S Jayakumar
Singapore
“It is well and good for countries to announce various targets and emissions. But one vexing issue ultimately is: what will be the method for verifying compliance with each country's announced measures? Another vexing issue, of course, is the issue of financing.”
“I would appreciate it if she were to give me some specifics of the negative feedback. But the general feedback I have had about our judiciary, both of the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts, has been nothing but positive.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the information that I have is that there is always medical advice present when caning is administered and that if the medical opinion is that caning cannot proceed beyond a certain point, that medical opinion will be observed and the caning will not proceed.”
“Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent announcement to make immediate improvements to the public transport system (a) whether the Ministry has set a timeline for the increase in frequency of feeder bus services; and (b) whether the Ministry can immediately target such services that are currently running at…”
“SCDF will continue to work with HDB and other relevant agencies to ensure that such older buildings with one exit staircase meet the prevailing fire safety requirements when they undergo major renovation or upgrading works. CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS 3.”
“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Teo Ser Luck) (for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Mrs Jessie Phua's and Dr Lim Wee Kiak's questions together as they both relate to the same issues.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,291 lines we hold for S Jayakumar, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 66.
“This principle applies to the 1990 Agreement, with Point (3) of the Agreement delimiting the maximum period for the railway station to be moved from Keppel, that is within five years from the time the MRT reaches Woodlands New Town, which it did on February 10th, 1996.' Sir, in conclusion, the POA was an agreement concluded by the two Governments after careful deliberation by both sides. It is an internationally binding Agreement which should be implemented in good faith. I have taken some time to spell out the background, the details and the terms of the Agreement because we have to place on record that Singapore has adhered to the terms of the Agreement. Mr Speaker, Sir, in closing, let me say that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong strongly believes in close cooperation between Singapore and Malaysia for mutual benefit. While the Prime Minister and the Singapore Government are bound by the terms of the POA, Mr Goh has made strenuous efforts to move the bilateral relationship forward in a way that could overcome the problems posed by the Malaysian Government's desire to change the POA. He has therefore proposed his Framework for Wider Cooperation, a subject which, I understand, he will elaborate when he takes the floor now.”
“However, in carrying our reply, the New Straits Times edited out one key point and refused to make the necessary corrections as communicated in writing by the Permanent Secretary (National Development). The New Straits Times also refused to accept an advertisement by the Singapore Government to point out that NST had edited out letters without our consent. We therefore had to buy advertising space in the Straits Times in Singapore on 15th May 1997 to put our clarification on record. As for the reply in the Straits Times, let me refer to the letter by the Managing Director of KTMB, Dato Abdul Rahim Osman, which appeared in the Straits Times of 13th May 1997. That letter claimed that the Agreement, ie, the POA, "would be operative only upon Malaysia initiating what is agreed upon". That is to say: (a) The POA is not yet operative; and (b) The POA would only come into force when the Malaysian government unilaterally decides to initiate what is agreed upon, ie, to vacate its railway station in Tanjong Pagar. Our Attorney-General has advised us that this is clearly not so. Accordingly, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Law, Mr Goh Kim Leong, replied on 26th May 1997 to set out the correct legal position. In his reply, Mr Goh Kim Leong pointed out that: `The Points of Agreement is a government to government agreement between Singapore and Malaysia which took effect and became operative on 27th November 1990, the day that it was signed by Mr Lee Kuan Yew on behalf of the Government of Singapore and Tun Daim Zainuddin on behalf of the Government of Malaysia.' `It is an established principle of law that where an agreement does not stipulate a fixed date for performance, it has to be performed within a reasonable time.”
“The old Bukit Timah trunk road was being replaced by a new island-wide network of expressways. The Bukit Timah area has no MRT and is becoming a low rise residential area.' The letter went on to say: `I believe that I was fair when I agreed to Malaysia's 60% and to Singapore's 40% share, in developing the three major pieces of land. Some in the Cabinet thought that I was generous and should have stuck to the 50:50% formula. I favoured an agreement because I did not want this problem to trouble relations between the two countries later.' Mr Speaker, Sir, some Members have referred to the recent replies from the Singapore Government in the New Straits Times and the Straits Times on matters concerning the POA. These replies were necessary because on both occasions, erroneous accounts of the POA and developments subsequent to it had been published. We had to respond in order to set out both the facts as well as the correct legal position. As for the New Straits Times' article and our reply, on 19th March 1997, the New Straits Times carried a story, "Differences hold up plan to develop KTM's Singapore land". The article gave an inaccurate account of the POA. For example, the article claimed that lands in Kranji, Woodlands and Tanjong Pagar would be handed over to KTMB when the station moved to Bukit Timah, and that the land exchange offered in Marina South was not on par with the land in Tanjong Pagar. Accordingly, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of National Development, Mr Lam Chuan Leong, wrote to the New Straits Times to point out these inaccuracies and set out the main terms of the POA.”
“Singapore's position was that the terms of the POA were clear and had to be adhered to. According to the POA, three and only three parcels of land at Keppel, Kranji and Woodlands had been agreed for joint development. All other MRA lands would be returned to Singapore without compensation. There was no provision in the POA for 60:40 joint development of the Bukit Timah site. The Bukit Timah station was also to be built economically. If Malaysia found the station at Bukit Timah unsuitable, the land and the station would revert to Singapore under the terms of the POA. Sir, in December 1993, Tun Daim Zainuddin wrote to Senior Minister and proposed that: `as the land area at Bukit Timah is substantial, it should be shared on 60:40 basis which is the same ratio for the rest of the parcels of land which we had agreed to develop. I think it is fair. If this is agreed, then Railway will consider moving straight to Woodlands.' Senior Minister replied to Tun Daim in January 1994 to point out that the terms of the POA were very clear and under those terms, the land at Bukit Timah was not among those lands to be jointly developed. Senior Minister in his reply said: `As long as the station was in Bukit Timah, the other two large pieces of land in Kranji and Woodlands could not be developed. Only when Malaysia had vacated the Bukit Timah railway station, would these two pieces at Kranji and Woodlands be developed. Point 3 of the Points of Agreement gave Malaysia the option to move the station to Woodlands within five years of the MRT reaching Woodlands.' `In other words we had agreed on strong incentives for the station to move to Woodlands. At the time of the agreement in November 1990, I knew that KTM would sooner or later have to move to Woodlands.”
“The Appendix also states that MRA may conclude that it is better to move the station in the first instance to Woodlands. When the MRT extends from Woodlands to Johor Bahru, the MRA station can obtain economic benefits by moving to Johor Bahru. Mr Speaker, Sir, those are the key provisions of the POA. The effect of this Agreement is that when the Tanjong Pagar station is relocated to Upper Bukit Timah, all railway lands south of Bukit Timah other than the Tanjong Pagar site will revert to Singapore. When the station is shifted to Woodlands, all the railway lands south of Woodlands other than the Tanjong Pagar, Woodlands and Kranji sites will revert to Singapore. The land exchange contained within the POA, particularly the Kranji and Woodlands plots, was an incentive to encourage the Malaysians to move to Woodlands. At the time, the New Straits Times hailed the signing of the POA as "the best thing that could happen to further cement economic ties between the two countries". Sir, let me turn to the problems encountered in implementing the POA. For four years after signing the POA, the Singapore Government worked with Malaysia to implement the POA. However, after signing the Government-to-Government Agreement, the Malaysians made requests which departed from the POA. For example, the Malaysians wanted to retain certain developable lands outside the railway corridor which they considered capable of development, other than Keppel, Kranji and Woodlands. They later also asked to include a commercial/ shopping complex in the Bukit Timah station and for four more parcels of land in exchange for moving straight to Woodlands. Singapore was also approached on whether we would agree to develop the Bukit Timah site on a 60:40 basis if MRA relocated its station straight to Woodlands.”
