beyond challenge of any appeal or prerogative writs even though the Board's judgment may be tainted with error in law or made in lack of jurisdiction.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill in itself is a reflection of the vast social changes that have taken place in Singapore, especially in the field of housing and of which we can be justly proud. Historically, the systematic control of rent was introduced in many countries in the world, especially in Europe. As a result of the vast social upheavals that took place in the two World Wars, it is in fact a reflection of the degree to which we have mitigated these effects in Singapore that we are able to move a Bill of this nature. Mr Speaker, Sir, there are, however, a few issues of a fundamental nature involved in this Bill upon which I would like to dwell. They relate mainly to the functions and powers of the Tenants' Compensation Board. These powers, which are provided in this Bill, will be much more extensive than those conferred on the Rent Conciliation Board set up under the Control of Rent Ordinance. Under normal circumstances, such functions and powers would have been exercised by the High Court which should be the proper body for administering a statute affecting the very serious rights and liabilities of litigants. Mr Speaker, Sir, examples of these wide judicial powers are - (1) the power to grant orders for the recovery of possession of controlled premises under clauses 4 (3) and 11 of the Bill; (2) the power to enforce execution of the Board's order under clause 4 (6) of the Bill; (3) the power to award compensation under clause 6 (12) which will far exceed the powers of a civil District Judge; (4) orders of the Board cannot be challenged either by appeal or by prerogative writs even where there have been blatant errors of the law or even where the Board has acted ultra vires.”
“If our internal difficulties are solved and rationalised, it is fair to say that most of our difficulties in political terms must come from the outside. So long as the difference remains between us in Singapore and our immediate neighbours in the conception of the nature of a State or politics and the exercise of power, there is bound to be this political friction. And this is something we must learn to live with. This we can do provided, of course, we strengthen ourselves militarily and otherwise. I was wondering whether through diplomacy and other means we could, instead of concentrating on these political differences, strike out boldly as we have done in internal matters and establish relations in educational, cultural, trade and economic matters with our neighbours, and in the process help in muting the frictions and the differences that crop up from time to time between us. I know it is a difficult proposition, because we come face to face with all kinds of irrationalities at different times. This is something, I think, we have got to keep hitting at and perhaps with the evolution of the respective societies, we will find a way to come closer together in economic matters. 6.03 p.m.”
“Because of the expansion of the educational programme, there was a shortage of teachers for the purpose of servicing all the schools and it became necessary to follow this kind of practice. I hope that this state of affairs has come to an end with more teachers coming out to perform their respective duties and that it will be possible for the Education Department to allow teachers to remain in a school for 10, 15 or more years until they retire and thereby develop a personality. Teachers, like children, have got a way of growing up with their respective schools and institutions. This is something that we must foster and we must also allow individuality on the part of teachers and principals in the performance of their teaching duties within the framework of the national policy laid down by the Government. This, I think, is very vital if we are to build up the firm educational traditions that we have been talking about in our schools, whether it be intellectual traditions or whether it be extra-curricular traditions. Having said that, I would like to refer to the various Ministerial statements that have been broadcast and also the Speech made by the President. It is quite clear that the Government is setting us firmly on the course of building up a modern society. And at the end of five years, it may be a fair assessment to say that the internal consolidation of the State of Singapore would have matured. If this be true, we would have succeeded in creating a national ethos at the end of five years which would make it more and more difficult for extreme political parties, efferent political parties like the Barisan Sosialis, to create trouble in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Member for Katong and a few other Members had occasion to discuss some problems that face the evolution of a progressive and enlightened educational policy in Singapore. I got the impression that in the course of this discussion, there is one aspect relevant at least, if not important, which was not adequately can-vassed. And I would like to say a few words on this for the purpose of setting a rational framework for any future discussion. It is clear that we have come to the end of one phase in our evolution of our educational system and we are about to embark upon another. We have, to a large extent, solved the problem of providing equal opportunities in education in a quantitative sense. I am not so sure that qualitatively we have done the same thing. And it is no secret, and is, in fact, known to everyone in Singapore, that every time the year ends and the new term starts, there is a scramble among parents to get their children into the best possible schools, especially on the secondary level. It is either Raffles Institution or Anglo-Chinese School. I have become interested in this problem for some while now to find out what the cause of this attitude really was. It became apparent that children naturally wanted to go to schools which had firm established traditions of teaching, where standards were certain, and they got the best by way of teaching from the teachers. This, I think, is connected also with the way in which transfers of teachers and principals take place in Government schools. I can see there was a certain logic in the past for having done this.”
“That could be investigated. I shall be grateful if the Minister will amplify these points. 4.13 p.m.”
“It is possible that this class of citizens would also be faced with hardship and they might want to withdraw the money that they have in the Fund. An hon. Member: They may take all the money and go.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, although I would like to support the purport of this Bill as being an exceptional measure under exceptional circumstances, there are one or two unhappy features about some clauses of this Bill which I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister. First, I would like to refer to clause 7 which deals with the protection against action given to the Director and persons authorised by him. In sub-clause (3) the only circumstances under which protection is not granted to the Director is in the event of fraud where a person suffering damage or loss can recover whatever loss he has suffered from the Director by way of possible legal proceedings. Sir, I do not see why the same thing cannot be done with respect to negligent payments made by the Director or persons authorised by him because if payments are so made and the Director is protected by sub-clause (2) as he is, I do not see why a member of the Fund should really have to face the expense of taking action in court for the purpose of recovering the money from the person to whom it is wrongfully paid. I think this is an unfair burden to place on members of the Fund. The person who is negligent in making wrong payments should meet the expenses. The other point which I would like to refer to is the question of withdrawing the funds under clauses 9 and 10. Clause 9 refers to the circumstances under which non-citizens can withdraw their funds, and clause 10 refers to the circumstances under which citizens can withdraw their funds. I really do not see the reason behind the two sets of circumstances - one for citizens and one for non-citizens - before funds can be withdrawn. There are quite a number of non-citizens in Singapore who are non-citizens because of technical reasons ---”