S. Dhanabalan
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. I said in my intervention on Tuesday that the general election is the right forum to determine the electorate's support because it puts the issue in a total and correct context.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with hindsight, of course, we can be very wise. But since one of the three islands was excluded, it was a substantial reduction in the scope of works. The assessment then, which I agreed with, was that if you called for a re-tender, you would get a substantially reduced tender.”
“To the extent that we can, we should work with countries that have a common interest, to come together and form economic groupings targeted at trade liberalisation. We have started this process within ASEAN under the AFTA Scheme. Economic linkages in groupings like APEC are also growing in significance.”
“Mr Speaker, all these questions make a lot of sense when the events are finished, and you look back. But the officer looking at the case at that time had to deal with the facts as they were at that time.”
“ASEAN countries agreed to publish all the Inclusions and Exclusions lists, as well as the full list of actual tariff reductions. The ASEAN Secretariat had since followed up and released, as scheduled, on 1st November 1993, the publications showing these lists.”
“Kallang Theatre was closed for five months in 1992 for cyclical maintenance and upgrading costing $3 million. This included a major upgrading of the toilets, recarpeting the auditorium, rewiring and repainting.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,635 lines we hold for S. Dhanabalan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 21 of 33.
“The name of the proposed new town in the vicinity of Jalan Kayu has not been decided. HDB will consult the MP of the area before doing so. Its proposed size is about 30,000 dwelling units and is located north of the existing Yio Chu Kang Road. In their planning, the HDB expects the construction to commence in the late 1990's. Normally a new town takes about 10 to 15 years to complete. TAX ON INTEREST INCOME 2. Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked the Minister for Finance how much tax was collected over the last five years under the category of "interest" from resident individual taxpayers broken down into the usual "assessed income groups".”
“Sir, the present procedure is that when the HDB receives a complaint, they do go to the house complained against and they counsel the owner. They speak to him, and this is done many times. As far as I am aware, nobody has yet been evicted from his flat for making noise that bothers his neighbours. But as I said, this is a difficult problem because some of the problems are in blocks comprising purchased flats, and eviction, of course, is not a simple process. That is why I said that this is a community problem and we will be glad to discuss with community leaders and residents themselves what they think will be a fair method of dealing with this problem. The easiest thing, of course, will be to pass legislation that if there are more than three or four or X number of complaints against a particular family, the flat can be repossessed. But I do not think we should resort to such a simple administrative solution at this stage. We are always open to discussing with community organizations as to what more can be done in this respect. Mr Speaker: End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement, Dr Yeo Ning Hong. PROGRESS REPORT ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MRT SYSTEM (Statement by the Minister for Communications and Information) 11.30 am”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in high-rise community living, it must be appreciated that a certain amount of noise is inevitable. In the case of HDB estates, the sources of noise are major roads and expressways, nearby construction sites, commercial premises, markets and hawker centres, and functions carried out in the void decks. Noise pollution from these sources can generally be controlled through various planning and management measures. However, excessive noise generated by residents themselves is harder to eliminate. The HDB will work closely with grassroots organizations such as RCs to advise and counsel residents against generating excessive noise. But residents themselves must be more considerate and cooperative with their neighbours. They must take simple measures to make high-rise living more pleasant such as restraining their dogs from barking and keeping the volume of their TV or radio sets low. The HDB will be glad to receive suggestions from residents and grassroots organizations on what kind of stricter rules can be formulated, how these can be enforced with minimum cost to themselves and the type of punitive measures that can be introduced.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in Bo Wen Constituency, a total of 961 rental flats will be affected by the relocation exercise. 50% of the tenants are expected to purchase flats. Those who cannot afford to purchase will be given transfers to alternative rental flats in blocks not affected by relocation. In Bo Wen Constituency, 268 rental flats are to be retained under the present plan. If the vacancies are insufficient to cater to the affected tenants who want rental flats, they will be offered vacant flats in adjacent constituencies or nearby estates. CAPITAL GRANT FOR AIDED SCHOOLS 3. Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for Education whether the amount of capital grant for aided schools will be increased to 90 per cent.”