“Point (5) defines that 60% of the shares of the limited company, M-S Pte Ltd, will be owned by a company to be designated by the Government of Malaysia; and 40% of the shares by a company to be designated by the Government of Singapore. Payment for the development costs of these properties will similarly be shared in the ratio of 60:40. Point (6) goes on to say that there will be no compensation for the MRA land. Instead the three big pieces will be realienated to M-S Pte Ltd at no cost. Whoever takes the land should clear the tracks and also pay for the costs of resettlement of squatters. Therefore, the cost of clearing tracks and squatters for the three pieces of land will be on M-S Pte Ltd. For the balance of the MRA lands, the cost of clearance of tracks and squatters will be on the Singapore Government. Point (7) states that in exchange for the MRA land at Keppel, a plot of land of equivalent value in Marina South will be offered to M-S Pte Ltd so that a prestigious building can be developed on this Marina site. M-S Pte Ltd intends to develop and retain a prestigious building as a long term investment. If the land offered to M-S Pte Ltd is, in the opinion of M-S Pte Ltd, not suitable, then alternative sites in Marina South of equivalent value shall be offered to M-S Pte Ltd. Sir, there is also an Appendix to the POA which states that the station to be built at Upper Bukit Timah at Lot 76-2 should be economically built until, in MRA's judgment, Upper Bukit Timah Road is the best long term location for the station. The Appendix also says that in Singapore's judgment, the better long term location of the station for most economic benefits is either in Woodlands or in Johor Bahru. Hence, the proposed MRA station in Upper Bukit Timah Road should be economically built.”
“Sir, I have given extracts of the Agreement to the Clerk of Parliament and, with your permission, I would request him to distribute it to Members so that they could follow the rest of what I have to say. [Copies of POA distributed to hon. Members.] Point (1) of the Agreement states that the station at Keppel will be vacated and moved from Keppel, in the first instance to Lot 76-2, which is next to the Upper Bukit Timah Fire Station along Upper Bukit Timah Road near the junction with Jurong Road. The Government of Singapore will help in the alienation of such lands as may be reasonably necessary for the development of the station, provided that it is not necessary to acquire land which in the opinion of MRA and the Government of Singapore has major permanent structures on it. When MRA wants to acquire despite the Government of Singapore's view that there are major permanent structures, then the acquisition will be at market price. Point (2) stipulates that the land at Keppel will be vested in a limited company (M-S Pte Ltd) to be developed as residential and commercial land in accordance with our zoning plans. Point (3) specifies that when the MRT reaches Woodlands New Town, the MRA may, within five years, move its station from Lot 76-2 to a site in Woodlands adjacent or close to the MRT station. Then the two pieces of land, one in Kranji and in Woodlands, will be vested in the limited company, M-S Pte Ltd, and developed in accordance with the plans given. Point (4) goes on to specify that Singapore's Land Office will issue freehold land titles to M-S Pte Ltd in respect of the lands at Keppel, Kranji and Woodlands.”
“He informed Tun Daim that most of the MRA lands in Singapore (with the exception of three plots in Woodlands, Kranji and Keppel) were narrow strips and not capable of independent development. If the MRA decided to terminate its line at the new Woodlands Checkpoint, then notwithstanding the restrictive covenant, the plots at Keppel, Kranji and Woodlands could be realienated to a company which would be owned 50%:50% by nominees of Singapore and Malaysia. There would be no compensation for the other MRA lands which were resumed. Prime Minister Lee explained to Tun Daim that the land exchange should be limited to only these three parcels of land. The other plots, including the tracks, could not be included as it could otherwise lead to endless problems and arguments between Malaysia and Singapore in the future on whether these portions were capable of being developed. Malaysia wanted the railway station to terminate at Bukit Timah, and not Woodlands. Mr Lee agreed to this. But he proposed that the Bukit Timah station be economically built because in the longer term, Woodlands would be a better site. Malaysia also wanted a larger share in the joint venture company, larger than 50%. PM Lee agreed to 60:40 in Malaysia's favour. After further negotiations, the Points of Agreement was signed by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Tun Daim on 27th November 1990. Terms of the Agreement Mr Speaker, Sir, I have given to the Clerk of Parliament a copy of the full text of the POA with all the attached plans and annexes and, with your permission, Sir, I would request that it be placed on record and Members be allowed to inspect it in the Library of this House.”
“Passengers arriving by rail were not cleared (they are not cleared even today) at the checkpoint in Woodlands, which is the first point of entry into Singapore, but only cleared when they reached Tanjong Pagar. We had discovered cases of drugs being thrown out of trains before they arrived at Tanjong Pagar. Illegal immigrants also frequently jumped off trains before they reached Tanjong Pagar. Although the Police maintained vigilance, it was impossible to station officers all along the line. We could not allow this situation to persist. The Government therefore decided in September 1989 to shift our own, that is, Singapore Customs, Immigration and Quarantine (CIQ) facilities from Tanjong Pagar to the Woodlands Checkpoint. Sir, our decision to shift our CIQ was independent of any decision by the Malaysians to move their railway station to Woodlands. But in our assessment, it makes sense for the railway to terminate at Woodlands. As I mentioned earlier, the Malaysians had also indicated in 1984 that they were thinking of stopping the railway at Woodlands and either selling or developing the property in Tanjong Pagar. But we knew, Sir, that they were concerned that this would cause all MRA lands south of Woodlands to revert to Singapore Government as they would no longer be used for railway purposes. Therefore, one possible approach was for Singapore to allow the Malaysians to redevelop some parcels of the MRA land so that they could be redeveloped independently, especially the site at Tanjong Pagar, and for Singapore to share in the gain from this redevelopment. The lands which could not be redeveloped would revert to Singapore. This would be a win-win arrangement. Roots of the POA Mr Lee Kuan Yew then put a proposition to Tun Daim Zainuddin.”
“In 1984, Malaysia asked Singapore if we had any special plans for the Malayan Railway land in Tanjong Pagar as Malaysia was thinking of stopping the railway at Woodlands and either selling or developing the property in Tanjong Pagar. We responded that we preferred the MRA to continue to use the land at Tanjong Pagar for railway purposes. However, if MRA did not want the land because it wanted to terminate the services at Woodlands, Singapore was prepared to take the land back in accordance with the leases of the various parcels. That was where the matter stood till the late 80s. Mr Lee Kuan Yew relinquishing the Premiership to Mr Goh Chok Tong The General Elections in 1984 and 1988 were a watershed in Singapore politics. After the 1988 elections, Mr Lee Kuan Yew handed over the reins to the second generation of leaders. As Prime Minister Goh explained to this House on 13th June 1990, Mr Lee's main preoccupation at that time was to settle all outstanding bilateral issues so that the second generation leaders would not be saddled with the baggage of the past and fettered with the old mode of thinking. One significant development in this regard was the 28th June 1988 Memorandum of Understanding between Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Mahathir of Malaysia on water, natural gas and the Changi ferry service. This MOU then paved the way for the 1990 Water Agreement on Linggiu Dam signed on 24th November 1990 by PUB and the Johor State Government in the presence of Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Mahathir. Our plan to move the CIQ to Woodlands Amidst these developments, Singapore was also concerned, Sir, over the trafficking of drugs from across the Causeway.”
