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 24 of 33.
“I would suggest that the Member raises points of clarifications later.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first deal with some general points that have been raised, especially by the two Members of the Opposition, before I deal with some of the particular arguments that they have put forward. Sir, first of all, on clause 2 which now freezes the UK model as it was on the day that Singapore became independent - yes, this is intentional. It is deliberate and it is in line, as I pointed out, with what other Commonwealth countries such as India and Australia have in their constitutions or in their laws applying to Parliament. I think it is quite logical that we should have some model as a starting point. And it is quite logical that we should take the model existing in the UK on the day that we became independent as our starting point. But I think it would be absurd, having become independent and having become a Legislature of an independent sovereign country, to subject ourselves to changes in the UK which may have been caused or prompted by situations, circumstances and reasons, which have nothing to do with Singapore. Why should we be tied to continuing changes in the UK? We are a sovereign nation. We have to use something as a starting point and thereafter we should make our own rules and regulations to govern parliamentary privileges. Surely it cannot be suggested that we here, the elected Members of Parliament, are not capable of making our own rules over time. Yes, as the Member for Anson said, our rules must change with time. But the rules must also take into account the place where the rules apply, the particular conditions of the society. Therefore, I think it is eminently logical and desirable that we should not subject ourselves to changes in the UK after our date of independence. We are quite capable of looking after ourselves.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we ought to finish all the items on the Order Paper today. Therefore, I propose to extend the sitting time. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion and the remaining items on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. PARLIAMENT (PRIVILEGES, IMMUNITIES AND POWERS) (AMENDMENT) BILL Debate resumed.”
“It gives powers to the Speaker or Chairman to deal summarily with any Member or stranger who commits contempt while Parliament or a Committee is meeting. The Speaker or Chairman can inflict any of the punishments listed in section 20. Such decisions by the Speaker or Chairman will take immediate effect but Parliament can annul or vary the decision by resolution. These powers of the Speaker or Chairman are necessary to ensure that all Parliamentary or Committee meetings are conducted with due dignity, order and solemnity. Section 21(4) enables Parliament or the Speaker to take into account previous contempt by a Member which Parliament or the Speaker may have chosen to overlook in the expectation that it would not be repeated. Clause 6 of the Bill deals with the procedures of issue of warrant for arrest and imprisonment initiated by Parliament or by the Speaker. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I want to state that there is a need to do a thorough review of the whole of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. If such a review shows that further amendments are required, they will be introduced in due course. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“A new provision, which is less drastic than suspension, is made to deal with a Member who abuses privilege in respect of what he says in Parliament by making, for example, defamatory statements and unsubstantiated allegations. In certain cases of such abuse of privilege, committal to prison, expulsion or suspension may be too harsh, while a fine or reprimand may be too lenient. Therefore, this new provision is introduced. Subsection 20(3) covers Parliament's powers to deal with contempt on the part of strangers. The power to commit to prison is included and the maximum fine that can be imposed is increased to $50,000. The other powers remain the same. The new sections 21(1) and 21(2) are in substance the same as the present provisions. Under the new section 21(1)(a), any person who commits any offence mentioned in section 20, ie, dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt, in the view of Parliament whether in the precincts or when Parliament is sitting or in any committee, can be dealt with summarily. This is the same as in the present law except that the punitive measures taken against such a person are covered by the expanded provisions of the re-enacted section 20. The new sections 21(1)(b) and (c) are the same as the existing provisions. The new section 21(2)(a) makes clear that a Member found guilty can also be expelled from the House in addition to the punishments described in section 20. This power derives from the repeal of section 11 and the re-enactment of section 3 giving Parliament the powers of the UK House of Commons. The new section 21(2)(b) is the same as the present provision. Section 21(3) provides new powers to the Speaker or Chairman of any Committee of Parliament.”