“The information requested by the Member for Rochore, viz, the value, total area and price per metre square of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) contracts awarded for the seven years from 1980 to 1986 is captured in about 800 individual building contracts involving some 2,500 blocks of flats. To extract these statistics would be tremendously time-consuming and laborious. The HDB however, has been keeping summary records of its analysis of all lump sum tenders awarded in the form of building tender prices per metre square of floor area. This information is readily available and is shown in Table A. TABLE A _____________________________________________________________ *BUILDING CONTRACT PRICES ($ PER METRE SQUARE OF FLOOR AREA) FOR HIGH-RISE DEVELOPMENT ON PILES FOUNDATION ___________________________________________________ TENDER NEGOTIATION YEAR ___________________________________________________ Lowest Highest Lowest Highest _____________________________________________________________ 1980 145.95 271.97 NIL NIL 1981 251.07 294.78 254.50 343.70 1982 229.39 330.24 247.00 343.36 1983 203.67 296.25 228.00 # 1984 192.54 271.18 228.00 # 1985 184.37 253.79 221.50 251.63 1986 187.65 275.94 243.75 # _____________________________________________________________ The above information covers only public housing dwelling units excluding Middle Income Housing Units and projects within the Central Area. * Building contract prices exclude the costs of civil engineering works, electrical, sanitary, CATV, piling, earthworks, land, resettlement, interest & financing. Information based on tender/negotiation closing date. # Not applicable as there was only one rate for that year. statement - MINISTRY OF FINANCE PRESS STATEMENT (Cols. 227 - 230)”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the total areas of East Coast Park and Changi Beach Park are 206 hectares and 12 hectares respectively. Both parks have vast stretches of beaches which can be used for swimming. The East Coast Park has nine facilities with changing rooms, showers and toilets and another four toilet facilities. The Changi Beach Park has two facilities with toilets and showers. The Parks and Recreation Department conducts periodic surveys on the intensity of usage of these facilities. As a result of a survey conducted in 1986, plans have been finalized to improve the bathing facilities at some of these points. The improvement works which will result in more shower rooms and changing facilities are scheduled to commence in August 1987 and be completed by March 1988. All the land currently earmarked for park development at Changi Beach Park and East Coast Park have been fully developed. There is no plan at present to develop more parkland at these two places. NEWTON CIRCUS (Installation of traffic lights) 25. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong asked the Minister for National Development whether traffic lights can be installed at Newton Circus. Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Works Department is already in the process of installing traffic lights at the junction of Newton Road/Dunearn Road at Newton Circus. In association with this, there are some road improvement works at the Circus. When the works are completed in about two months' time, the traffic lights will be put into operation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are altogether 12 golf courses in Singapore, including one on Sentosa Island. Together they occupy 1,005 hectares of land. This is about 1.6% of the total land area of Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, besides providing dwelling units and ancillary facilities, the HDB also builds industrial premises. These industrial premises not only provide employment opportunities for the HDB residents but also enable HDB to relocate industries operating on land which is required for public housing. As these industrial premises are within housing estates, the HDB has been managing them. However, in the context of limiting its role, ie, HDB's role, to being only a housing authority, the HDB has been asked to study the transfer of its industrial estates to the Jurong Town Corporation. A decision will be announced within the next six months. LAND FOR GOLF COURSES 23. Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong asked the Minister for National Development how much land is taken up by golf courses.”
“I am glad to hear, Mr Speaker, Sir, that he has had no problems in Telok Blangah but other constituencies have received complaints. Of course, one can always make out a case. For those who do not work on Saturdays, Friday evenings would be a good time to start their social visits. For those who do not work on Sundays, Saturday evenings would be a good time to start social visits. We have to strike a balance somewhere to balance the interests of those who hold season tickets and those who want to visit their parents or relatives or friends. The present scheme, I think, is adequate. But if RCs and others over a period of time can show me that really there will be no disruption, maybe we can consider, but I think there will be problems. HDB INDUSTRIAL ESTATES (Transfer to JTC) 22. Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong asked the Minister for National Development whether he will consider transferring all industrial estates presently managed by the Housing and Development Board to the Jurong Town Corporation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the current free parking scheme already provides 15 1/2 hours of parking without charge from 7.00 am to 10.30 pm on Sundays and public holidays so as to encourage social visits in housing estates. With the introduction of the free parking scheme, some HDB residents who are season ticket holders are already complaining about the congestion and difficulty in finding parking spaces in their residential car parks in the evenings on the free parking days. The extension of free parking to cover the evening hours on Saturdays and on the eve of public holidays is likely to aggravate the problem. Hence, the HDB does not intend to extend free parking to the evening hours of Saturdays and the eve of public holidays.”
