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 4 of 4.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Prime Minister tell the House how real are the possibilities of establishing a five-nation defence system for this part of the world?”
“Sir, now that we are talking about tontines, I agree with what the Hon. Minister for Law and National Development has stated just now, that this Act does not catch tontine operators. In fact, I think there is a dubious line of common law authority which says that tontines are illegal as they are against public policy. In any event, I think there is a case that at some future session of Parliament, measures should be introduced in Parliament to control tontine operators and regulate this kind of business, because tontines also satisfy certain social and economic needs in Singapore. I think a study is being made by the Faculty of Law of the University of Singapore and perhaps we will have the time to go into it.”
“Perhaps you will allow the Member for Delta to speak first.”
“I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. In many instances, the persons who come to see us are, in fact, Singapore citizens. Let nie give an illustration by way of amplification. What really happens is that a father comes to see me. He and his wife are Singapore citizens. Three of his children are also Singapore citizens because they were born in Singapore. But the fourth one is not a Singapore citizen because of the fortuituous circumstance in which he was born across the Causeway. The father wants to know wh this fourth son cannot be a Singapore citizen, although he has been in Singapore ever since one nionth after his birth. We must look after the interests of these people as well.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0901 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1251. This relates to the Registry of Citizenship. Mr Speaker, Sir, every week during my "Meet the people sessions", about 20 per cent of the applicants come up with problems relating to their citizenship applications. You can broadly divide the category of people into three. The first are those who have been in Singapore for a long time - 15 or 20 years - and who want to apply for citizenship. The second category are those whose parents have become Singapore citizens, whose brothers and sisters who were subsequently born after them were born in Singapore and are Singapore citizens. But unfortunately the eldest child was not born in Singapore but was born at the hospital in Johore Bahru. He came to Singapore within a month of his birth and he has been in Singapore ever since. He is not a Singapore citizen and he has applied for his citizenship. The third category are those students who want to pursue their higher education and apply for what is known as junior citizenship. In almost every one of these cases, they had been interviewed by the Registry of Citizenship from between six and eighteen months, and up to date they have not had any reply, either of rejection or acceptance. Can the Minister let us know whether some form of procedure can he devised so that people are categorised, and those people who ought to be given citizenship or ought to be considered as quickly as possible are considered first and some kind of decision is made in these cases. 7.30 p.m.”
“If I may say so, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think the Minister has really answered the problem that brought out about the category of people between the ages of 40 and 50 who are unemployed and unable to get employment because of their age factor and who want to take this money out. Otherwise, in the meanwhile they are destitute.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, since we are discussing the Central Provident Fund, I would like to raise one particular point. I wonder if some alleviation could be brought about. 7.15 p.m. At present, as the law stands, a person can only withdraw his fund when he reaches the age of 55 or, if he wants ti withdraw the fund before the age of 55, he should be unemployed for not less than two years and he should not be likely to be employed further. In my constituency, I have periodically come across people in the age group of 40 to 45 who have been retrenched and are unable to find jobs. They have been unemployed for two years -some less than two years; some more than two years. By definition, as the law stands, these people cannot withdraw their funds until they have reached the age of at least 53. It is not very likely that these people would be able to get jobs because of the unemployment situation. Nobody is prepared to give jobs to people of this particular age group. They want younger people as far as possible. Is it possible to look into this question and provide a means of amelioration so far as this category of people is concerned'?”
“Mr Speaker, I am more than satisfied with the answer given by the Minister. May I beg leave to withdraw? Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Madam Chan Choy Siong - (2) That the sum to be allocated for Head 0703 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1125. The Chairman: Madam Chan, Amendment No. (2) . Madam Chan Choy Siong: I am not moving.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0703 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 1124*. * The same amendment also stood in the name of Madam Chan Choy Siong. This concerns the work of Senior Public Health Inspectors. There are really two points which I would like to raise. The first one is that it is known that over the past year the density of mosquitoes in Singapore has risen tremendously. It is also known that, based upon a recent survey conducted by some officers of the Ministry of Health, about 51 per cent of the septic tanks of the housing estates in Singapore are breeding grounds for mosquitoes. I would like to know what the Minister is able to say on this. The second point is that huge colonies of rats have made the Kandang Kerbau Market their habitat. Is it possible for the Public Health Inspectors to do something about this?”