“Points of Agreement. Mr Speaker, Sir, some Members have asked about reports in both the local press and in the Malaysian press over the Malayan Railway lands in Singapore. They asked if it is true that we were creating difficulties. They also noted that the Singapore Government had recently replied to the New Straits Times and that we had also replied to a letter from KTMB published in the Straits Times. And they wanted to know what is the background to these reports and several Members have also asked for details of the Points of Agreement. So, first of all, what are the Points of Agreement? Sir, it is a Government-to-Government agreement between Malaysia and Singapore concerning railway lands in Singapore. The POA was signed on 27th November 1990 by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew on behalf of Singapore and the then Malaysian Minister of Finance, Tun Daim Zainuddin, on behalf of Malaysia. The POA was signed on the same day that Prime Minister Lee handed over the premiership to Mr Goh Chok Tong. Background to the POA Before I take Members through the provisions of the POA, Members may wish to know the context in which the POA was concluded. Sir, the Malayan Railway Administration (MRA), now Keretapi Tanah Melayu Bhd (KTMB), operates a railway on about 200 hectares of land in Singapore. Of this, 140 hectares (or 70%) of the land are held by the Federal Lands Commissioner on 999-year leases. These leases contain covenants which restrict the use of the land for railway purposes only and which also prevent the lessee from transferring the land other than for the purposes of MRA. If these covenants are breached, the Singapore Government is entitled to resume the lands in accordance with the terms of the leases.”
“" What the Chinese newspaper implied is, we should behave like a small brother. That, Mr Speaker, Sir, cannot be the basis for a durable relationship between sovereign nations. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to go on to talk about the requests made by Members for details of the POA. But I understand that the Leader of the House has a procedural motion to make. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. DEBATE ON PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS Debate resumed.”
“In Kuala Lumpur, we discussed the allegations that Singapore had issued a directive to discourage Singaporeans from visiting Malaysia. I told him that such allegations were baseless. We also discussed the recent actions by Malaysian Immigration officers against Singaporeans. Foreign Minister Badawi and I agreed that both Singapore and Malaysia could benefit from bilateral cooperation and we agreed to keep in touch. Since then, I should add that the Malaysian Foreign Ministry has given us some information and clarification of the measures at the Checkpoint and we in turn have sought for more details and further clarification. Sir, the question is how do we take it from here and how do we get back to even keel. Singapore is committed to establishing a long-term relationship with Malaysia based on mutual respect, trust, reciprocity and mutual benefit. This is the way forward. As immediate neighbours, we are bound to have difficulties and differences. In fact, Prime Minister Mahathir himself recognised this when he said in Tokyo, and I quote: "Naturally between neighbours there will be differences off and on, but over time, this feeling can be overcome". Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure all Members will agree with me that good relations with Malaysia are important to both Singapore and Malaysia. There is a lot at stake between both countries. Cooperation will benefit Singapore and Malaysia, both of us. But it must be cooperation as equals and for mutual benefit. It cannot be on the basis of what a Chinese newspaper Guang Ming Daily in Malaysia said, and I quote: "Being a tiny island, Singapore should know the importance of maintaining cordial relations with its neighbours. Failure to recognise this fact is as good as dropping a rock on its feet.”
“We have not hurled obscenities at Malaysian leaders. We have not issued threats, or pilloried Malaysians. But, as many of our MPs have said, it is important that our restrained reactions should not be misread or misunderstood - that we are weak, that we can be intimidated or cowed, that only one side has emotions and sensitivities. The Two Countries have Evolved in Different Ways Mr Speaker, in the thirty-two years after separation, Singapore and Malaysia have actually become two different societies. We have evolved different political styles and approaches. It is important to recognise these differences so that we do not misunderstand or misread each other. Such recognition will avert problems and difficulties. True, there are many similarities between our two countries. But there are also fundamental differences in the way we have moulded our two countries and societies. These differences will always be there. And they will spill over into bilateral relations from time to time. The question is: Despite this complicating factor, can we work together for common benefit? The answer to that question surely must be - Yes. Meetings of the Two Foreign Ministers Singapore-Malaysia relations are too important to be allowed to drift. During this troubled phase, I have been in touch with my Malaysian counterpart, Foreign Minister Abdullah Badawi. We have met twice, once in New Delhi when we were there for the Non-Aligned Ministerial Meeting, and recently last Saturday when Foreign Minister Badawi requested to meet me, when I was in Kuala Lumpur for the ASEAN Foreign Ministers' meeting. In New Delhi, we agreed to keep the lines of communications open. We also agreed on the importance of not misreading each other's intentions.”
“The Fifth Wave A fifth wave appeared to be in the making last week when, with no prior announcement, some Singaporeans were prevented from returning to Singapore for several hours because of new immigration checks. Mr Speaker, that is surely the best way of discouraging Singaporeans from visiting Malaysia, far more effective than any Singapore Government directive could possibly be. Other Aspects of Turbulent Weather Of course, in between these big waves, there were other twists and turns, whirlpools and gales, such as offensive cartoons about Singaporeans going on sex holidays to Thailand and Indonesia. Singaporeans were also called uncivilised for urinating in lifts. Malaysian Leaders' Position: Takes Time to Return to Normal Relations Sir, throughout this period, Malaysian leaders at all levels have variously remarked that it would take time for bilateral relations to return to normal. Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said on 6th April, I quote: "I think it has to be given some time. I don't think we should rush into the situation and ignore the sentiments of the Malaysian public". This was despite statements by Singapore leaders that we were prepared to move on with relations. As early as 15th March, Prime Minister Goh had stated clearly that both countries should try to move forward and concentrate on the positive aspects of bilateral relations. Sir, Singapore will do its part to improve ties, but it will leave it to the Malaysian leaders to set the pace. We will proceed at a rate that they are comfortable with. This has been our consistent position. How have the Singapore Government and People Reacted? Sir, during this squall, the Government and people have remained calm, measured and restrained. We have not demonstrated in the streets.”
