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 25 of 66.
“In 1994, 27 complaints were filed for breaches of Personal Protection Orders and Domestic Orders. Warrants of arrest without bail were issued in respect of all 27 complaints. PROTECTION ORDERS (Number of applicants) 2. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Law if he will give the figures for 1994 and the first half of 1995 of spouses who applied for Protection Orders (including Expedited Order and Domestic Exclusion Order) and who gave a past history of assaults.”
“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. PATENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Act to update the compensation for land acquired under the Act. Compensation for land gazetted for acquisition on or after 27th September 1995 will be assessed at the market value as at 1st January 1995 or the date of the gazette notification, whichever is lower. Sir, under the Land Acquisition Act, compensation for land acquired on or after 18th January 1993 was assessed at 1st January 1992 value, or the market value on the date of the gazette notification of acquisition, whichever was lower. Prior to the last amendment in 1993, compensation for land acquired before 30th November 1987 was assessed at 30th November 1973 value and land acquired on or after 30th November 1987 was assessed at 1st January 1986 value, or the market value at the date of the gazette notification, whichever was lower. This amendment, like the 1993 amendment, is to improve the compensation award for lands which are acquired in the future. It recognises that land values have appreciated considerably since the last amendment in 1993. Sir, the amendment is consistent with the Government's policy to review periodically the compensation for land acquired for public purposes, as has been done before. In keeping with its policy of paying fair compensation, Government has also announced recently that owner-occupiers of acquired residential properties who have no other residential property will be eligible for increased ex-gratia payment. For cases affected by this amendment, the total compensation, that is, statutory compensation plus ex-gratia payment has been raised from $600,000 to $1.8 million or the market value of the property, whichever is lower. Sir, I beg to move.”
“My understanding, unless the Member corrects me, is that the legal services for the vast majority of HDB transactions are handled by the HDB. Unless, of course, where a party deliberately on its own volition chooses not to use the services, the scale fees will come into play. CERTIFICATES OF ENTITLEMENT FOR MOTORCYCLES (Categories based on engine capacity) 8. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Communications, in view of the escalating prices of Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) for motorcycles, whether he will consider having different categories of COEs for motorcycles based on engine capacity.”
“The Committee sought to strike a fair balance between the interest of consumers and those of the profession and took into account the concerns of different segments of our society. Their recommendations are balanced and reasonable and should bring down the overall legal costs of purchasing a property for the vast majority of Singaporeans. The Chief Justice and Attorney-General agree with the Committee's recommendations. The Committee considered whether to abolish scale fees altogether, but concluded that, at this point in time, it is in the public interest to retain a mandatory fixed scale fee. However, it recognises that this is a matter which will have to be reviewed in the light of changing circumstances, and that a further review at a future date may well be necessary. My Ministry accepts the Committee's recommendation as a reasonable and practical transitional arrangement. But in logic and principle, I agree with CASE that a fixed scale is an anachronism in a free market economy such as Singapore's. But, Sir, I believe that there is merit in taking a gradual approach, instead of making a sudden drastic change to the existing system. Let me say, however, Sir, that the complete abolition of scale fees is a matter of time, and the legal profession should use this time to prepare itself for the free market.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in July 1994, with the agreement of the Chief Justice, I set up a Conveyancing Fees Review Committee headed by Justice Chao Hick Tin to examine whether it was in the public interest to: (i) retain, modify or abolish the existing fixed fee scale for non-contentious conveyancing matters; and (ii) make such recommendations as the Committee considers appropriate in the circumstances. Other members of the Committee were two senior advocates and solicitors, the Registrar of Titles & Deeds, and a representative each from the Law Society, the Association of Banks in Singapore, CASE, the Finance Houses Association of Singapore, and the Real Estate Developers Association of Singapore. The Committee carefully considered the views of members of the public, CASE, the Law Society of Singapore, the Association of Banks in Singapore and the Real Estate Developers' Association of Singapore. The Committee submitted its report to me earlier this year. Its main recommendation is to retain a system of mandatory fixed fee scale for all transactions up to and including $5 million (which, on statistics then available to the Committee, covered more than 99% of all transactions) but they recommended that the scale of fees be lowered by between 13.95% and 30.68% depending on the value of the transaction. The Committee also recommended a fee scale for transactions between $5 million and $20 million (which in fact constitute less than 1% of the total transactions) but that this scale be used only as a guide. Fees for transactions above $20 milion, which of course are very few, would be entirely free for negotiation.”
“The statistics requested are given below: Statistics On Spousal Violence For the Years 1990 to Jan - Jun 95 Year/Type of Order 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Jan - Jun 1995 No. of Orders Issued 240 230 319 512 505 428 Personal Protection Order 150 130 175 296 284 287 PPO (with power of arrest) * * 5 18 95 39 Expedited Order 82 94 131 186 108 86 Domestic Exclusion Order 8 6 8 12 18 16 * Figures for PPO with power of arrest are not captured for years 1990 and 1991. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - REPORTS AND INVESTIGATIONS 2. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Home Affairs, from 1990 to 1994, how many victims reported to the police incidents of physical violence or threats of physical violence from their family members and what proportion of these reported cases was investigated by the police.”