“It is that of the UK House of Commons as it was on the day Singapore became independent, ie, 9th August 1965. This is the logical date as it is the date when our Parliament became a sovereign legislature like the House of Commons in the UK. The cut-off date is to ensure that, as a sovereign legislature, we are not bound by subsequent changes in the United Kingdom. It is also in conformity with similar provisions in the Commonwealth, like those in Australia and India. Clause 3. This clause makes it clear that the powers conferred by the other provisions of the Act are in addition to the powers conferred by following the UK model. Clause 4. Section 11 of the principal Act, that is the Act now in force, states that Parliament shall have no power to commit any person to prison nor to expel any Member from Parliament. This section is now repealed. The powers to commit or expel a Member are well recognized powers possessed by the UK House of Commons and other independent legislatures. Clause 5. This clause sets out the punitive powers of Parliament for any dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt on the part of a Member or stranger. The present sections 20 and 21 are repealed and the sections are re-enacted with new provisions. The re-enacted section 20(1)(a) will give Parliament the power to commit a Member to prison for a term not exceeding the current session of Parliament. In subsection 1(b), the maximum fine is increased from the present $1,000 to $50,000 to bring the maximum fine in line with current incomes and value of money, and to ensure that it is an adequate deterrent. The other subsections of 20(1) are the same as in the existing Act. Subsection 20(2) introduces the new punitive power which I described earlier.”
“This Bill is being taken through on a Certificate of Urgency in order to ensure immediately that the debates and proceedings in Parliament and the Committees maintain principles of truth, dignity and decorum. As Members are aware, the Committee of Privileges will be meeting soon to consider a complaint of abuse of privilege against the Member for Anson for making very serious allegations of executive interference in the Judiciary. It will be the task of the Committee of Privileges to ascertain the truth in a sober and dignified manner and not allow it to become a forum for another debate, an opportunity for more smears or a platform for histrionics. Decorum must be preserved and proper procedures followed in the hearings of the Committee of Privileges. The Speaker, as Chairman, must be given full powers to ensure that dignity and orderliness are maintained at all times. The Bill proposes to give the Speaker summary powers so that all who appear before the Committee will know that they will face severe penalties if they do or say anything that debases the image of Parliament or its proceedings. Parliament has had to consider more instances of abuse of privilege in the last 1(r) years than in the previous 20-odd years. We must put matters right immediately and not allow any further deterioration of standards. The various new punitive powers of Parliament will not apply to any dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt committed before the coming into operation of this Act. It will only apply to conduct in Parliament and Committees after the date on which this Act comes into operation. I shall now take the main provisions in the Bill. Clause 2 gives the base line of this Parliament's powers, privileges and immunities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before the recess for lunch, I listed the powers that this Parliament will have as a result of bringing our laws in line with that of the United Kngdom. In addition, this Bill seeks to introduce a new punitive measure that is less severe than suspension but more heavy than a fine or reprimand. Under this new measure, Parliament may allow a Member found guilty of abuse of privilege to continue to sit in the House and participate in all the business of Parliament but the Member's immunity from civil proceedings under sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act may be suspended for a specified period. Parliament can, by resolution, thus deal with any Member who is wantonly given to reckless and defamatory statements in Parliament against the Government, against other Members of the House or against members of the public. The defamatory statement that leads Parliament to taking action under this provision will itself be immune from civil proceedings. But if a Member makes such statements during the period that his privilege is suspended, the aggrieved parties can seek redress through civil proceedings. A Member's right to bring any issue before Parliament will not be restricted but a Member who is punished under this section will naturally have to take care during the specified period that he does not say anything that will cause civil proceedings to be taken against him. In this respect, he will be no different from any responsible member of the public or a politician who comments on national issues or even a Member who speaks outside Parliament on such issues.”