“The Second Wave The second wave arose after the Malaysian media reported that the Malaysian Cabinet had decided to freeze new ties with Singapore. Within 24 hours, KL clarified that there was no such freeze. But, since then, some bilateral activities have been cancelled or postponed by Malaysia, causing people to wonder if there, indeed, had been a freeze. For example, seven trainers from Johor who were training in our ITE were abruptly recalled and their training suspended. An official study visit to Singapore scheduled for mid-April 1997, to be led by the Mayor of Kuala Lumpur, was postponed indefinitely. Certain Malaysian Ministers also said that sports and cultural linkages would be suspended. One Minister even cancelled attendance at the opening of the "Destination Malaysia Tourism Fair" held in Singapore. The Third Wave The third wave came after the Straits Times carried a factual report on crime in Johor. The flurry of attacks started all over again. Threats were made to sever ties with Singapore and to cut off the water supply. One Malaysian Minister even warned our media to "stop it or suffer the consequences" and told Malaysian newspapers to mount a tit-for-tat media war against Singapore. The Fourth Wave The fourth wave started when one Malaysian Minister alleged that a drop in the number of Singaporean visitors to Malaysia was due to a Singapore Government directive. Another Minister jumped on this allegation the next day. All these were based on so-called "sources". And based on unsubstantiated sources and unfounded speculation, strong language was used - that Singapore was "confrontational" and "spoiling for a fight".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this debate is quite different from previous debates on the President's Address. MPs have spoken not only on domestic issues but many MPs have also commented on recent difficulties in Singapore-Malaysia bilateral relations. They have asked me for information on certain specific points such as the Points of Agreement (POA) on railway land. I will explain the details of the POA subsequently. But, first, let me respond to the comments made by Members on bilateral relations, and I will do so in a general way. It is a fact that Singapore-Malaysia relations are going through a rough patch and we are at a low point. Rough Weather and Squalls Dr Wang Kai Yuen in his speech in moving the motion of thanks reminded us that the President, in his Address, said, and I quote: "From time to time we must expect rough weather, even in tranquil seasons and despite the most careful navigation". Indeed, Sir, Singapore-Malaysia relations have experienced rough weather and turbulence now for nearly three months. In this rough weather, there has been one wave after another. Let me recount them. The First Wave The first wave came after the Senior Minister's remarks on Johor were made public. Although Senior Minister made his comments in his individual capacity and in a private legal suit, the matter became a Government-to-Government issue. Kuala Lumpur sent an Aide-Memoire to the Government of Singapore. Vituperative and uncouth insults were hurled at SM. Vehement attacks were made against the Singapore Government and the Singapore people. Unrelated issues, such as KTM land and KD (Malaya), were brought up. But this wave subsided after Senior Minister apologised and promised to delete the offending remarks from his affidavit.”
“The advice given to Singaporeans is the advice that we normally give to any Singaporean who is travelling abroad, ie, to be aware of the local situation but, as I have said, the situation is that there are only isolated incidents. There is no evidence of a systematic campaign being directed only against Singaporeans. GOVERNMENT OF SINGAPORE INVESTMENT CORPORATION PTE LTD (Investments made through Rockefeller & Co (Far East)) 3. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation Private Limited suffered any losses from investments made through Rockefeller & Co (Far East) from 1st January 1994 to October 1996.”
“Since the investigations are still in progress and some of the investigations are difficult because identities of the individuals were not established, it is difficult to state conclusively whether these were acts of hoolinganism or acts deliberately motivated by racial connotations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there were four incidents involving SAF servicemen in Rockhampton, Queensland in October this year. The servicemen were part of the SAF contingent conducting training in Shoalwater Bay Training Area, near Rockhampton and were off-duty at the time of the incidents. Two were incidents of verbal abuse, one involved assault, and the other assault and robbery. Apart from the above four cases involving SAF personnel, our High Commission in Canberra is aware of only one other incident involving a Singapore student in Queensland who had reported to our Student Adviser based in Canberra that he had been assaulted. The Student Adviser had also received reports from some Singapore students reporting to her that they had encountered verbal abuses. Our High Commission in Canberra has assessed that these were isolated incidents. The local authorities have also assured our High Commissioner that they will take measures to ensure that there will be no further incidents.”
“I cannot say that because we have moved these amendments, there will be no further restrictions or no further amendments. All these must be subject to reviewing the legislation and the implementation of these regulations and provisions over a period of time. Of course, we do not want to make unnecessary amendments, but we will always keep this under review and only, if necessary, we will move the amendments. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar.] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION (REPEAL) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 1.50 pm”
“The Council will determine successful completion of the course by reference to the solicitor's attendance, record and, I am afraid to say, testing based on return of assignments set in performance and tutorials but these are questions of detail which will have to be spelt out in regulation by the Law Society. Here it is a question really as to whether there is an inconsistency on the one hand of not allowing a freshly admitted lawyer from setting up sole proprietorship and, on the other hand, allowing him to set up partnership with another lawyer who has had three years' experience. While we could have been stricter and disallowed it, I think there is no inconsistency in allowing a lawyer with less than three years' practice to enter into a partnership with another lawyer with more than three years' experience because the more experienced lawyer, in fact, can be a mentor to advise and guide the less experienced lawyer. It will also benefit the clients of the firm in that the senior lawyer could serve as a check against any possible misconduct or malpractice. The presence of a senior partner will also provide an avenue for consultation and advice in cases where doubts arise over the appropriate course of action that the new lawyer wants to take. Yes, there is no requirement for a lawyer of three years' standing to have also taken the practical course. To do so, I would have had to make a provision which has retrospective effect and we have decided that it is best that the provisions have only prospective effect. Finally, he wants an assurance that we will not move any more amendments. Let me assure him that when we move amendments to the Legal Profession Act, as with most other legislation, they are for good reasons.”
“For example, he might have been an in-house lawyer or a CEO of a big company. So the question he posed was: if a lawyer who has worked as a CEO in a big company were to resign and join the legal practice, ought he be subject to such a restriction on sole proprietorship? I think an argument can be made both ways. I can imagine lawyers arguing that he may have been a CEO or, for that matter, even as a Minister for Law for many years, but that does not necessarily entitle him to be a sole proprietor immediately upon taking up legal practice. It does not follow that what one previously did in a non-practitioner role automatically confers on him all the accoutrements and qualifications needed for sole proprietorship. The arguments have to be weighed carefully and this is another matter which I will discuss with the Attorney-General and the Law Society. I will also look into the third point which he mentioned about section 34(h). Finally, Dr Lau Teik Soon has commented on the legal practice management course. His first question was: will the course be after the 3-year period or before? My understanding is that the legal practice management course can be taken by a lawyer only after he has completed the requirement of 3-year practice. However, he will be allowed to register one month before the completion of the 3-year period and complete the course within 12 months of the commencement of his practice as sole proprietor. I do not think that is too much of an imposition. I do not have all the details of the course, but he might wish to know that the course will be conducted for a period of five days and cover four subjects - professional management, professional responsibility, financial management and legal profession and practice. So it is a 5-day course.”
“Let me say, first, that having previously been Dean of the Faculty and having myself strongly advocated that Law Faculty lecturers must have some interaction with the real world of practice, I am sympathetic to the underlying thrust of his remarks. I will discuss this further with the Attorney-General and the Law Society. But there are some implications which we really have to consider. My first reaction to what he said is that I do not think we can treat the special category of Law Faculty lecturers on exactly the same footing as the sole proprietors which would be the case for most of the situations of the Legal Profession Act. Because the sole proprietors in a normal case have to comply with the whole gamut of obligations and safeguards under the Act, including the compensation fund and various other safeguards, subject to disciplinary proceedings, and so on. In other words, the problem that he has identified is how to cater for a very small group of lawyers in the Law Faculty to enable them to continue doing what they have been doing and how do we ensure that these amendments which impinge on them can be taken care of. I will look into that. I also need to say that we have to examine whether any proposed new provisions should deal only with the Law Faculty in the NUS because I also had similar approaches been made to me by other academics who teach law in other institutions of higher learning and who may not be producing qualified persons for the legal profession but, nevertheless, they are teaching law. So it has quite a lot of ramifications. The other point he made was to give an example of people who may be qualified persons not practising law but might have had considerable experience in a non-practitioner related role.”