“When the Official Receiver began administering the affairs of the wound-up company, the assets comprised cash of $12.4 million and some plant and machinery. Following realisation of the assets of the company by the Official Receiver, the total assets available for distribution amounted to $12.8 million. The Official Receiver pays dividends to the creditors, not debtors, of the wound-up company. As of today, 1,290 creditors have received dividends. The 13 preferential creditors such as CPF, IRAS and employees of Credit Consultants were paid in full. The first dividend of 30% to 1,277 ordinary creditors was declared on 14th September 1994 and the second and final dividend to them of 11.4% was declared on 3rd August 1995. The Member will appreciate that there were a large number of creditors whose claims had to be carefully examined by the Official Receiver so that there could be an equitable distribution of dividends. In determining the dividends the Official Receiver examined the proofs of debts filed by individual creditors as against accounts of the creditors as stated in the books of the Company, outstanding balances in the creditors' accounts as disclosed by a Director of the Company in his statement of affairs filed with the Official Receiver and the statement of balance of accounts prepared by the Commercial Affairs Department. HDB FLATS - CHANGI VILLAGE ROAD 14. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board rental flats at Changi Village Road will be offered for sale.”
“Singapore is fully committed to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. As a small country, it is in our interest to prevent the proliferation of all forms of weapons of mass destruction. Singapore supported the indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) at the recent NPT Review and Extension Conference precisely because we believe that a strengthened and permanent NPT would contribute to the international disarmament and non-proliferation regime. At that Conference, Singapore also called for the early conclusion of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Singapore will continue to work actively with other countries towards the achievement of this goal. When the French Charge d_Affaires informed the the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 14th June 1995 of his country_s intention to resume nuclear testing, Singapore_s concerns were conveyed to him. On 30th June 1995, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated formally its concerns about the French decision to resume testing in the Pacific to the French Ambassador in Singapore. We stressed the need for all nuclear powers, including France, to abide by the agreement reached at the NPT Review and Extension Conference to exercise the utmost restraint pending the conclusion of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996. LIST OF CINEMAS 2. Mr Peter Sung asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will provide a list of all cinemas in Singapore together with the number of seats and the year in which each of these cinemas started operation.”
“Therefore, the Director of Legal Aid has the discretion under clause 8(3) of the Act to turn down such a case, because clause 8(3) says, "The Director may refuse legal aid if it appears to him unreasonable that the applicant should receive it in the particular circumstances of the case." I am sure that in such a case, he would exercise the discretion in that way. Amendment negatived. Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 7 to 25 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. First and Second Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment, read a Third time and passed. INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL 2.22 pm Order for Second Reading read.”
“Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon's amendment is well-intentioned, but I would like to explain why I will not be able to accept it. He proposes to delete the existing definition of relative, which specifies what the term means in respect of illegitimate, legitimate and adopted children. His proposal is to have an inclusive provision defining the term only for the case of an adopted child. He argues that the present definition is too restrictive. I am unable to accept his amendment because it would leave the term "relative" undefined. Such an approach would be too wide and would create uncertainties. The Legal Aid Bureau would, in fact, encounter considerable practical difficulties in administering the means test in the absence of any clear criterion as to who qualifies as a relative. Therefore, in the interest of both certainty and parity, the existing definition, in my view, should be retained. Actually, we have had this definition for a long time in the statutes. I have discussed this with the Director of Legal Aid who has informed me that the Bureau has had no problems in applying this definition in practice. Of course, I recognise that there can be isolated instances, like the hypothetical cases mentioned by Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon where an infant stays with a rich or multi-millionaire grandparent or rich uncle. But in reality and in practice, such cases do not come to the Legal Aid Bureau. If they do, and if the Legal Aid Bureau is satisfied that it would be an abuse of the process, then I would like to assure Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon that the scheme of the Act is that people are eligible for legal aid. There is no entitlement.”
“The Legal Aid Bureau could grant legal aid in a situation like that, notwithstanding that the grandparent can well afford to pay for the services of the Legal Aid Bureau or of a private lawyer. It is to cover this kind of situation that I have suggested the amendment. In other words, instead of making it a restrictive definition by saying "relative means", I have suggested that the clause be changed to say "relative includes". The word "includes" implies one uses the normal dictionary understanding of "relative". The only thing that needs to be defined clearly is who is a "relative" when we are talking about adopted children. Because there could be an argument about whether or not the adoptive parents are deemed to be relatives since they are not relatives by blood and would not be relatives in the normal sense in an adoption case. The point of my amendment is that we take out the restrictive definition. We say "relative" includes in the case of an adopted child his adoptive parents, to make it clear that his adoptive parents are relatives, but leave the term "relative" to its normal dictionary meaning.”