“Sir, yes, provided that car park is not near a hawker centre that requires a fast turnaround of traffic. THEFT AND VANDALISM IN SCHOOLS (Particulars) 18. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon asked the Minister for Education, since his Ministry stopped recruiting watchmen for schools in 1979, how many cases of theft and vandalism occurred in schools outside school hours up to the latest convenient date, and what was the total loss in monetary terms.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, generally, URA does not charge for parking on Sundays and public holidays except in places where the demand for parking is high and there is a need to encourage rapid turnaround of traffic, for example, Newton Hawker Centre, Holland Village and so on. At the request of various advisers to CCCs, the URA has allowed free parking on Sundays and public holidays in its car parks which fringe estates within the constituencies of those who have requested. These are at Upper Serangoon Road, Everton Park, Chip Bee Gardens and Bukit Theresa.”
“The Member of Parliament, as other Members of Parliament, will have an opportunity to have his say when the legislation is debated. URA CARPARKS (Free parking on Sundays and public holidays) 17. Mr Leong Horn Kee asked the Minister for National Development whether the Urban Redevelopment Authority will follow the example of the Housing and Development Board and allow free parking on Sundays and public holidays in all URA carparks.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in a general sense, yes, but I cannot say when. Ultimately, it is the intention, as I said, to bring all constituencies into Town Councils. But we have not yet drawn up the programme to enable me to give a specific answer as to when Telok Blangah will be brought under the Town Council scheme.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the Government's objective to vest authority in Town Councils for the management of HDB estates. This will enable residents to participate in the management of their estates and accord them the authority and responsibility in deciding the allocation of resources and the level of services that they want. The pilot Town Council project was implemented in Ang Mo Kio New Town in September 1986 for an initial period of six months. The pilot scheme has been extended for another six months from March 1987. It is the Government's intention to implement the Town Council concept to more constituencies. The Government is now working on the legislation for the formation of Town Councils. When the legislation is passed, more constituencies will be grouped to form Town Councils.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the figures. But I can tell the Member that this scheme just started lately and the programme to relocate those who are now residing in 1-room rental blocks and persuade them to buy flats has just started. It is a bit early to say whether the scheme is successful or not. We expect, from the little experience that we have had so far, that about 50% of those who are now in 1-room flats will buy flats under this scheme. TELOK BLANGAH TOWN COUNCIL 16. Dr Koh Lam Son asked the Minister for National Development whether a Town Council is likely to be implemented in Telok Blangah and, if so, when.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do have the figure for the total number of people who are registered under this scheme, ie, the low-income family incentive scheme. As of February, there were 8,558 applicants still waiting to purchase flats under this scheme. I do not know whether that satisfies the Member.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1986 the HDB sold 4,073 flats under the Low-Income Family Incentive Scheme.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Property Market Consultative Committee presented its report to the Government in February 1986. The Ministry of Finance issued a press statement on the report in June 1986 which listed the acceptance by the Government of several significant recommendations of the Committee. This press statement (Cols. 227 - 230) has been circulated to Members for easy reference. statement - MINISTRY OF FINANCE PRESS STATEMENT (Cols. 227 - 230) Since that statement in June 1986, the Government has further adopted the following significant recommendations: (a) the formulation of a Tourism Product Development Plan; (b) improvements to the availability, presentation and publication of property data; (c) an undertaking by the Government not to lead the market in setting prices and rentals of properties; (d) the conversion of existing Government office premises, such as City Hall and Empress Place, into alternative uses and the consequential shifting of government agencies occupying these premises to fill vacant office space elsewhere. JUNIOR COLLEGE IN UPPER SERANGOON (Construction) 4. Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for Education whether the land earmarked for the construction of a junior college in the vicinity of Upper Serangoon Road and Lim Ah Pin Road will be used for some other purposes; and, if not, when construction work will commence.