“Sir, I am satisfied with the answer given by the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $2,373,620 for Head 0107 ordered to stand part of the Estimates. Head 0301 -”
“I will wind up, Mr Speaker, Sir. I wonder if the Minister will look into the question of increasing the Judges' salaries and see to it that the pension schemes themselves are so modified that the Judges appointed from among the practitioners do not lose out in relation to their colleagues who come from the Legal Service itself in so far as pension payments are concerned.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0107 be reduced by $100. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the not very distant future, two of our Judges are about to retire and the time has come when the powers that be will have to look around to fill the vacancies. A few minutes ago I did refer to the debate in this House on the 16th of December, 1957, when the Prime Minister himself talked at length about the problem of having to appoint Judges from among practitioners. I think it is inevitable that, as time goes on, we will not be able to escape the need to appoint most of our Judges more and more from amongst practitioners than from the Legal Service. This is as it should be, because most of the talent and expertise must come from among the practitioners themselves, and as Singapore is the commercial heart -I am sure that as time goes on, the intellectual heart too -of the whole of South-east Asia, it is incumbent that we have a Bench in Singapore that inspires the confidence of not only the people of Singapore but also the international commercial community. This means that we must have at least a very strong commercial Bench. If we accept the proposition that we must appoint our Judges progressively from among practitioners, then, of course, we come up against the rather sensitive question of emoluments and pension schemes that we will have to formulate for the purposes of paying them.”
“I submit that this should not be so, because I do not think that people who are not legally trained and legally qualified or people who have not practised at the law will understand the special position faced by the Judicial Service or the Legal Service of the State of Singapore. I would very much like the Minister to let us know whether this position could be rectified. If I had my way, I would like to have the Legal Service Commission composed of purely legal men without any non-legal element in it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may make a point quickly on the question of the appointment of magistrates to the Bench straight from the university. Quite often, many of our magistrates today are appointed to the Bench immediately after getting their degrees in the university here or after returning from the United Kingdom with their Bar qualifications. This is a matter which was dis. cussed at great length in this very House on 16th December, 1957, when the Prime Minister himself made the point that it is always difficult to have inexperienced magistrates listening to cases dealing with involved facts as well as involved laws. The position today seems to be similar to that which obtained in 1957 and we do not seem to have progressed. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was really interested in what the Minister said about the Public Service Commission. I get the impression that the malaise really rests in the way in which the Public Service Commission itself is constituted. Section 6 (4) (f) of the Republic of Singapore Independence Act, 1965, reads: 'the powers of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission shall be exercised by a Legal Service Commission which shall consist of the following persons:- (i) the Chief Justice, as President; (ii) the Attorney-General; (iii) the Chairman of the Public Service Commission; (iv) a Judge of the High Court nominated generally or specially by the Chief Justice; and (v) not more than two members of the Public Service Commission nominated generally or specially by the Chairman of the Public Service Commission;'. You will notice, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the non-legal element in the constitution of the Public Service Commission is about half.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just want to bring out one or two points on this Bill. Although I believe that in principle this is a logical development from the compulsory voting that we have in Singapore, I am not very happy about the way in which clause 9 of this Bill in respect of section 78A (1) is drafted. The words that I refer to are found in the last but one sentence - " ... attempt to dissuade any person from giving his vote at the election." This may prevent a person from appealing to the voters not to cast their votes at elections, but it may not really stand in his way of asking them to go into the polling booths and cast their votes for all candidates, thereby spoiling the votes. Technically, that may be considered as giving a vote to some candidate at the election itself, or you can even appeal to the voters to go into the polling booths and spoil the votes. I wonder if this point can be looked into so that the prohibition that this amendment seeks to introduce is comprehensive indeed.”
“If I may briefly refer to the other sections, section 175 refers to omission to produce a document required to be produced by a public officer. Section 178 deals with refusing to take an oath. Section 179 deals with refusing to answer questions by a public servant. Section 180 deals with refusing to sign a statement, and section 228, which is the relevant one, deals with intentionally insulting or interrupting a public servant sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding. I fear that section 228 may not go far enough. The ambit of section 228 may not cover the specific situations that we are faced with, be cause it says, "- a public servant... sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding". It could be argued by any lawyer that persons standing on benches and showing their rears to a magistrate as he came into his court were not covered by the words of section 228. If this is so, then of course the amended section 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code will not come into play. This would stultify what we are trying to do and I would urge that section 228 of the Penal Code itself be looked into by the officials concerned with a view to extending its ambit. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that it is very important indeed that the procedures and processes of the judiciary, being one of the three main pillars on which the democratic structure of the Republic of Singapore rests, are not brought into ridicule and contempt, which is what certain political groups have been trying to do to show the people of Singapore that the institutions of our State are not worth supporting and that they do not represent the people at all. These groups seek to subvert and jeopardise the whole fabric of political life in our Republic. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill. 5.30 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment and endorse fully the words spoken by the Minister of Defence when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill. The old section 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code would have been satisfactory in normal circumstances when the politics of Singapore ran on an even tenor. Unfortunately for us, certain groups of people in Singapore have of late deliberately taken to the path of bringing the administration of justice in Singapore into hatred, ridicule and contempt. I think it is imperative and important indeed that the hands of our judicial officers are strengthened so that they are able to deal with situations of this kind. I have in mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, certain events that occurred in the 9th Magistrate's Court recently where, on the magistrate coming into his court, certain persons stood up on the benches and showed their rears to him - a very serious business indeed. I believe that the amendment, as it stands, goes a long way towards acting as a deterrent against this kind of behaviour. We will, however, have to watch the working of this amendment and the efficacy with which it acts as a deterrent to see if any further extensions become necessary in the future, because I personally believe that these actions are politically motivated. They are not the actions of criminally motivated people; they are politically motivated. Provided sufficient funds are forthcoming, they would do the same thing in future. I would like to raise one or two points of a more technical nature, Mr Speaker, Sir. Section 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides a sanction for offences defined by sections 175, 178, 179, 180 and 228 of the Penal Code. For our purposes the most relevant section is really section 228.”