“Sir, on Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon's first amendment, I think he has a point. I believe his amendment would be an improvement to the Bill and I have no difficulty in accepting it. Amendment agreed to. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Sir, I beg to move, In page 5, line 8, to leave out from "relative" to the end of line 13 and insert "includes in the case of an adopted child his adoptive parents.". Sir, this amendment to clause 8 is again a technical one. The question is: what is the definition of "relative"? In clause 6(3)(b), one aggregates the income of the relative together with that of the infant. "Relative" is defined restrictively in clause 6(4) to mean, in the case of a legitimate child, his parents; in the case of an adopted child, an adopting parent; and in the case of an illegitimate child, the mother. The way that it has been phrased, "relative" excludes all other relatives. So we might get a situation where the child is being looked after by an uncle or a grandparent or an aunt or some other more distant relatives, not necessarily the mother. We might get the situation where the illegitimate child is being looked after by the father. In those situations, we might find that the relative actually does have the means, but his income and disposable capital are not aggregated because of the restrictive definition of "relative". So taken to an extreme, we have a child who is being cared for by a rich millionaire grandparent. But because grandparent is not a relative, the grandparent's income and disposable capital are not considered either on the application for legal aid or on the assessment of contribution.”
“That presumably is to cover the situation where you have an infant (which, I presume, means a person under the age of 21) whose parents may be rich, but who himself has no income and no disposable capital. That is to plug the obvious loophole where a person goes for legal aid using his child, who may have been injured in some way, refuses to pay because if we did not have that, his income would not be aggregated with the child's. Now, we look at clause 9. In clause 9, if the applicant's disposable income or disposable capital exceeds a certain amount, a contribution can be levied. Here is where the contradiction arises. When we look at the application, we aggregate the guardian's income and capital with the infant's. But when we look at the contribution, we do not. So we might get a situation where legal aid is granted to someone under clause 8(b) but no contribution can be levied, because the infant himself has no income. Prof. Jayakumar has referred to the new provision in clause 8(4) where the Minister can approve legal aid to a person who falls outside the strict criteria. So we may get a situation where legal aid has been approved under clause 8(4), but because of the way clause 9 is phrased, no contribution is payable either. It is for this reason that I have suggested the amendment that stands in my name to include a reference to clause 9(1) in clause 3(b), so that when it comes to assessment of contribution, it is possible to levy a contribution in the case of a guardian or in the case where we have a clause 8(4) authorization by the Minister.”
“The Legal Profession Act states that one of the purposes of the Law Society is: `to make provision for or assist in the promotion of a scheme whereby impecunious persons on non-capital charges are represented by advocates.' So Parliament's intent is, to some extent, very clear that the legal profession must fulfil this social and public role through the Law Society. I would like to take this opportunity really to commend the Law Society for running a very well established criminal legal aid system since 1985. I know many lawyers who give of their time voluntarily and I want to congratulate the Law Society on its programme which is in the right direction. I have told the President of the Law Society that I will do my best to give support to him and his council in their commendable efforts on the Criminal Legal Aid System, provided it does not involve State funds. I will discuss with the Attorney-General how best we can give such support. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 - Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Sir, I beg to move, In page 5, line 1, to leave out "section 8(2)(b)" and insert "sections 8(2)(b) and 9(1)". The amendment that I have proposed is a technical amendment. If Members would look at clause 8(2)(b), in order for a person to qualify for legal aid, the Director of Legal Aid must be satisfied that the applicant does not possess more than the disposable capital or the disposable income stated in the Second Schedule; basically, $7,000 per annum disposable income and $7,000 disposable capital. Clause 6(3)(b) says that when you look at clause 8(2)(b) and the applicant is an unmarried infant and the guardian is a relative, you combine the two.”
“Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. I realise that Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon's point can be argued with some persuasion. But as I said, the Government's policy is to provide legal aid to criminal cases only in capital offences. The reasoning for this policy is that it is very similar to the points mentioned by Dr Arthur Beng. To elaborate, the State spends a lot of resources in maintaining as best as possible a first-class, top-rate law enforcement machinery - the Police, the Central Narcotics Bureau, the Commercial Affairs Department and so on. It also invests heavily in an excellent legal service with very good legal officers handling prosecutions, who sieve and vet all the police investigation papers. Their job is to investigate offences when there is evidence to prosecute, when accused persons are brought to book, only after thorough and careful process. Why are they prosecuted? They are prosecuted in the public interest and the State expends these monies in the public interest and in order to protect the law abiding majority. Therefore, I agree with Dr Arthur Beng that it is paradoxical. It is incongruous and inconsistent that public funds should be used to defend an accused person which the State has decided ought to be charged in court and use public funds at the same time to get him off. The exception is where life is involved and for capital cases, counsel is assigned. I also agree that the legal profession itself has a role to play here. The legal profession has grown since the days the Legal Aid Act was enacted in the 1950s. It is larger today than what it was in the 1950s.”
“But in all other cases, the only legal aid that poor people can get for criminal cases is the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme run by the Law Society of Singapore. This is financed entirely, I think, out of the generosity of members of the legal profession. It seems paradoxical that in something like civil legal aid, the Government should provide funds. But in matters where a person could actually lose his livelihood, lose his freedom, there is no such provision of funds. May I ask the Minister, who said that it is not the Government's policy to provide criminal legal aid, to reconsider this, to at least look into the possibility of some sort of criminal legal aid for poor people. These are the people who need it most. Millionaires can buy legal advice by the ton, gold-plated. They can have a media circus, as we have seen in other countries. It is the poor who need criminal legal aid most of all. And I do not think in this kind of situation that leaving it to private enterprise is an entirely satisfactory matter. With those comments, I support the Bill.”