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, we would like to encourage as many as possible to buy these flats. But we should not encourage people who are not able to plan their finances to buy these flats because, having bought the flats, they then may have difficulty in financing their monthly instalment payments. That is why we have decided that at least a minimum of 5% or 10%, as I have described, should be required. The downpayment is not hefty for a 3-room or 4-room Simplified flat, say, in the new towns. The downpayment would be about $1,700 for a 3-room flat and $2,100 for a 4-S flat; that is working on 5%. It is really not very much. And this, of course, can be paid out of the CPF in the case of people who do have CPF balances. In addition to these downpayment concessions, there are other concessions on the monthly instalment payment to enable such people to afford the purchase of these flats. At the present moment, we are satisfied that these concessions are sufficient to enable most of the people who are renting flats and most of those who earn less than $800 per month to afford HDB flats. PROPERTY MARKET CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (Implementation of recommendations) 3. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Minister for National Development what are the recommendations of the Property Market Consultative Committee which have been accepted and implemented by the Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is of course one of the ways to encourage sale of HUDC flats. I am not sure at the present moment how disruptive it would be on the private sector market. But I have already asked HDB to be a little more flexible in the application of the income ceiling. HDB HOME OWNERSHIP SCHEME (Waiver of deposit) 2. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will consider waiving the deposit required under the home ownership scheme, particularly for those living in one-room and two-room rental flats who wish to upgrade themselves. Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, buying a house or flat requires a long term financial commitment and the purchaser should show some ability to plan his expenditure before taking on such a commitment. A downpayment should therefore be made. The HDB recognizes that certain categories of applicants, particularly those living in 1-room and 2-room rental flats who wish to upgrade themselves, may not be able to afford the usual initial downpayment of 20%. Therefore, they need only pay 5% downpayment to purchase a 4-room Simplified flat or a smaller flat and 10% downpayment if they want to buy a 4-room Model A flat or a bigger flat. These concessions are applicable to the following groups of people: (a) Tenants of rental flats; (b) Applicants in the HDB Rental Waiting List; (c) Applicants in the Sales Waiting List whose current gross household incomes do not exceed $800 per month. In view of this concession, the HDB will not totally waive the deposit required under the Home Ownership Scheme, except for tenants who are affected by redevelopment. Those who are affected by redevelopment do not have to make a downpayment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as at 31st January 1987, there were 1,099 unsold HUDC flats. These vacant flats have arisen because the HDB built them in response to demands by HUDC applicants. When large numbers of applicants subsequently withdrew their applications, the Board had already committed itself to building the flats. The completion of these flats has resulted in the present vacancy rate. The HDB has stopped building new HUDC flats. The present plan is to sell the existing stock to new applicants as well as to those on the waiting list for HUDC flats until the stock has exhausted. I have asked HDB to also study other ways of accelerating sales without disrupting the market.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows: That the Standing Orders Committee appointed under paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 95 do consider and report on any amendments to the Standing Orders of Parliament which the Committee may deem necessary. Mr Speaker, Sir, it has been some time since the Standing Orders were reviewed and I am moving this motion so that the Standing Orders Committee can review the Standing Orders and bring them up to date to meet our current situation. Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not possible to build everything at the same time. Some things have got to be built first, and other things second, and others third. The housing and basic roads are put in first and the other amenities will be built in due course. This is always a problem with every new town because people who move in first complain that they do not have all the facilities that other older new towns have. This is just a matter of being patient. Things can be done only one at a time. The only way to please everybody would be to build the whole town with all the facilities before anybody moves in. That is not possible. It will tie up a lot of money, and that is not really the best way of using public funds.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Hougang New Town will be fully developed in the mid-1990s. It will have about 40,000 dwelling units. The infrastructural facilities provided will be a town centre, neighbourhood centres, Area Offices, bus terminus, town and neighbourhood parks, a junior college, a vocational and industrial training school and a swimming and sports complex.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if we had allowed people to happily mind their own business, Singapore would not be what it is today. HOUGANG NEW TOWN (Completion date) 6. Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for National Development when Hougang New Town will be fully completed; and whether he will indicate the number of residential units and the type of infrastructural facilities and services to be provided there.