“So they are not barred from representing accused defendants in criminal cases. What we are doing is that, for criminal cases, for the reasons I have set out in my speech, there is a justification for adding the special additional criterion. He asked a specific question as to what is meant by "a person" in the amendment, ie, the court shall not admit a person. To understand that, one has to look at the totality of the entire provision of section 21 which deals with Queen's Counsel and if he reads it, he will note that it says, "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, the court may for the purpose of any one case where the court is satisfied that it is of sufficient difficulty ... admit to practise as an advocate and solicitor ..." Then it spells out who this person is, and it is defined as "one who holds Her Majesty's Patent as Queen's Counsel, does not ordinarily reside in Singapore or Malaysia ... and has special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case." So by "person", we are referring to one who holds Her Majesty's Patent as Queen's Counsel. So that answers his question. I agree with him that it is important to develop sufficient numbers of people at our criminal Bar who have the competence, expertise and the ability who can stand out to Queen's Counsel and I have confidence that our local Bar will be able to produce such people as we develop. Prof. Walter Woon has raised a special kind of problem. It is two-fold in nature. One refers to the position of full-time members of the Faculty of Law who, as he explained, in order to have audience in court, may have either to be employed with a law firm or may have to take up practising certificate as a sole proprietor in order to enable him to appear in court.”
“So it then becomes not just a criminal case on the particular set of facts, but broader and more fundamental questions may be raised, and one can argue that this could be a "special reason". I give this as an indicative example. But I think it is better to leave it to the courts. The courts have had experience in handling such applications and I am sure we can leave it to their wisdom to decide what are the special reasons. What is important is that the legislative intent is what I have said in my speech. And if I may very quickly sum it up, it is that Queen's Counsel, as a feature in our legal landscape, is an exception to the norm. In fact, we are one of the few countries in the world which permits Queen's Counsels. As I said in 1991 and as I have briefly alluded to in my speech, it was never meant to be a permanent feature of our scheme. We had it way back in our statutes for good reason when our own legal profession was in its infancy. But we have developed our legal profession a long way since the early days of our Legal Profession Act. We have not completely abolished QCs. But the legislative intent is that we will progressively reduce our dependence on it, commensurate with the development of our own legal profession, our own Bar, bearing in mind three factors. Firstly, the differences in our legal system and the systems in which the Queen's Counsels operate; secondly, for the foreseeable future, we may still need Queen's Counsels in the civil cases, particularly, commercial and banking cases; and, thirdly, the development and appointment of Senior Counsel in our local scene. Therefore, Dr Ker will note that, while we are making these amendments, we are not in a rush to completely stop Queen's Counsels even for criminal cases.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken for their support and comments. If I may take the points in the order in which they were made. First, the Chairman of the GPC for Law, Dr Ker Sin Tze. His main question was about the definition of "special reason". There are two ways in which we could have handled this. One is for Parliament itself to have spelt out in the provisions in an exhaustive way all the possible special reasons. But our preference was to draft it in such a way that we would leave it to the courts to decide what the special reasons would be. I think that is the better approach just as the existing provision in respect of QCs leaves the discretion to the court when it says, as a general criterion, "if the court is satisfied that it is of sufficient difficulty or complexity and having regard to the circumstances of the case." That is the general criterion. From the general criterion, when we come to the specific matter of criminal cases, there will now be a further criterion for criminal cases that the court is satisfied that there is a special reason to do so. Between the two approaches, I think it is better to take this approach and leave it to the court. If he were to press me to indicate an example of a criminal case which I think would constitute a special reason, there could be a criminal case where an important constitutional law issue arises as to whether some constitutional rights have been or have not been breached, or whether the regulations or the Act under which the person is being charged raises the question of conformity with some provisions of the Constitution.”
“Their main thrust is to further safeguard the public interest and raise the quality of the legal services and the standard of professional conduct of our solicitors. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Members may be surprised to be told that as at the end of last month there were 435 solicitors who have not paid up their annual subscriptions to the Academy. The Law Society has informed me that there are two solicitors who have still not paid up their statutory penalties for professional misconduct. This is a sad state of affairs and would bring the legal profession into disrepute if not remedied. Clause 6 amends section 26 to enable a Judicial Commissioner who has held the office for three or more years to appear and plead in Court after he has left the office. This amendment will remove a disincentive to solicitors who wish to serve on the High Court bench for short periods of time as Judicial Commissioners. Clause 9 amends section 30 to provide for the appointment of Senior Counsel by a Selection Committee comprising the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General and the Judges of Appeal instead of the Senate of the Academy of Law. This is a technical amendment. It is not appropriate for practising lawyers in the Senate of the Academy to be involved in the selection process because of potential conflict of interests. Finally, Sir, there are two other amendments which were proposed by the Law Society. This is clause 10 which re-enacts section 56 to enable the Law Society to appoint a Treasurer and an additional Vice-President. These additional offices would improve the administration of the Law Society. Clause 11 amends section 59 to enable the Law Society to form a company for the purpose of carrying out its functions. This amendment is for the better management of its affairs. To sum up, Sir, these amendments are the result of periodic reviews of the Act.”
“I should add that the amendment does not affect the existing provision for admission of QCs in civil cases. Prohibition against solicitors using the title of "consultant" If I may go on to other amendments. One concerns the prohibition against solicitors using the title of "consultant". This arises from a request from the Law Society. In recent years, a common practice has emerged for solicitors to use the title "consultant". It is felt that a consultant should be someone with the necessary expertise backed by sufficient experience. A new section 75D is therefore provided to preclude solicitors from using the term "consultant" unless they have been, for 10 years, a solicitor in practice, a legal officer, or a full-time member of the Faculty of Law or a combination of these positions. Apart from these, I wish to take the House through some other amendments which I should highlight. Clause 2, Sir, amends section 14 to enable a former Judge or Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court or a former Attorney-General to be a pupil master upon ceasing to hold such office. The reason for this amendment is clear in that such office holders are eminently qualified to be pupil masters. I think their experience and knowledge would greatly benefit the pupils who are under their wings. Clause 4 amends section 25 to require a solicitor to obtain a certificate of non-indebtedness from the Singapore Academy of Law for his statutory payments as well as a certificate from the Law Society that he has paid any disciplinary penalty imposed on him before he can be issued with a practising certificate. This amendment was proposed by the Chief Justice and Law Society. Why? It is to deter solicitors from defaulting in their statutory payments.”