“We also exclude savings of up to $30,000 if he is aged 60 and above and we also exclude the applicant's CPF monies. Mr Speaker, Sir, over the last six years from 1989 to 1994, the number of cases registered with the Legal Aid Bureau has stabilised at between 6,000 and 7,000 cases per year. In contrast, during the early 80s, the number of cases ranged from 8,000 to 10,000 cases. More than half of the cases concern matrimonial matters. Other types of cases include claims in contract and tort, matters relating to tenancy, probate, deed poll, adoption, statutory declarations, testamentary dispositions and powers of attorney. Sir, a projection has been made of the implications on the workload of the Bureau as a result of the proposed revised means test. In revising the disposable income criteria to the new limits, the Bureau anticipates an increase of about 1,200 legal aid cases a year, or a 30% increase. We believe that these additional cases can be managed by the Bureau with its existing complement of staff and resources. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Sir, I support this Bill. I would just like to make a brief comment on the question of criminal legal aid. In the old Legal Aid and Advice Act, Part II, as the Minister has said, was never brought into force. It is well and good to give legal aid to civil litigants. The danger, of course, of giving legal aid in civil litigation type situations is that sometimes one encourages frivolous litigation. And when we are talking about civil litigation, it is a question of money. But in the case of criminal prosecutions, very often, a poor person cannot afford a lawyer. Here, it is not just money at stake. The person could go to jail. In capital cases, we have assigned counsel.”
“This is because we should take a serious view of those who abuse or misuse legal aid facilities. Fifthly, Part II of the existing Act which has never been brought into operation will be deleted. This is because the policy of the Government is not to grant legal aid in criminal cases except for cases involving capital punishment. Sixthly, the Bill empowers the Minister to amend the Second Schedule which sets out the means test by way of Regulations through notification in the Gazette. Sir, I hope that the updating of the means test in this amending legislation will be welcomed by Members of this House, because several Members, I recall, like Dr Ho Tat Kin, Mr Chay Wai Chuen, Mr Eugene Yap and Dr Arthur Beng, to name a few, have in recent years urged me to review the means test which has not been changed for a long time. The present definitions of "disposable capital" and "disposable income" have also been fine-tuned to take into account present day realities. Sir, let me highlight the main changes to the means test. Firstly, the disposable capital and income limits for eligibility for legal aid which are presently $3,500 and $3,000 per annum respectively have been increased to $7,000 in each case. Secondly, the disposable capital and disposable income limits of persons who do not have to make any contribution which are now $500 and $1,000 per annum respectively have been changed to $2,000 in each case. Thirdly, the Bill changes the definitions of "disposable capital" and "disposable income" so as to allow more deductions. For example, in calculating disposable capital, we will exclude an HDB flat owned by the applicant or any other dwelling house with an annual value of not more than $7,710.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill seeks to repeal and re-enact the provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act (Chapter 160 of the 1985 Revised Edition). The main objective of the Bill is to update the means test for eligibility for legal aid without increasing the manpower resources available in the Legal Aid Bureau. The Bill also deletes Part II of the Act on legal aid in criminal cases which has never been brought into operation. Let me now highlight the main changes to the Act. Firstly, the Bill revises the existing requirements as to the means of an applicant for legal aid to bring it more in tune with present day monetary values. Secondly, the Bill empowers the Minister to authorise the Director of Legal Aid to grant legal aid to any applicant who does not qualify for legal aid if it is in the public interest that legal aid be granted to the applicant. The reason for this provision is to provide for exceptional cases where in the public interest, it may be necessary for the Minister to authorise the Director to give legal aid to a group of persons, some of whom may not qualify within the strict provisions of the Act such as, for example, the victims of the Spyros disaster. Thirdly, the Bill clarifies that legal aid is available only to citizens and permanent residents. Currently, the Act does not state the category of persons eligible for legal aid. The administrative practice has been to give legal aid to citizens and permanent residents which is right, as legal aid involves the allocation of public monies. Fourthly, the Bill increases the fine for the offence of giving a false statement in connection with an application for legal aid.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the agency entrusted with the evaluation of the two affidavits submitted in the Melvin Seet case was the Attorney-General's Chambers. The person who evaluated the affidavits was the Acting Attorney-General, Mr Goh Phai Cheng, as the Attorney-General was not in Singapore at that time. APPRECIATION OF SINGAPORE DOLLAR (Effect on export industries) 10. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether there is any empirical evidence that export industries (including the tourism industry) in Singapore have been adversely affected by the recent appreciation of the Singapore dollar relative to a number of other Asian currencies (except the yen).”
“Thereafter, as the two governments have agreed, if the neutral panel finds the Philippine NBI is correct, Singapore will reopen the Flor Contemplacion case. And if the panel finds that the Singapore pathologists are correct, then the Philippines will abide by this finding. Sir, we must not leave any lingering doubts over the death of Della Maga and the execution of Flor Contemplacion to poison relations, especially people-to-people relations between Singapore and the Philippines. This issue must be conclusively settled one way or the other. Only thus can we put the matter to rest permanently and achieve a full reconciliation between the people of Singapore and the people of the Philippines. ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE Resolved, "That the Debate be now adjourned." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].”