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member knows the various avenues open to such single persons. They can join up with another person and apply for a 1-room flat or if the person is considered a senior citizen (in the case of males over 50 years and in the case of females over 40 years) two such persons can get together to buy a flat. There are various avenues open to them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think in the long term interest of Singapore, it is better to leave the flats unoccupied for a short period.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in my answer to the main question, I did say and give figures of the flats that have been vacant for more than one year. I think we should not allow the present situation to change a basic policy. When we find in a year or two that demand goes up, we may find that we have made the wrong decision. It is best that we stick to the basic policy. The basic policy and the basic facts are these. We do not have land in Singapore to house people in a manner where one person can occupy a 3-room flat. That we cannot run away from, and I think we should stick to a policy that makes maximum and optimum use of our land. Even though there is a temporary over-supply of 3-room flats, we should stick to the policy and not allocate to single persons.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the present occupancy per HDB flat is already below what we have planned when we planned for the housing of Singapore over the next 50 to 60 years. To allocate one 3-room flat to a single person will mean that the average occupancy per flat will go down further and we just do not have space in Singapore to build flats to accommodate single persons in flats of their own. The present policy, even for 1-room flats, is to ask two single persons to join together to occupy a 1-room flat. If we think that we do not have land to even allocate one single room flat to a single person, the question of a 3-room flat for a single person does not arise.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Housing Board has, in fact, looked into the question of converting some of these 3-room flats, not for the reason that the Member for Queenstown mentioned, but because the demand for 4-room improved flats is greater than we had anticipated. Not all the flats can be converted because of design restrictions and also because some of the vacant flats are in blocks which have already been sold. You cannot convert partially vacant blocks. Some of the blocks have been converted, such that two 3-room flats have been converted into one 4-room flat and one small 1-room or studio apartment which can be occupied by the parents of the family in the adjacent flat. We do not know whether the demand for this type of flats will be sufficient to warrant conversion of all the blocks but we will study the situation as we go along and decide how conversion should be done.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a matter of opinion whether they are over-priced. The real reason why the 3-room flats are not being taken up at the rate at which we anticipated is that Singaporeans' expectations of the kind of house that they should have has gone up. At that time, when the 3-room and 4-S flats were built they were really meant to try and cater for those whom we felt would not be able to afford the normal 4-room and 5-room flats. But as it turned out, incomes went up to a point where many who would have previously gone only for the 3-room or 4-S flats have registered for the 4-room Improved and the 5-room flats. But we are quite confident, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the 3-room flats will be taken up in due course even at the present prices.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as at 31st January 1987, the Board had a total of 21,939 completed flats which remained unsold. The waiting list as at the same date was 62,198. The breakdown into flat types are given in a Table (Cols. 103 - 104) that has been distributed to Members. Table - UNSOLD HDB FLATS AS AT 31 JANUARY 87 (Cols. 103 - 104) Except for 3-room and 4-room Simplified flats, demand on the waiting list exceeds the number of unsold flats. They are therefore in the process of being sold. In the case of 3-room and 4-S flats, because of past high demand, HDB accelerated the construction of these flats to shorten the waiting time. However, when the flats were under construction, demand for such flats dropped resulting in the present high vacancy rates. Of the total unsold flats, 13,430 units have been unsold for more than a year. These are mainly the 3-room and 4-S flats located in New Towns such as Yishun. The total cost of the 21,939 unsold flats is about $1.66 billion. Of this cost, that which is attributable to 3-room and 4-S flats is about $980 million. Experience shows that the take-up rate for vacant flats which are mainly in new town zones would initially be low. This is due to the fact that new town infrastructural and transport facilities are less developed compared to established estates. There are plans to improve the transportation network for the residents in these new towns. HDB will also speed up the building of other infrastructural facilities. With these measures, the HDB anticipates that the unsold flats will be taken up in due course. The number of flats to be built in 1987 is about 32,000. The HDB is not building any more 3-room and 4-S flats.”