“It might be pertinent to note that since his appointment, little has been heard of the Ombudsman in England, and I have been told that the very reason that gave rise to the clamour for an Ombudsman in England, namely, to check the excesses of local government - you will remember the Critchel-Down case that led to this clamour for an Ombudsman, Mr Speaker, Sir - has now been excluded from the area of jurisdiction of the Ombudsman in the United Kingdom. In October 1962 the New Zealand Parliamentary Commissioner, the first Ombudsman in the Commonwealth, was appointed. He had roughly the same jurisdiction as the Ombudsman in Scandinavia, but did not have powers of investigation extended to local authorities. He was, however, unlike the Scandinavian Ombudsman, to act through Parliament as it were. His principal function was to investigate complaints made to him or referred to him by anyone, including Ministers, any decision or recommendation, including recommendations made to a Minister, acts done or omitted relating to administration ---”
“The Danish Ombudsman's jurisdiction extends not only to a review of the decisions of the lower administrative authorities, but also those of Ministers as well as military authorities. The Ombudsman in Scandinavia was established as an instrument of Parliament for the supervision and control of administration. It is for this reason that those Commonwealth countries that have adopted this institution call him the Parliamentary Commissioner. He is, in practice, however, independent of the Government. In fact, he is also independent of Parliament in the performance of his duties. Parliament only lays down general rules for his activities. His position is equivalent to that of a people's tribunal drawing authority from the people's elected representatives who invest him with great authority. The Ombudsman would perhaps function properly only where the population is, to a large extent homogeneous. I doubt whether in a large country where the population is heterogeneous, the institution might work as well. One of the reasons why the former United Kingdom Government had rejected the Whyatt Report recommending the creation of a Parliamentary Commissioner, who was to work through Parliament, was that there were already 650-odd Ombudsmen (Members of Parliament) in England who could receive complaints from their constituents and bring these matters to light in Parliament during Question Time. However, in view of the fact that an Ombudsman in the United Kingdom was appointed last year in October, it would appear that these objections have been rejected by the present United Kingdom Government.”
“I will try my level best. In Sweden, where the institution has its roots going back to the Middle Ages, the Ombudsman is, in theory, not unlike the Chancellor in medieval England, with as wide and extensive jurisdiction as he had when the Court of Equity was a separate branch of the English legal system. He is there essentially to help those who have no redress in the law. Hence the term "Ombudsman" or, translated literally, "a man of the people", a man to whom a citizen, who is dissatisfied with decisions taken by administrative authority, may appeal. Indeed, to this day the Ombudsman in Sweden has so wide jurisdiction that he may even review judicial as well as administrative decisions. But, in practice, it is only where there is no possibility of bringing these grievances before an ordinary court for review, or for the purpose of reviewing an administrative decision with which he is dissatisfied, that the citizens could complain to the Ombudsman. In Finland, the Swedish system has been followed to a certain degree, but there the Ombudsman is but one of two institutions who are the supreme guardians of the law, the Chancellor of Justice and the Ombudsman. The reason for this close affinity between Sweden and Finland is that in both these Scandinavian countries there are administrative courts that are distinct in their jurisdiction and powers from the ordinary courts. In Denmark and Norway there are no administrative courts. The ordinary courts generally have competent control and authority over administrative decisions. Like the United Kingdom, the Ministers are answerable to Parliament for the conduct of administration.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, volumes have been spoken on almost every aspect of the Report of the Constitutional Commission. I will merely devote my time to the consideration of two institutions that the Commission has recommended. The first one is the creation of an Ombudsman. The second one is the Council of State. This institution of the Ombudsman is such a novel idea, so far as Singapore is concerned, that I would like to consider its history as it has evolved in other countries in considerable detail. The institution of Ombudsman has existed in Sweden for about 150 years. It was established in Finland in 1919 and in Denmark in 1954. It was as recently as 1963 that Norway set up an Ombudsman on Danish lines. The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman varies from country to country, even in Scandinavia. In Sweden, where the institution has its roots going back to the Middle Ages, the Ombudsman is, in theory, not unlike the Chancellor in medieval England, with as wide and extensive jurisdiction ---”