“That will mean double standards, one for foreigners and one for Singaporeans. When we enforce our laws, from time to time such problems will surface and indeed may be more serious than what we have encountered in this episode, and Singaporeans must be prepared for this. Sir, at the government-to-government level, relations between Singapore and the Philippines remain cordial. We value our relations with the Philippines. We hold nothing against the Philippine government or the Philippine people. As I said, the leaders of the two governments and the Foreign Ministers are in close contact. In fact, Singapore and the Philippine delegations continue to work closely in ASEAN. But both sides must also strive to restore people-to-people relations, and restore it to what it was before the Flor Contemplacion case. And this is what President Ramos has also said and is reported in today's papers. We need to cool down emotions and restore mutual confidence. And businessmen, investors and tourists must feel completely assured that they are indeed welcome by the hosts and neither the persons nor the businesses will be threatened or, worse, endangered. Then only the flow of trade, investments and tourism will return to normal. This may take some time. In order to get this process of people-to-people relationship on the way, both governments should now proceed to appoint a third party panel of experts which both sides have agreed will resolve the contradiction in findings between the Philippine NBI experts and Singapore pathologists. This will determine whether Flor Contemplacion was a victim of grave injustice, as the Gancayco Commission claimed, or whether she was properly convicted and sentenced for the murder of Della Maga, as our courts have found.”
“Under the Agreed Points, the remains of Della Maga will be sent to a neutral place, United States, and the final conclusive determination will be made by the third party panel. To summarise, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope at the end of the debate and after you have heard my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, Members will be satisfied that all due attention, including the due full process of the law, was given to Flor Contemplacion. And I wish to stress that there was no indication at that time that the case would be so intensely involved in the internal politics of the Philippines and would blow up the way it did. Sir, the job of the Government is to make decisions based on national interest. Maintaining law and order, apprehending offenders, prosecuting offenders, are part of our national interest. Maintaining friendly relations with foreign countries is also in the national interest. In the case of Flor Contemplacion, we have to balance, on the one hand, keeping relations between Singapore and the Philippines on an even keel and, on the other hand, upholding the integrity and transparency of our legal and judicial process. Whether or not things would have turned out differently if our decision had been different, ie, allow a stay even though we felt there were no merits, I am afraid, is a matter of speculation. But it is unlikely that this will be the last such incident. I say it is unlikely because we have nearly seven million tourists every year. We have more than 300,000 work permit holders, including more than 80,000 domestic workers. Fortunately, the majority are law abiding. But, inevitably, some are not. Some commit offences. Due process of the law must follow. We cannot waive prosecution and grant clemency only because the accused is a foreigner.”
“We concluded this agreement and we signed it on 29th April 1995, one day before Foreign Secretary Romulo stepped down. I have not met the new Foreign Secretary Domingo Saizon personally, but we have already established contact because we have spoken to each other on the telephone. In other words, while we were having this delicate and trying period, the leaders tried to keep their cool. We were aware of the broader considerations in maintaining bilateral relations on an even keel. And both Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers played their role in trying to keep contact with each other so that we would not read the signals wrongly about government-to-government intentions. Just to brief the House quickly on the current developments in the diplomatic phase. In the Agreed Points between the two Foreign Ministers, we have agreed that since the first stage of examining the remains in Manila was inconclusive and there were still contradictory findings, both our Prime Minister and President Ramos had agreed to resolve this difference in the contradictory findings. And to resolve it conclusively, there shall be a third party panel. Both leaders agreed also to abide by the findings of the third party panel. The two Foreign Ministers worked out the Agreed Points that there will be a third party panel of three. In order to establish the three, we originally approached FBI but FBI recommended the American Board of Pathologists who had in turn recommended seven names. In fact, I have already written to Foreign Secretary Domingo Saizon to say that Singapore is ready to proceed with the process of selecting three out of the seven. Hopefully, this will be done soon and the third party panel will get down to work.”
“But we were asked, "Please come.". We agreed. We wanted to bring our consultants with our pathologists, but they said that they should not be British or Commonwealth. We agreed. When our consultants were going there, they asked our consultants not to speak at the joint press conference. We agreed. Then they wanted the FBI to be the authority to submit the names of the panel. So we have tried to understand the predicament of the government in that particular situation and our interest was to cooperate and distinguish our objective of cooperating with the Philippine government from the other circus that was being orchestrated by opposition politicians and the media. As I said, during this diplomatic phase, while we kept the channels of communication open and while the sound and fury of the media and opposition thundered on, many did not know it. But we kept open the lines of communication between the leaders. For example, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and President Ramos spoke on the telephone at least on four occasions and had corresponded at least six times. Foreign Secretary Roberto Romulo and I kept in regular touch with each other. We spoke on the telephone at least on 14 occasions. We corresponded, faxes to his office or to his home, and he was faxing things to my home or my office, at least about 20 times. We met in Bandung, not so long ago, and had three meetings. In other words, the Foreign Ministers were in almost daily communication during this delicate period. And, in fact, strange as it may seem, both Foreign Ministers were able to negotiate through the phone and fax and conclude a written agreement called Agreed Points on the steps to establish a third party panel.”