“In addition, this Bill seeks to introduce ---”
“Shouting, ranting, jeering, tripping Members who are walking past, many Members speaking at the same time and the constant shouts of "Order" from the Chair are the norm. Even physical violence is not unknown. Lately, in this House, we have seen some examples of the abuse of Parliamentary privilege and a tendency towards rowdiness. We must not allow our Parliament to degenerate into what it has become in some other countries. This Government has no intention to allow such degeneration. The present laws allow complete freedom of speech in Parliament. It is a rare privilege. Where there is wrongdoing in government or society, Members must have the freedom to bring it to the attention of the nation through Parliament and they should enjoy protection and immunity from civil proceedings. But rights and privileges must be accompanied by responsibility and duty. Members have a duty not to abuse such privileges or to commit contempt of Parliament. Should we allow Members to abuse this special immunity by defaming the character of innocent third parties who are not only unable to defend themselves but have no redress? Should Members be allowed to abuse the privilege by making totally unfounded allegations which they are not prepared to substantiate? If we allow this, our Parliament will degenerate into a disreputable institution. If we are not to allow this, Parliament must have the full panoply of powers to deal with delinquent Members. This is one of the objects of the Bill before us today. By bringing our laws in line with that of the United Kingdom, Parliament will have powers to impose the following penalties:- a) Committal to prison (new power); b) Expulsion (new power); c) Suspension (existing power); d) Fine (existing power); and e) Reprimand (existing power).”
“The proceedings in this House, the dignity and decorum maintained by Members in debates and discussions, the arguments they advance in support of their point of view, will all have a perceptible impact on the tone and the orderliness of our political processes. They even help shape the values and tenor of our society as a whole because every Singaporean can now see for himself or herself the proceedings in Parliament through television. The visual images and the actual sound have a far greater impact than the cold print in the newspapers or in the official reports of Parliament. From 1961 to 1981, for 14 years, the PAP occupied every seat in this House. We shaped Parliament into an institution which approached the task of nation building in a serious and sober manner. There were, of course, differences of views and sharp exchanges. But in all the proceedings, Members always conducted themselves in a manner that did not bring Parliamentary proceedings into disrepute. We did not lose sight of the importance of maintaining the prestige and respect for key institutions, such as Parliament and the Judiciary. Parliament is not a circus or theatre to provide entertainment to the population although we have television here. Nor is it a safe refuge for Members to undermine the confidence in key institutions in our society by making defamatory statements or unsubstantiated allegations. The conduct of business in Parliament in some countries has degenerated into a raucous, rowdy, disgraceful process. In fact, some Parliaments are deliberately keeping out television coverage of their sittings because they do not want their people to see the disgraceful manner in which they conduct their business.”
“Yes, Sir, printed copies of the Bill are with hon. Members. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly in 1962. The existing Act was therefore passed when Singapore was not an independent nation. Certain powers that the UK House of Commons has, such as the power to commit a person to prison or expel a Member from Parliament, were excluded in the Ordinance of 1962. It therefore deprives Parliament of powers that a Parliament of an independent sovereign state should have. This Bill seeks to rectify this inadequacy by amending the present Act to confer on our Parliament the same powers, privileges and immunities as those enjoyed by the House of Commons of the United Kingdom as at the date of our independence. Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament is the supreme legislative body in our nation. It is obvious that our deliberations, the laws that we, the elected representatives, enact and the decisions we make here, establish the framework for every activity of our people. It is less obvious that the manner in which this Parliament conducts itself is equally important. Parliament is more than a legislative body. It is the key institution in our political process. It is the centre of the democratic system that we have chosen for ourselves. The kind of people who become Members of this House, how they conduct themselves in the business of the House, what they say, are all as important as the laws that are passed by Parliament.”