“Our Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act are all based on Indian law and not on English criminal law and procedure and evidence. Many of our criminal statutes were enacted to meet local circumstances. Queen's counsels, in general, are not familiar with our criminal justice system. Indeed, Sir, I should also say that as a result, we have even experienced some cases of our criminal justice system being distorted in the foreign media. Eventually, we should do away with representation by Queen's Counsels in criminal cases. But this should be looked at again when we have an adequate number of Senior Counsel practising at the Criminal Bar. I am using the term "Senior Counsel" as spelt out in the Legal Profession Act which provides for the status of Senior Counsel. The Senate of the Academy of Law, in fact, is now about to appoint such Senior Counsel. In 1989, when the Legal Profession Act was amended to provide for Senior Counsel I said, and I quote: " ... only those lawyers who by virtue of their ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience of the law who deserve the distinction and the title of Senior Counsel will be appointed. Our Senior Counsel will, in effect, be the local equivalent of Queen's Counsel in England and it is hoped that these leaders at the Bar will provide the inspiration for the younger members of the profession to strive for excellence in their profession.". The present amendments will restrict the admission of QCs unless the applicant can show that there is any special reason for the need for a QC. It will be for the court to determine what a special reason is for this purpose. This amendment is provided for in the new section 21(1A) (clause 3).”
“Sir, the provision relating to the admission of Queen's Counsels was last amended in 1991 to add an additional condition for allowing them to appear in our courts. That condition is that the court must be satisfied that the case is of "sufficient difficulty and complexity" to warrant a QC to be admitted. At that time in this House I had made it clear that the Government's policy was that QCs should only be admitted for complex and difficult cases where the necessary knowledge or experience was not available from or could not be provided by local counsel. I also stressed then that the intention was to favour the admission of QCs particularly in banking and commercial cases. The general policy of allowing QCs to appear in our courts remains unchanged. However, there should be less need for QCs in criminal cases with the growth of the Criminal Bar in the last five years, not only in terms of numbers, but also in terms of advocacy skills, experience and expertise. Since 1991, only 10 QCs have been admitted to appear in criminal cases in Singapore and I am told that out of the nine cases dealt with by QCs, only two cases were successful. Presently, there are 89 criminal lawyers who are designated as senior counsel and 125 criminal lawyers who are designated as junior counsel for the purposes of the Assignment List of the High Court for capital cases. There is no shortage therefore of criminal lawyers in the local Bar who have the confidence to undertake all criminal cases without having to rely on Queen's Counsels. I should add that it is also important to note that our criminal process and criminal law are, except for basic principles, quite different from English criminal law and procedure.”
“The Law Society subsequently set up a committee to study the matter and later agreed with my proposal to restrict newly admitted solicitors from practising as sole proprietors or in partnerships. The Law Society has therefore recommended that a solicitor must complete a legal practice management course and have a number of years of practical experience before he can practise as a sole proprietor. The Government has accepted these recommendations. Accordingly, new section 75C (clause 13) provides that a solicitor must complete a legal practice management course prescribed by the Law Society and have been in practice for a period of three continuous years or three years out of five years in the aggregate to be entitled to practise as a sole proprietor. However, he may set up partnership with another solicitor of such standing. The Law Society may, with the approval of the Minister, waive the requirements if the solicitor concerned has gained substantial experience in law in Singapore or elsewhere. Such restriction on newly admitted solicitors is not new and comparable provisions can be found in the United Kingdom, Australia and Hong Kong. Sir, this new provision will be brought into force when the Law Society is ready to run the said management course and will only apply to solicitors admitted on or after the date it is brought into force. In other words, it will have prospective effect. Let me also clarify that this new provision will not affect the right of law lecturers in the National University of Singapore to give opinions and act in an advisory capacity under section 34(h) of the Legal Profession Act. Admission of QCs in criminal cases Let me turn to the admission of Queen's Counsels in criminal cases.”
“The Law Society or the Attorney-General would exercise these powers judiciously and invoke them when they have information to establish that a solicitor's continuation in practice free of conditions or at all would not be in the interest of the public or the profession. The exercise of these powers is quite different and separate from the institution of formal disciplinary proceedings under the Act. It is essentially an administrative function to exercise control, not to punish. The Registrar, in issuing practising certificates, needs to be satisfied that they are issued to fit and proper persons. The imposition of conditions, instead of refusing to issue a practising certificate at all, will also safeguard the public interest in cases where the solicitor's conduct is such that some checks are needed but it is not necessary or fair to deprive the solicitor altogether the right to practise. Let me turn to the third category of amendments. Prohibition of newly-admitted solicitors to practise as sole proprietor or in partnership In October 1993, I had raised with the Law Society my concern about the large number of law firms which were sole proprietorships. Some 47% of all law firms were then sole-proprietors with one-lawyer firms, operating independently without employing even legal assistants. My concern, amongst other things, was that the situation, if left unchecked, would impede the process of raising the quality of legal services to meet the challenges of regionalisation and globalisation of Singapore's economy. I then proposed that new entrants to the legal profession should not be allowed to practise as sole-proprietors for the first three to five years of their careers.”
“The conditions include asking the solicitor concerned to produce an Accountant's Report two or three times a year to the Law Society or to disallow him to practise on his own account. New section 25B is to safeguard the interest of that solicitor by providing for an appeal by him to a judge against such a decision of the Registrar. New section 27A similarly empowers the Attorney-General and the Council to apply to a judge to order the imposition of conditions on the current or existing practising certificate of a solicitor if any of the same circumstances specified in the new section 25A are satisfied. The section also provides that a solicitor may apply to a judge to reconsider such an imposition when fresh circumstances arise. New section 27B empowers the Attorney-General and the Council to apply to a judge, and a judge on the hearing of an application made under this section, to make a request to the Law Society to refer the solicitor to a Disciplinary Committee and to order that his current practising certificate be suspended. Let me explain that this will be for urgent cases and cases of sufficient gravity where action must be taken promptly. In other words, it is not appropriate to wait for the more elaborate and time-consuming procedures set out in the other provisions of the Act such as waiting for the Inquiry Committee to have its deliberations, the report and a Disciplinary Committee may have to be formed, and so on. Sir, these new provisions are similar to the provisions in the UK Solicitors Act.”