“" In fact, the full article, if you read it, said Senior Minister was informed and his assistance obtained and he got Jayakumar and then the maid Flor Contemplacion was fixed. For those of us who had been reading every day the faxes of the many newspapers that were coming in, there were many, many wild and bizarre stories, and we decided to make a distinction between a tabloid press, media hype and make sure that we do not over-react to these absurd stories. They were so absurd and bizarre that no reasonable person would have given them much credence. But when reaction was called for, Members would agree that we gave a robust rebuttal. When the Gancayco Commission came out with the absurd allegations, we had to respond and respond we did in clear-cut terms. When the integrity of our pathologists and our United States consultants was attacked, we also had to come out rebutting the absurd allegations. Next, we cooperated with President Ramos and his government. I will give you some examples. When the Gancayco Commission was established, I was in touch with the Foreign Secretary and I assured him full cooperation. We sent bundles of documents about the court proceedings, all the relevant exhibits, photographs, autopsy reports. We even offered to send the police investigator in charge of the case. If the Gancayco Commission wanted to interview him, he would be at their disposal. We had nothing to hide. President Ramos proposed that when their National Bureau of Investigation's autopsy, after the exhumation, differed from our autopsy report and that there should be a third party panel, we agreed. Later on, they wanted our pathologists to go and view the remains in Manila. Our preference had been to go to a neutral venue so that emotions would not be there.”
“Also, it is not tenable for us to accede to appeals which have been highly publicised and turn down appeals which are of the same merit but were turned down because they have not become media issues and contentious issues. To do so, in fact, you are penalising governments which have opted for the quiet diplomatic approach. Next, if we make special concessions for foreign nationals, for reasons other than on the merits of the case, Members should consider what happens to our own Singapore nationals who are also sentenced to death, ie, our nationals who also have no basis on merits, on evidence, to warrant clemency or stay of execution. They do not have a foreign government to pressurise the Singapore Government. They do not have an irresponsible tabloid press to write up lurid, sensational, bizarre allegations. Is the solution then to also give them a stay of execution when there are really no grounds on merits to do so? Surely, that cannot be done. That is why I say that, even looking back, yes, we could have conceivably given a stay, but it would have been a close judgement call. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me say a few words about the diplomatic phase. Our objective during this diplomatic phase was really to manage the events in a way that did not lead to further deterioration in relations with the Philippine government. And this phase was marked by the following features. First, exercise of restraint. Second, cooperating with President Ramos and his government. Third, keeping lines of communication open. First, exercise of restraint. Members have already spoken and noted that we had exercised as much restraint despite many provocative articles. John De Payva asked, "Why didn't we reply to this article about Senior Minister?”
“30 pm, a man called and said, "In 30 minutes' time, please leave the Embassy." Now, Members should reflect: supposing we granted a stay in these circumstances? Would anyone really believe that we did it out of compassion and not because we had been cowed and intimidated? This question is worth reflecting. Another consideration, an important one, is whether we would be setting a most undesirable precedent for future similar cases. Let me explain. Firstly, if we agree to appeals for stay of execution or clemency for foreign offenders, when there are no grounds to do so on the merits of the case, or on the evidence of the case, is it not surely an invitation, in every other case, for a foreign national and his lawyers to pressurise his home government to intervene on his behalf? It must be. And the Singapore Government would be hard put not to yield if it had already established a precedent. In this regard, Members may not know this, but I should inform Members that we regularly receive petitions for clemency from various governments. Some are publicised and hit the headlines like in this case and in the case of the Dutch drug trafficker, Van Damme. But many do not hit the headlines because those governments prefer to do it in a quiet approach, in other words, quiet diplomacy. The way that we handle petitions from different governments is important. We must be even-handed and fair and treat all petitions with respect and seriousness on the merits of the case. What we do for one we will have to do for another. We value our relations with ASEAN colleagues highly. But there cannot be one standard for ASEAN appeals and another standard for non-ASEAN appeals.”
“Thirdly, we have considerable investments in the Philippines. On the other hand, we had to take into account certain other important factors. Firstly, we had to note that the agitation and the demonstrations in the Philippines were really not over the stay, not over whether we had given face, but over the grant of clemency. Those who were building up the excitement and agitation were really not interested in whether we were giving a stay. But they wanted a complete pardon for Flor Contemplacion because they were convinced that she was innocent. And we had to consider carefully the fact that if we granted a stay, it could be raising false hopes unjustifiably. Next, we had also to consider what would be the implications in view of the various security threats, bomb threats and threats to the life of various people in our Manila Mission. I do not want to go into the details but I should inform the House, and the House should know, that in the days before the Cabinet decision was taken, our Embassy was receiving several threats. Some of course can be dismissed as frivolous and hoax but not all. I will just take an entry from one of the logs in our logbook. Monday, 13th March, there were four threats. At 11.45 am, a man called to say that a bomb would explode that day. At 11.50 am, a man claiming to be a member of a terrorist group, and I am leaving out the name of the so-called terrorist group, telephoned the Embassy's receptionist and said that all Filipino employees should get out of the Embassy by the time of the execution so that no Filipino employees of the Embassy would be hurt. At 11.53 am, a man claiming to be a member of the same terrorist group said that they were going to destroy the Ambassador's car. At 2.”