“Now, Sir. Certificate of Urgency signed by the President in respect of the Bill, laid upon the Table by the Minister.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to introduce a Bill intitled "An Act to amend the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act (Chapter 49 of the Revised Edition)." Bill read the First time. Second Reading”
“All school buses registered on or after 1st July 1980 are required to have a split braking system which prevents total brake failure. School buses are also subjected to an annual inspection and those above 10 years are checked bi-annually. Besides checks for road worthiness, checks are also made on safety features. To ensure safe boarding and alighting, all school buses are required to have rear warning lights which warn motorists that boarding and alighting is taking place. There is also a compulsory door warning buzzer which informs the driver that the door is not closed properly. Sir, one important factor in school bus safety is passenger education. The Traffic Police will be incorporating this aspect of road safety education into their visits to schools to talk to school children. Sir, I am sure that Members of this House are concerned with safety of school buses because they carry our young school children. My Ministry shares this concern too. Continual upgrading of safety measure will be enforced to make travel on school buses as safe as humanly possible.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I must clarify that ASEAN cannot negotiate a solution with Vietnam because ASEAN is not a direct party to the conflict. It is the Kampucheans who have to negotiate with Vietnam. ASEAN can only assist by creating the right conditions. If Members study the various ASEAN communiques over the years, Members will note that from time to time ASEAN has made specific proposals containing some of the key elements that will be required to find a solution to this problem. We are not in direct negotiation with Vietnam but ASEAN has agreed that one of its members, ie, Indonesia, should be the interlocutor, and Indonesia is in touch with Vietnam. But I am sorry to say that there has not been much progress so far. SAFETY MEASURES ON SCHOOL BUSES 4. Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the safety measures imposed on school buses are adequate; and, if not, whether he will introduce other measures to ensure maximum safety to school children using these buses. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information (Mr Ho Kah Leong) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by my Minister to reply. The safety measures that have been imposed on school buses are presently adequate. New safety measures will be introduced as and when they are found to be necessary and practical. The Registry of Vehicles and the Traffic Police constantly monitor the safety of school buses. Sir, safety measures are imposed on school buses to ensure safe operations of the school bus and safe boarding and alighting for the school children. A speed limit of 50 km per hour is applied on school buses.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if one looks at the Kampuchean problem from the day Kampuchea was invaded, that was in December 1978, one can see that there has been a steady progression. Vietnam, which originally denied that it was in Kampuchea and which originally denied that there was such a thing as a Kampuchean problem, now admits that there is a problem and now admits that one ought to seek a solution to the problem. In that sense, I think the Vietnamese are becoming more realistic. They have also become more realistic. In their various denials that they will never negotiate with the Khmer Rouge, they are now focussing their objection on certain personalities rather than on the Khmer Rouge as a whole or on the national resistance groups. So there is a steady, slow recognition on the part of Vietnam that this problem in Kampuchea cannot be wished away. It cannot be swept under the carpet. Since the international community continues to focus on the problem, therefore, they ought to heed the views of the international community. But at the same time there is an element of truth in Prince Sihanouk's view that the Vietnamese have not changed their objectives or their ambitions. The Vietnamese will still like to occupy Kampuchea, digest Kampuchea, and make it part of a greater Vietnam or an Indo-Chinese federation under the domination of Vietnam. I think it is too early to say that a solution is in sight. But certainly we have moved a long way from what the position was in 1978.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in July 1981 the United Nations convened an International Conference on Kampuchea (commonly known as the ICK) which proposed the principles for a comprehensive political settlement. The UN General Assembly has also repeatedly called for a negotiated solution in its resolutions on Cambodia since 1979. Vietnam has so far rejected the United Nations as a forum for a political settlement. However, the United Nations continues to be available for Vietnam to negotiate a settlement. The Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General and the ICK's Ad Hoc Com- mittee are in regular contact with Vietnam. The permanent members of the UN Security Council, which include China and the Soviet Union, also have a role to play in promoting and guaranteeing a negotiated political solution.”
“Why are you afraid to read your own words?”
“You can't stand by your own words, can you?”
“Why don't you just read a few lines here?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I think he should finish reading that quotation. Mr Jeyaretnam: If you want to read them, Leader, you read them. Take it home and read them.”
“Can you please read on with your quotation?”