“Issuance of practising certificates Sir, as the law now stands, the Registrar of the Supreme Court has no discretion but to issue practising certificates even to solicitors who are convicted of criminal offences or are found guilty of professional misconduct, pending their appeal against the convictions or findings. In recent years, some of these solicitors went on to commit further offences (such as criminal breach of trust and cheating) or misconducted themselves during this period. Also, solicitors who have been discharged from bankruptcy or have completed their periods of suspension for professional misconduct can still practise without restriction or supervision. This situation is clearly not in the public interest. Last year, the Law Society and the Registrar of the Supreme Court set up a Committee to consider the need to provide in the Act for the suspension of a solicitor's practising certificate and the imposition of conditions in certain specified circumstances, such as after his discharge from bankruptcy and after the expiry of his suspension from practice. They concluded that such a need existed so as to protect the public interest. The Chief Justice and the Attorney-General agree with this view. The proposed measures would, to a large extent, pre-empt any wrongdoing by such solicitors. Clauses 5 and 8 of the Bill therefore seek to insert new sections 25A, 25B, 27A and 27B to implement the recommendations of this working committee. If I may quickly take the House through these new sections. New section 25A empowers the Attorney-General and the Council of the Law Society to request the Registrar of the Supreme Court not to issue a practising certificate to a solicitor or to issue a practising certificate subject to conditions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the main objectives of this Bill are four-fold: Firstly, to empower the Law Society to take actions against solicitors who render inadequate professional services; Secondly, to introduce new provisions relating to the issue of practising certificates; Thirdly, to prohibit any newly admitted solicitor from practising as a sole proprietor or in partnership unless he satisfies certain requirements; and Fourthly, to amend the requirements for the admission of Queen's Counsels in criminal cases. Sir, these amendments have been finalised after consultations with the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General and the Law Society. Actions against solicitors who provide inadequate services Let me take the first category of amendments. Sir, over the years, members of the public have complained about inadequate professional services provided by some solicitors. The problem is that unless such inadequacy amounts to professional misconduct, no action can be taken against such a solicitor. The dissatisfied clients are left therefore without adequate remedies. To rectify this unsatisfactory situation, new section 75B in clause 13 and new Second Schedule (clause 16) will enable the Law Society to take certain actions against such a solicitor. These include limiting the costs that he can recover from his client, and directing him to rectify the deficiency in his work and to compensate his client. This provision is modelled on a similar provision in the United Kingdom Solicitors Act and I believe it will ensure better services to Singaporeans. This new provision will be brought into force when the Law Society sets up the necessary administrative machinery.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whether the courts will grant an adjournment of the hearing of a case on the ground mentioned by the Member, or indeed on any other ground, is a matter which is entirely for the courts to decide. AIDED-SCHOOLS (Higher funding) 7. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked the Minister for Education whether the Government will consider higher funding for aided-schools, to help defray the costs of land and buildings.”
“Sir, I thought I have given the answer, both in my main answer and in the answer to the supplementary question. I have already explained it. If discretion is given to the courts, the finance companies particularly will plead innocence and, most likely, the courts will have to find that they are innocent. When that happens, how does it aid the public interest? Public interest must surely require effective enforcement of the basic laws in the areas which I have described: customs, immigration, drugs, and so on. And if they are found "innocent" and the vehicles are returned, it must encourage all those involved in the syndicates to take this route to have easy access to the vehicles concerned. So it does not aid the overall public interest which must be in allowing the agencies to tackle the problem effectively; because that means the offenders and syndicates can have easy access and there is no deterrent at all. The finance companies would be very happy to just provide the vehicles. ACCIDENT AT MRT VIADUCT (Preventive measures) 4. Mr Goh Choon Kang asked the Minister for Communications, in view of the accident caused by a five-tonne piling hammer which crashed onto a MRT viaduct near Paya Lebar MRT Station and damaged a moving train on 8th April 1996, what measures will be taken to prevent similar occurrence to ensure the safety of MRT passengers.”
“But the law is unfair if they have no means of protecting themselves from potential loss. But this is not so. For example, they can verify the backgrounds of their customers, especially individuals. Further, they can require customers to present or furnish guarantees, and look to the guarantors to recover their loss. Indeed, some vehicle rental companies are already taking such precautions. For example, in The Straits Times of 27th March 1996 which reported on the comments of the Chief Justice in the Serve You Motor Service case it had another article on the same page which shows how prudent owners are protecting themselves from financial loss. That proprietor who was interviewed said that after his vehicle had been forfeited, he became more careful and he required guarantees to be furnished to safeguard against illegal use. Sir, this shows that car hire firms and finance companies can, and indeed should, adapt their business practices to meet such contingencies without incurring excessive costs.”
“The United Kingdom and some other Commonwealth countries have had such laws for a long time and they have found them to be a strong deterrent. For example, in 1990, in England, the Court of Appeal held that an Air Canada commercial aircraft which landed at Heathrow Airport was liable to forfeiture under the Customs and Excise Management Act when it was found to have a cargo of cannabis resin on board on a scheduled flight from Bombay and the court so held, even though Air Canada did not know about the cannabis and was not reckless in failing to discover it. Eventually, the plane was released on payment of œ50,000 to customs. Smuggling of dutiable goods into Singapore, Sir, is a serious offence. In the case of Serve You Motor Service, the offence was doubly serious because the dutiable goods were cigarettes. Forfeiture of vehicles puts the onus on vehicle owners to exercise care and responsibility when lending or hiring out their vehicles. It strongly encourages them to take precautions against their illegal use, which they are able to do so. We do not agree that owners should be entitled to have their vehicles released to them. Such a principle will surely make it easier for smuggling syndicates to obtain vehicles to carry out illegal activities, without the risk of confiscation. All they need to do is to hire or borrow the vehicles. Therefore, doing away with mandatory forfeiture provisions will only increase the pool of resources available to would-be criminals to commit illegal acts. It is sound public policy to hold owners responsible for ensuring that their vehicles are not used for illegal purposes. Some finance companies say that the law is unfair because they are completely unable to prevent vehicles financed by them from being used for illegal purposes.”
“The Chief Justice then had separately expressed his concerns to the Attorney-General and made some suggestions on how the Environmental Public Health Act could be improved to reflect its legislative goals. When the Attorney-General conveyed the Chief Justice's views to me as Minister for Law, I immediately wrote to the other Ministers in charge of similar legislation. The AG's Chambers agreed with my proposal for the Chambers to chair an Inter-Ministry Committee to review the different legislation containing forfeiture provisions. They are the Customs Act, Environmental Public Health Act, Immigration Act, Misuse of Drugs Act, National Parks Act and the Road Traffic Act. Meanwhile, the Ministry of the Environment had reviewed the Environmental Public Health Act and it decided that after enhancing the various penalties it did not need the forfeiture provisions which were then deleted. After a comprehensive and in-depth review of these various Acts, all the Ministries concerned concluded that we should retain these forfeiture provisions because the public interest rationale for their original enactment remained valid. Cabinet deliberated on the matter and agreed with the Ministries' recommendations. Forfeiture acts as a strong deterrence. However, the Committee recommended that the existing guidelines for forfeiture be refined to ensure greater consistency and fairness in the exercise of the power to apply for forfeiture. This has been done by the relevant Ministries in consultation with the Attorney-General's Chambers. Sir, the decision to retain forfeiture provisions has not been done hastily, but with due deliberation. Forfeiture of vehicles is only invoked where the circumstances require it. I should add, Sir, that this form of penalty is not unique to Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has carefully considered the views expressed by the Chief Justice in the case of Public Prosecutor v M/s Serve You Motor Service but has decided not to amend the Customs Act. Sir, in that case it concerned the effect of section 124(4) of the Customs Act which provides that the District Judge shall order the goods to be forfeited on proof that an offence under this Act has been committed and that the goods were used in the commission of the offence. The District Judge decided that the court had the discretion not to order the forfeiture of a motor-lorry which was used in carrying 4,350 uncustomed cartons of cigarettes worth $137,246. The Public Prosecutor appealed as a matter of principle and the appeal was allowed by the Chief Justice who held that the forfeiture was mandatory under the clear words of the section. The Chief Justice expressed sympathy for the owners as they were not involved or implicated in the commission of the offence, nor did they know that the vehicle would be used for an unlawful purpose. Sir, we have studied the comments of the Chief Justice in this case very carefully. Indeed, even before this case, Government had begun a review in March last year of the issue of forfeiture of vehicles used in the commission of certain offences. This was because the issue first arose in another case of Toh Teong Seng. And in that case the Chief Justice (in the context of the Environmental Public Health Act), recognising that forfeiture would act as a deterrent to illegal dumping, commented, however, that forfeiture of vehicle was a disproportionate "substitute" punishment when the offence itself carried a fine not exceeding $1,000.”