“It is a very simple point. The Member for Potong Pasir says that Mr Jeyaretnam should be here. We are prepared to have him here if he can tell us past practice and that we ought to follow this past practice. We want to follow the procedures properly. If the Member for Potong Pasir still insists that following past practice would mean that Mr Jeyaretnam should be here, we are prepared to have him here. That is all we are asking. If he cannot make out a case, then I think we should proceed with the motion that I have moved.”
“All right. If we are setting a precedent, it means that we are not following past practice. That is when a precedent is set. Right? We are setting a new precedent, you said. That means we are not following past practice and we said, "Please show us the past practice." I would have thought the Member would have come prepared to make this very important point - that justice has not been done in this House because Mr Jeyaretnam has not been called to appear before this House. Well, it is fair, I think, for him to produce the past practice to show that we are not following past practice and setting a dangerous precedent. An hon. Member: He does not understand the word or meaning of "precedent". Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, where we do not have any precedents in Singapore of our own, we are guided by the practice in the United Kingdom House of Commons. The Member for Potong Pasir has not cited a precedent but may I refer him to page ---”
“The Committee of Privileges made a Report. It specifically found Mr Jeyaretnam guilty and recommended an appropriate penalty. This Report was circulated to all the Members. The Member for Potong Pasir was a Member of the Committee. So he was aware of the Committee's conclusion and the recommendations long before even the other Members knew. He had notice of the motion that I have moved. He has made out that this is an important point - that Mr Jeyaretnam should be present when Parliament decides. One would have thought that if he thought this was an important point and if he felt strongly, he should have come here prepared to make out a case. Our time is being wasted because he has not prepared himself. He has come here and just shot off an argument. We have asked him to substantiate his argument and as a result we have had to adjourn. He should produce precedents because he says, "We are setting a precedent."”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are not going through this exercise just to have fun. It is a very serious matter.”
“It is a very good suggestion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. We would like to know whether he can quote precedents either in the UK or anywhere else where, after the Committee of Privileges has considered a matter and come to a conclusion and makes a recommendation to Parliament, Parliament is required to have the Member against whom a complaint has been made to be present when Parliament debates and accepts the recommendation of the Committee.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to pursue this point because it will not be fair if we give the impression that we have gone against precedents or rules of natural justice. The Member for Potong Pasir said that we are going against all precedents in imposing a fine on a person who is not here. We would like him to quote the precedents so that we will know exactly where we stand. Erskine May is there. How can we break precedents unless he quotes us precedents? If the Member can quote us any precedent, then maybe he has got a case we can reconsider.”
“But there is specific provision in the Standing Orders for Parliament to form this Committee of Privileges to deal with these offences and for people against whom complaints are made to appear before the Committee or to make representations before the Committee. The Committee can hear them, cross-examine them, and then find whether that person is guilty or not guilty and make its recommendation to Parliament as a whole. That is what has happened in this particular case. In the Report that we discussed this morning, the Member had full opportunity. In this Second Report, the Member was asked to explain and he explained and the Committee could have heard him. I do not know whether the Member for Potong Pasir wanted to hear Mr Jeyaretnam. I do not have the record of the proceedings. I assume he did not. Well, Mr Jeyaretnam made his representations. The Committee considered and came to the conclusion that his explanation did not justify what he did, and found him guilty and has recommended accordingly. I think the fine is not excessive. It is, in fact, only one-tenth of what Parliament can impose; it should be punitive as well as a deterrent.”