“Yes. Please do not get excited. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have already spent four days in Parliament and I think that we should extend today's sitting to finish all the business in the Order Paper. Sir, I beg to move, That the proceedings on the item under discussion and the remaining item on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion and the remaining item on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF EXECUTIVE INTERFERENCE IN THE SUBORDINATE COURTS (Terms of Reference) Debate resumed.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Sir, I think we must stop this habit of the Member not starting on his speech on the motion and pretending to ask for clarifications for a long time and then saying, "Now, I am going to start and speak on the motion." He can raise all these questions during his speech and the Minister can answer them at the end.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I give the assurance that these witnesses will come before the Committee of Privileges.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 95(7)(d) (i) and (ii). Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament has come to a decision on the motion moved by the Second Minister for Law. We have had a very long debate and I do not intend to repeat all the points made. It is very clear to the House that the Member for Anson is guilty of an abuse of privilege and seriously guilty because, in his own words, "erosion of confidence in the administration of justice is disastrous to our society." He knows exactly what he is setting about to do. He has failed to justify his allegations before the Commission of Inquiry on the preposterous argument that he is prohibited by law to give evidence. He has not only persisted in his allegations during the debate that has just been concluded, but he has widened his smear to include the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General and the other Judges of the High Court. I therefore wish to move, Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Standing Order that I quoted, that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges and be merged with my complaint of 19th March 1986, and be taken together. If the Member for Anson pleads justification, he can give evidence to substantiate his allegations, and I am sure, Mr Speaker, Sir, that he will be given every opportunity to substantiate his allegations. He will also be given the opportunity to call any witness that he likes to give evidence to back his allegations. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to have your ruling whether you find that there is prima facie evidence that this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges. Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, on this motion that is before the House, I see ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I must protest. Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is completely irrelevant to the issue and I think we should put the motion to the House.”
“The mover of the motion has summed up and I think the matter should be put to the House now for a decision.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we should finish this item today. Therefore, I would like to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. REPORT OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF EXECUTIVE INTERFERENCE IN THE SUBORDINATE COURTS (Paper Cmd. 12 of 1986) Debate resumed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Surely it is not for the Member for Anson to rule what is a clarification and what is not a clarification.”
“Singapore supports the call for sanctions against South Africa. We have supported the United Nation's resolutions calling for sanctions against South Africa. This has been our position at Commonwealth meetings. We last made this call in a statement issued at the 19th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Manila in June 1986. PRIORITY OF ADMISSION TO SCHOOLS FOR CHILDREN OF MEMBERS OF GRASSROOTS ORGANISATIONS 14. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Education whether children of members of Citizens' Consultative Committees, Community Centre Management Committees and Residents' Committees, by virtue of such membership only, are automatically accorded priority of admission to primary one in any school of their choice under Phase 2B.”
“The Indonesian Government has not discussed with us any plans it may have to set up a nuclear power plant, nor are we aware of the details of such a plant. SINGAPORE'S STAND ON SANCTIONS AGAINST SOUTH AFRICA 13. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will state what stand will be taken by the Singapore Government on the question of sanctions against South Africa at the next Commonwealth meeting: whether the government will support the call for total sanctions now or it will support the stand taken by the British Prime Minister.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. 5.30 pm [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] RESETTLEMENT PROBLEMS IN CHUA CHU KANG”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a very simple one. Does he want to carry on speaking or does he not want to? If he does not want to, we can carry on tomorrow.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I distinctly heard him ask, "what about me?", that he also wants to speak. So I am giving him the opportunity.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I suggest that the Member for Anson make his speech as to why this motion should be rejected?