“And before we post out an officer to a foreign posting, we try to keep him at HQ for a period of two to three years so that he will get enough exposure and training and for certain key countries where language is important, like in Japan, Germany, France, Indonesia, Malaysia, we do also have training in language for officers. But we have to move even further than what we have done now. I am glad to say that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will, in the coming months and years, pay even more attention to training. We will set up a special training unit within the Ministry so that the training can be even more intensive and focused for new officers, particularly those who are going to be posted abroad.”
“Sir, Mr Lau Ping Sum's question whether we have enough staff is a critical question at this time when the Foreign Ministry is facing so many challenges because of very fast changing events in the region and in the world. Fortunately, in the last two years, we have recruited a considerable number of new staff. It is my hope that we will be able to retain them, but as all Members know, we always face competition from the private sector and whether we can retain them or not depends on many conditions. One of the problems of the Foreign Ministry in terms of retention of staff compared to other Ministries is that we have the problem of overseas postings. Sometimes, this is the difficulty when it comes to families who will have to be disrupted either because of children's education or the spouse's career. But despite this, I am glad to say that we have had a fairly good retention rate and I hope this will continue. Let me turn to his question about training. Training is absolutely important. I wish to inform him that we have come a long way. I remember some 25 years ago when, being a university lecturer, I was transported to be the Ambassador to the UN. In those days we were so short of people that we just had to throw them in the deep end because our missions had very few staff. HQ had very few staff. But we have moved a long way since then. Now we have new recruits being trained in a 3-month foundation course. Part of the foundation course involves a visit to at least one ASEAN country for them to see the conditions of work as well as to talk to the officials and Ministers in that country.”
“Indonesia and Japan have an inter-sessional group to discuss the various confidence-building measures. Apart from that, the ARF also encourages what are known as Track-II activities, ie, other than the officials and the Ministers. Track-II activities are parallel discussions on ARF subjects by think-tanks, academics and such people so that a non-official, non-governmental view will be brought to bear on these matters. Therefore, although I think I have answered the Member's question directly, the ARF has no direct impact on the situation at the Taiwan Strait. The fact that ARF is able to discuss in a broad way, in a close setting, matters which are of current interest to the members of the ARF, gives it a potential to discuss any or all matters but on the understanding that no decisions are going to be taken and no statements are going to be issued condemning one or the other party. In other words, it has a potential to be a very effective confidence-building measure in the area of peace and security in our part of the world.”
“ASEAN and ARF per se do not have a direct role in the tensions in the Taiwan Strait. But let me say that I view ARF as a body which has a potential over a period of time to be a vehicle to reduce tensions since it involves most of the countries in the region and it involves the major powers which have an interest in the region. ARF is a body that brings together Foreign Ministers of these countries to discuss in a very close and informal setting current problems of the region. We have had two ASEAN Regional Forums: one in 1994 in Bangkok and the other last year in Brunei. Having participated in both the ARFs, I have come to the conclusion that the ARF is very important for ASEAN as well as for the region. But how it develops depends on how we nurture it. It is not a dispute resolution body. It is not an arbitration body nor is it a body that takes decision. But it is a forum. And the way it has developed over the past two annual meetings is that I have seen a certain degree of comfort level where Foreign Ministers are prepared to talk about problems which may affect them and knowing that no decision is being foisted on them. It is important to develop ARF in that way. In other words, it leads to a forum where we can have confidence building measures. That is the annual meeting itself, but I do not view ARF as a once-a-year meeting and that's it. Equally important for the ARF is that it must build up what I call inter-sessional activities. Indeed, the ARF has done precisely that. For example, only last week Singapore and the United States chaired an Inter-Sessional Meeting on Search and Rescue. There are other inter-sessional groups such as Malaysia and Canada have an inter-sessional group on peace-keeping.”
“In respect of involving the private sector, we have recently begun to explore the possibility of involving the private sector in our technical assistance programmes. We are in discussion with one or two private sector bodies to see how this can be done. But I hope at a subsequent date to be able to inform Mr Lau Ping Sum of the details on this. In short, I think we are doing our own part in assisting other developing countries in their development process through the technical cooperation programme. 3.15 pm”
“Therefore, one cannot expect to rotate the roving ambassadors often. Mr Lau Ping Sum asked about aid and technical cooperation. I would say that for Singapore, considering our limited resources and considering that we are a small country, I think we are doing our role as a responsible member of the international community, commensurate with our level of development achieved so far. For example, our technical assistance programme given to other developing countries in FY94 amounted to $17 million. And some 2,000 foreign nationals from more than 80 developing countries are trained in Singapore or on study visits to Singapore every year under this technical assistance programme. It has not only earned us considerable goodwill, but it also enables those countries to learn from Singapore with respect to those areas which they think are relevant for their purposes. Sir, let me give you an anecdote. When I first called on the Foreign Minister of South Africa under the Mandella government, he introduced me to his Private Secretary and he said, "Meet So-and-So. He has been trained in Singapore." And immediately the Private Secretary said that he found his stint in Singapore very beneficial. So it has considerable spin-off benefits for bilateral relations. But, more importantly, our position and approach is that in our evolution of development, we have benefitted by learning from the experiences of other countries. And our position is that if other developing countries think they can learn from us in any particular area, eg, port, airport, roads, communications and housing, we are prepared to share our experiences with them under our technical assistance programme.”
“This will, in my view, enable the leaders, together with the regular annual meetings of Economic Ministers and Foreign Ministers, to make ASEAN more agile and responsive to changing economic and political situations in the world and particularly in the region. Mr Chay Wai Chuen asked about roving Ambassadors. As a small country with a limited human resource pool and with a small Foreign Ministry, we cannot establish embassies in every part of the world. We have some 36 resident missions in the world, including nine consulates, and it is very difficult to expand beyond this. So how do we overcome this problem of limited resident missions? One of the ways is by establishing roving ambassadors. We have some nine roving ambassadors who are accredited to 22 countries. In my view, considering that these are people who have their regular professions and careers and who are taking this on as an additional commitment, I think they have done an excellent job and I really hope that we will be able to get more such people to be able to take on the job of a roving ambassador. The answer to his question is yes. If we can get more such people with dedication and resolve to attend to the duties of a roving ambassador, I am prepared to consider appointing them. He made a suggestion that some of them might have been accredited to particular countries for too long a time. I have my own views on this. I am not in favour of rotating them too fast because, in the nature of diplomacy, it takes a long while to establish your contacts in that country to earn the goodwill, to cultivate a relationship with that country which is based on trust and confidence. And it also takes quite a while to develop your storehouse of knowledge of the conditions and the situation in that country.”