“' This is also what this article says: `A close aide complains that during the president's trip to Europe, his staff is giving him "sanitized" reports on the widespread indignation over Singapore's hanging of the Filipina domestic helper. "They were telling us that everything's okay in Manila, and that the backlash would be manageable."' The article goes on to say: `Ramos was shocked when he arrived home to find demonstrators blaming his administration for failing to save Contemplacion.' If, according to these reports, the Philippine leaders were taken by surprise, the question is how could we have known much better than them? And I think it is fair to say that the facts were that some of the media there and some of the Opposition politicians had skilfully and quickly capitalised on this into an anti-government and anti-Ramos campaign, linking it at the same time with a broader emotional issue of their government's handling of millions of overseas Filipino workers. Looking back, had we known that we would provoke such an uproar, would we have still refused to delay the execution, as several Members have said? With hindsight, it is of course very easy to say that we should have known, we ought to have done this, and so on. To give a candid answer, yes, we could have conceivably granted a stay till after the Philippine elections on 8th May. But to those who say there is no harm, no cost, let me say it would not have been without cost, and it would have been a very difficult decision. Why? On the one hand, firstly, we have no intention to get involved in their internal domestic politics. Secondly, we have very good bilateral relations and it was not our intention to jeopardise it. It was our intention to build on it.”
“He asked me to return his call. I called him on the telephone. He was on his way back to Manila. He said when he was back in Manila, the media was bound to interview him and he wanted to discuss with me the case and what he might say. I agreed, after discussion with him, that he could say that the decision on clemency had been taken at the highest level in Singapore and the law had to take its course. He did not give any intimation that the Philippine government was seriously perturbed about its impact on bilateral relations. Upon his arrival in Manila, he told the press and I quote: `Minister Jayakumar expressed to me his regrets. But the Cabinet reviewed the case and after giving it the highest consideration, there were no mitigating circumstances. So the judgment is now final and executory.' He added, and I quote: `The Philippines must comply with the regulations and the laws.' This is from the Philippine Journal, 4th March 1995. Now I like to make a point which was made by Dr Ong Chit Chung and Mr John De Payva. By all accounts, the Philippine leadership had also not anticipated the intense protests that ensued. Many in the Philippines, it would seem, were also surprised by the reactions in their country. No one foresaw this huge burst of emotion, probably not even those who had stirred it up. As the Asian Wall Street Journal, 31st March 1995, stated, and I quote: `It is obvious that neither government anticipated events spinning out of control.' Mr John De Payva referred to a Far Eastern Economic Review article. I believe he was referring to the 30th March 1995 article, page 12, and I quote: `The Philippines may have been in an uproar over Singapore's execution of Flor Contemplacion, but President Fidel Ramos didn't know it.”
“The first point I would like to make is that the Philippine appeal for clemency or stay of execution did not suggest that it was due to a problem in the domestic front and did not suggest that it would affect bilateral relations. That is why I made it a point of recapitulating what was the basis for the stay and what was the basis for the clemency petition. We had no reason to conclude that they were appealing other than on compassionate grounds or other than on fresh evidence on the stay or petition. The next point I would like to make is the President of Singapore visited the Philippines. And that visit ended on 19th February, just three weeks and four days before the execution. I accompanied the President and I wish to tell the House there were no demonstrations, there were no protests, there were no placards at any place where we stayed or en route to our destination either in Manila, Baguio or Cebu. The issue did not come up in talks with either President Ramos or anyone else. President Ramos did hand a note to President Ong, although it did not feature in the talks. During that visit I had separate bilateral talks with Foreign Secretary Roberto Romulo. He had one issue to raise. I had one issue to raise on my side. But both issues did not concern Flor Contemplacion. That gives you an indication of how important or significant an issue this was at that time - three weeks and four days. So we did not receive, Mr Deputy Speaker, any signal during this visit that there was going to be serious trouble for President Ramos domestically or for bilateral relations if the law took its course. Mr John De Payva asked whether we kept our lines of communication open. Yes. For example, on 3rd March, Foreign Secretary passed through Singapore just two weeks before the execution.”
“It is to show that far from arbitrarily brushing aside the new evidence, far from it being put on some bureaucratic auto-pilot, the matter had been given careful and urgent attention, not just by officials, not just by the Attorney-General, but also by the Ministers who had to advise the Cabinet who in turn advised the President. As I said, the Minister for Home Affairs will explain why this new evidence could not withstand scrutiny. Some of the Members here may accept what I have said about the process - that we took diligence in attending to it. But they may still hold the other criticism against us that, in any case, we should have granted a stay. What is the harm, what is the cost, as mentioned by some Members. Their view can be stated this way. We should have given face to an appeal from an ASEAN member. Nothing would have been lost. We should have known the elections were coming up on 8th May. We should have known that there would be a fall-out in bilateral relations. And if we had given a stay, all this strain in relations would not have taken place, which is the thrust of the first part of the motion, "when a stay could have prevented the present strain in Singapore-Philippine relations." But actually there are several questions here. Firstly, did we know? Did we anticipate what is going to happen? In other words, did we know, could we have known, the full extent of the consequences and therefore, nevertheless, proceeded with it? Secondly, how is it that we did not anticipate or know? Was it a major blunder on the part of my Ministry? So let us go over the information which was available to us at the point of time when the decision was given. I think that is important - at the point of time the decision had to be taken.”