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before we continue, I think we should allow the Prime Minister to finish the statement that he is making. May I seek your consent and the assent of the House to continue the sitting until the Prime Minister has finished? With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Debate continue beyond 4.30 pm until the Prime Minister has finished his speech. REPORT OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF EXECUTIVE INTERFERENCE IN THE SUBORDINATE COURTS (Paper Cmd. 12 of 1986) Debate resumed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I think the Member really is stretching his point too much. There is no point of order. I have made the subject clear. It is provided for in the Standing Orders that a certain number of days of notice is required. Any Member can file his Question for Oral Answer or any motion without waiting for Parliament to be called for a sitting. If any Member is so exercised that he wants to file a motion, he could have done so any time. There is no need for him to wait until a meeting is called. So no right has been denied, no opportunity has been deprived from the Member for Anson. He should have filed when he felt exercised and not waited for me to file the notice for a meeting.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that, at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned till 2.30 pm on Monday, 31st March 1986. Sir, there are three Bills relating to Securities Industry, Futures Trading and the CPF which are due for Second Reading and it would be most convenient to take them on Monday at 2.30 pm.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, this press statement was reported extensively in the local papers, and the press statement was issued first thing this morning. Paragraph 2 makes it quite clear when the subsequent contacts were made. BEDOK RESERVOIR HOUSING ESTATE/TAMPINES NEW TOWN (Direct bus service) 6. Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Singapore Bus Service Limited will consider providing a direct link service for residents of neighbouring housing estates, for example, between Bedok Reservoir Housing Estate and Tampines New Town. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information (Mr Ho Kah Leong) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. Sir, I shall ask SBS to consider the Member's suggestion. In addition, I shall ask SBS to have more discussions with Members of Parliament and resident committees in the various constituencies with a view towards improving bus services in general. ACCIDENTS INVOLVING BUSES (Figures) 7. Mr Abdullah Tarmugi asked the Minister for Communications and Information what was the number of accidents, involving buses of the Singapore Bus Company Limited and other bus companies and in which passengers died or suffered injuries, in the first two months of 1986; how does this figure compare with that for the same period in 1985; and whether his Ministry will take action to ensure that such accidents, especially those involving school children, are minimized, if not stopped.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Ambassador in Manila issued a press statement on the subject on 19th March, 1986, and I have no further comments to make. The press statement has already been circulated to Members.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, ASEAN has regular meetings, both at the ministerial and official levels. Besides the annual ASEAN Ministerial Meeting, the Foreign Ministers and officials also have occasions to meet informally. These provide opportunities to discuss both bilateral and ASEAN matters. Ministers and officials from the economic, environment, energy, labour and agricultural ministries also meet separately at the ASEAN level. With regard to Malaysia and Indonesia, there has been and will continue to be greater exchange of visits between Ministers, MPs and senior civil servants. These visits have provided an opportunity for leaders and officials to get to know their counterparts better. The existing contacts with the ASEAN countries, particularly Malaysia and Indonesia, are satisfactory and will be strengthened. REQUEST FOR MR MARCOS STAY IN SINGAPORE 5. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether any request has been received from any quarter for Mr Marcos, late of the Philippines, to be allowed to reside in Singapore.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1986 to 31st March, 1987, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow. Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr S. Dhanabalan]. Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes past Six o'clock pm. WRITTEN ANSWER TO QUESTION PROFITS AND LOSSES OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED COMPANIES 1. Dr Toh Chin Chye asked the Minister for Finance if he will give the profits and losses of each of the companies in which the government has an interest for the years 1984 and 1985.”
“All I would say is that it is quite obvious that they cannot wage the kind of military struggle that they have been waging and they could not have grown to the size that they have grown to without substantial military support from their friends. On the last point, Sir, Philippines, I share the sentiments of the Member. We are all extremely relieved at the outcome in the Philippines. For a moment, the situation looked really ugly and it could well have developed into a really bloody civil war and whatever the outcome of such civil war the country would have been in very serious difficulties, in ruins. So we are glad that events took the turn that they did and that the Philippine people have managed to find a solution with the minimum of disruption of their society and economy. As to how we can help, Singapore cannot pretend to be in the same league as the United States, Europe and Japan in the kind of help that they can give to the Philippines. Certainly the economic relations of Philippines with the US and Japan are much more and greater than their relationship with us. But to the extent we can help by way of training and technical assistance, we shall certainly do so. I have not had an opportunity yet to discuss with my counterpart in the Philippines and I hope to do so soon. If there is any way that we can find to extend the kind of technical cooperative programmes that we have to the Philippines, we shall certainly consider them seriously.”