“The Member has raised a number of points which my colleague has answered. I just would like to touch on two points. The Member asked whether this offence is serious enough to warrant the recommendation of a $5,000 fine for each of the contempts committed against the Committee. We cannot allow Parlia- mentary proceedings to be treated with contempt, without any respect. We have had many examples of the former Member for Anson treating the proceedings of the Committee as well as this Parliament without the respect that is due to Parliament. Regarding the specific offence of publishing distorted proceedings of a Committee, it is because it is a serious offence that there is a specific provision in the law that there cannot be wilful distortion of anything that a Member says in Parliament or of any proceedings of Parliament or any Committee of Parliament. It is a serious offence, and that is why it is specifically dealt with in the law, and I think that the penalty should not only be punitive but also a deterrent not only to the former Member for Anson but also to others - that they cannot treat Parliamentary proceedings with contempt. Secondly, the Member has made the point, and he made the point again this morning, that it is not fair to discuss the conduct of anybody in Parliament because that person is not here; it is against the rules of natural justice and this never happens in court. Parliament can, of course, choose if it wants to, ie, Parliament as a whole, hear a witness or deal with an offence with Parliament constituting itself into a Committee of the whole House.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I suggest that after I have made two points, the Member for Potong Pasir be given the opportunity to say what he wants.”
“The Committee do not accept Mr Jeyaretnam's statement that he was being selective or did not intend his letters to be a verbatim report to be a valid excuse for such gross distortions in letters which he published for five consecutive days. 32. The Committee accordingly find Mr Jeyaretnam guilty of contempt of the Committee and of Parliament in respect of each of the five offending letters.' These offences of contempt come under the new provisions of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act under which one of the penalties is a maximum fine of $50,000 for each offence. Mr Jeyaretnam committed five offences of contempt and each of them can be subject to a fine of $50,000. The Committee has, however, recommended that Mr Jeyaretnam be fined $5,000 for each offence. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that we accept the Committee's recommendations. 2.41 pm”
“This is Mr Jeyaretnam speaking: 'That is five months, about six months or so after that. Have you ever been back to the Magistrates' Courts after that? --- [Mr Yong answered] Yes. I was transferred back again, yes.' So Mr Jeyaretnam got an answer that he did not like because it did not prove his allegation. He therefore very conveniently suppressed this fact when he wrote his newsletter and told only a half truth that was misleading. I do not intend, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to go through the other distortions. For example, there was a serious distortion about what the Chief Justice said regarding the reasons for Mr Michael Khoo's transfer. The exchange between the Chief Justice and Mr Jeyaretnam in the Committee of Privileges is recorded in the Report of the Committee of Privileges where, as the Committee itself said (page 6): 'It is clear from the above [ie questions that Mr Jeyaretnam put to the Chief Justice] that Mr Jeyaretnam strenuously attempted, but failed, to get the Chief Justice to say that there was no reason for the transfer.' But in the letter, he tried to convey precisely the opposite, ie, there was no reason. All these offences of contempt, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, were found by the Committee to be serious and I would like to quote from their Conclusion and Recommendation, page 9 of the Report, paragraphs 30 to 32: '30. From the above examination of the letters against the actual proceedings in the Committee of Privileges, the Committee are of the view that each of the five letters contains wilful distortions and misrepresentations calculated to mislead the readers. They were not only not a true and fair report, but they were gross distortions of the Committee's proceedings. 31.”