“Sir, there is one country that has sent an observer to ASEAN meetings for a number of years now, and that is, Papua New Guinea (PNG). In our discussions with PNG, it is quite clear that it is both their desire as well as the view of the ASEAN members that PNG should continue to be an observer. PNG belongs to the group of nations comprising the Pacific island nations, and I think they feel that they have a more important and useful role to play in that group. While they are welcomed to continue to attend ASEAN meetings, there is at present no plan to expand the membership of ASEAN further. It is not easy for a number of countries to come together and over a period evolve a common approach to problems. In fact, the more the number of members in the group, the more difficult will it be to achieve this. It is for this reason that, when we had an approach from another country outside the region to become a member, ASEAN had to very reluctantly decide that it is not in the interest of ASEAN to throw open its membership to that country. So I would say, in short, that there are no thoughts at present of expanding the membership of ASEAN. As far as the non-communist resistance groups in Cambodia are concerned, the Member is right. We have made strenuous efforts to obtain support for them, political and financial, and we shall continue to do so. As far as the subject of military support is concerned, I am sure the Member will realize that it will not serve the interests of the Cambodian resistance groups for the details of such support to be made public.”
“For example, we intend to purchase land in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to construct a chancery and an ambassador's residence. In Bonn too, in West Germany, we shall buy land and build a chancery. In all these projects, the Ministry will continue to consider Singapore architects as consultants. We shall also be embarking on a project in Brunei to build a chancery and staff accommodation. The general policy of the Ministry remains the same on the question of properties. We constantly monitor rentals and property values and, whenever we think that it is advantageous to purchase properties, we try to identify properties that will serve our needs as well as hold the promise of appreciation in the coming years. And where we are able to identify such properties, we have not found the Ministry of Finance unsympathetic to buying these properties. I hope I have answered all the points raised by the two Members.”
“I think this is the way to continue to build solidarity within ASEAN. But we must recognize that in all these countries, there are of course politicians who think that the easy way to advance their political progress is by making disparaging speeches or attacking us in public. They may think that this is a convenient way to distract attention from their own personal inadequacies, or they may think that this is an easy way to garner support. We know of politicians who think that they can advance their interest by attacking their own country while overseas, in other countries. So we should not be surprised that there are politicians in foreign countries who think that the easiest way to advance their cause or their personal interest is to attack some neighbouring country. We should not get too excited by this or pay too much attention to such statements. Our relations with the people in these countries at the levels which matter are good and we should ignore the speeches of others who do not matter. Now I come to the last point, Sir, ie, the question of properties. The Member for Chong Boon wanted to know details of properties purchased for the fiscal year that is coming to an end and the plans for the next fiscal year. In the financial year 1985, the Ministry bought residential properties in Bangkok, Brussels, Canberra, Hong Kong, London, New York, Paris and Washington. We also made progress payments for the construction of the chancery and residential complex in New Delhi. This project was completed in this financial year. We are also in the process of building a new chancery block and staff quarters in Jakarta. In the coming year, we will complete the projects that we have in hand as well as start new projects in several other places.”
“Many of the younger leaders are already very heavily involved in many ASEAN activities and although it is fashionable to decry and criticize the many ASEAN meetings that we have, one good aspect of these meetings is that when people meet and talk, they get to know each other and understand each other. This is a very important aspect of creating and maintaining understanding among ASEAN countries. I am satisfied that the present activities are such that enough younger leaders of all the ASEAN countries are involved and that lasting understanding is in the process of being forged and that no special effort is needed. This is not to say, of course, that we should not continue to bear this in mind but I do not see the need to embark on any new projects to do this. The Member for Serangoon Gardens also brought up the question of some disparaging remarks and very critical speeches made by politicians in some of our neighbouring countries. Our relations with all countries, including our immediate neighbours, are friendly, cooperative and at the very least correct. We have very good relations with our neighbours at the level of political and administrative leaders. Of course, our immediate neighbours belong to the same group, ASEAN, which over the years has evolved an approach of emphasizing points of agreement and not points of differences. We do have our differences but the great importance about the experience of ASEAN is that we have deliberately emphasized to our people those areas where we have common perception, those areas where we can cooperate for the common good, and we have evolved an attitude of dealing with differences quietly, bilaterally, without making them into public issues or without arousing public sentiment.”