“For example, if five reasons were given in the proceedings and the Member said five reasons were given and quoted only one reason, that is not a verbatim report but it is a fair report. But if he said only one reason was given, then that is a perversion. It was clear, from the way he selected the proceedings of the Committee, that his reports were intended to distort what was presented by the witnesses before the Committee. Let me just take one example. In the letter of 12th September (Day 5), page A 11, if I may refer Members to the Report, in the examination of Mr Yong Yung Sui, this was what Mr Jeyaretnam reported to his constituents: 'After him Mr Yong Yung Sui gave evidence and he confirmed that seven months after he had acquitted an accused for using criminal force on a high ranking police officer he was transferred out of the courts.' This quotation that I have just read clearly indicates that Mr Yong confirmed what Mr Jeyaretnam alleged in Parliament, that he was transferred after he had acquitted and that this, of course, was a form of expressing displeasure. This was a clear case where Mr Jeyaretnam deliberately did not want to publicize evidence that went against his allegation. Mr Jeyaretnam first made this allegation on 10th January without mentioning names. Then on 29th July, he gave specific details and I refer to Hansard, Vol. 48, No. 2, col. 154. He says here of Mr Yong: 'Shortly after that he was transferred, taken out of the courts. And he has never returned to the court, as far as I know.' That was what he said on 29th July. When Mr Yong appeared before the Committee of Privileges, Mr Jeyaretnam put this question specifically to him on page D 425, Question 2709. I quote again.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Second Report contained in Paper Parl. 4 of 1987 and resolves - (1) that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam is guilty of contempt of the Committee of Privileges and of Parliament by his publication of the five offending newsletters relating to the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges between 8th and 12th September, 1986; and (2) that a fine of $5,000 for each of the five offending letters be imposed upon him. Sir, under section 30(h) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, it is an offence for any person to "publish wilfully any false or perverted report or any writing containing a gross or scandalous misrepresentation of any debate or proceedings of Parliament, or of any speech of a member in Parliament". During the hearings of the Committee of Privileges on the complaint of allegations of Executive interference in the Judiciary, Mr Jeyaretnam issued a daily letter to his constituents purporting to give some account of the proceedings. He issued five letters in all. Every letter had a distortion which amounted to a perverted, biased or injurious report or misrepresentation of what actually transpired in the Committee. The Committee considered my complaint regarding these letters. The Committee examined these letters and found in each of them wilful distortions. Mr Jeyaretnam claimed in defence that his letters were not verbatim reports but selective. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is not necessary that the proceedings be quoted verbatim. But whatever is reported of the proceedings must be true and fair.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I can help. We are reading from this thick Report (indicating Parl. 3 of 1987). Paragraph 6.3, page 24, which sets out the recommendation of the Committee of Privileges. Has the Member for Potong Pasir got the page? Page 24, paragraph 6.3. It reads: 'Now that the Committee have found that Mr Jeyaretnam is guilty of abuse of privilege the Committee accordingly recommend:- (a) that Parliament find Mr Jeyaretnam guilty of the offence of abuse of privilege; (b) that Parliament impose upon him a fine of $1000 which is the maximum fine under the Act prior to its amendment.' I also find it, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a little surprising that the Member for Potong Pasir can be under the impression that we are discussing the fine without discussing whether Mr Jeyaretnam is guilty or not. How do we impose a fine without having determined whether he is guilty or not? The two go together; they cannot be separated.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I was not a Member of the Committee of Privileges but I have been informed and I have read the Report of the Committee of Privileges. I did not note any abstention or dissenting vote when these two recommendations were made by the Committee of Privileges. So I would like to ask the Member for Potong Pasir what is his position on this.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I refer the Member to Standing Order No. 95(7)(e), which he should be aware of, because he is a member of the Committee of Privileges. He should have read all the sections relating to this Committee. It says here: 'The Leader of the House shall, upon receiving notice from the Clerk that copies of a report from the Committee have been made available to Members, give notice of a motion expressing the opinion of Parliament in regard to the report.' And that is what I have done.”
“These were not merely distortions of Government policy. These were allegations that were meant to malign and undermine a vital and respected pillar, and institution - of our society, that is, the Judiciary. This is reprehensible behaviour. It is not just a political act against the PAP Government. It is an act against the nation and the people. It is an unpatriotic, anti-national act, inspired by a blind urge to tear down the very pillars of our society. It is a pity that Mr Jeyaretnam has ceased to be a Member of this House by virtue of the fine of $5,000 imposed by the Court of Appeal. This particular abuse of privilege which I referred to the Committee of Privileges is covered by the law as it was before it was amended. And the maximum penalty that is now available to the House is just a fine of $1,000. I would prefer that this House should have the opportunity to suspend him and to make him apologize for every wild allegation that he has made before he is readmitted to this House. But unfortunately that course is not open to us. To try and describe his reprehensible conduct would be to strain Parliamentary language. I move, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that we accept the recommendation of the Committee. Question proposed.”