“And in fact she maintained that she did it and even described in detail how the crime had been carried out. On the afternoon of the same day, Monday, 13th March, I also asked to see Mr Errol Foenander, Head of Crime Section at Attorney-General's Chambers. He is an experienced legal officer with some 29 years of service and he was the officer in the AG's Chambers who had gone into the details of the matter with the investigators and the other officials. You will recall that the House was then in session in the Committee of Supply. I was expecting the two Ministries under my charge to come up for debate. So I asked him to come and see me in one of the rooms in Parliament House. I went over with him in detail various aspects of Frenilla's affidavit, and he explained each point fully. I asked him if he had met with the Police investigator in charge of the case. He said yes. I asked him whether he had any doubts about the Police investigation. He had none. I told him I already had a word with the Attorney-General. But since Foenander had studied the matter carefully, I wanted to know if he had any reservations about the case. He had none. He explained to me why Frenilla's claims were totally unfounded. For example, and this is only one example, Frenilla had claimed in an affidavit that Flor's employer had fabricated the story that Flor had done the crime. But the fact was that the employer had no idea or knowledge of the existence of such a person called Flor Contemplacion. It was the Police investigations that led to Flor Contemplacion. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, why am I recounting all these?”
“However, we felt that if it was very clear that there was no basis whatsoever and it was totally untenable, then we would not recommend a stay of execution. Both of us also personally spoke to the Attorney-General because this was an important matter. As it turned out, the Attorney-General and all the other officials who were studying this issue did not require that much more time, for reasons which will be spelt out in detail by the Minister for Home Affairs, and which were already spelt out in our press statement. The claims of new evidence were totally unfounded. We both decided that we would recommend to the Cabinet that there were no grounds for stay of execution. But precisely because this was a matter of life and death and because President Ramos had appealed, as Minister for Law, I took two additional steps. On 13th March 1995, first thing in the morning, I rang up the Attorney-General. I asked him to confirm whether he had addressed the issue personally. He said yes. I then told him that our recommendation was being finalised to Cabinet and asked him whether he had any qualms at all about not granting a stay of execution. I told him that if he had any qualms, he should let me know, and that I did not want him and the Chambers to feel pressured on account of the time factor. If he needed more time, he should let me know and I could still halt the process. He told me that he had no qualms. He was satisfied that the so-called new evidence was completely spurious and without any basis. He told me that he might have had some second thoughts if at any stage during the many years of trial, Flor Contemplacion had even once said she did not do it. But she did not.”
“Firstly, the Government showed unseemly haste to execute her, giving the impression that proper consideration did not appear to be given to the request for stay of execution. Secondly, in any case, so the criticism goes, we should have anticipated all the consequences that unfolded. We should have anticipated the diplomatic fall-out and we should have given face to President Ramos. As Dr Kanwaljit Soin said, "what is the harm? What is the cost? She could have been given a few weeks' delay." Let me deal with the first issue: that the Government was unseemly hasty to execute her and proper consideration did not seem to be given to the fresh evidence. The impression the critics have is that we treated this in a rather cavalier, nonchalant and bureaucratic fashion. What are the facts? Firstly, the moment we knew of the claims of fresh evidence, and this was even before the formal letter was received, both the Minister for Home Affairs and I personally discussed the issue. We decided that we would ask the Attorney-General's Chambers officials, CID, and officials from both Ministries to study the new evidence. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon and Dr Kanwaljit Soin have made the point whether the law should be changed, but that is a separate issue which the Minister for Home Affairs would deal with. But we have to deal with this issue according to the law and procedure which exist at the moment. That is exactly what we did. We decided that if the Attorney-General and the officials needed more time to study the matter, we would recommend to Cabinet a stay of execution. If they felt that there was any plausible basis for these claims of fresh evidence, a plausible basis which requires much further investigation, we would also recommend a stay.”
“But I would like to point out, particularly in response to Dr Kanwaljit Soin, who said that in three or four days everything was done with, that the fact is that several days before that, officials from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Attorney-General's Chambers, the Police and the Foreign Affairs Ministry had already begun to examine and study the matter because the details of the so-called fresh evidence had been publicised in a Malacanang Palace statement on 9th March. That Palace statement had detailed this so-called fresh evidence claim and had also stated that President Ramos would be making an appeal. So we had already started studying the matter. What were the grounds for this appeal for stay of execution? President Ramos said that new evidence had come to light and I quote: `new evidence bearing directly on this case has just come to light from another Filipino citizen, Mrs Emilia Frenilla. Mrs Frenilla used to work in Singapore, personally knows Mrs Contemplacion. Since Mrs Frenilla is willing to come forward with a testimony, and as we are dealing here with a human life, I request Your Excellency for a stay of execution to allow this new evidence proper consideration. This appeal is addressed to Your Excellency with full respect for the laws of Singapore on humanitarian grounds and on behalf of the parents, spouse and children of Mrs Contemplacion.' Of course, as the House knows, the request was not granted and she was executed on 17th March 1995. I have listened to the views that have been expressed so far and also studied the terms of the motion. Basically, if I could sum up, I think the criticisms which have been made are two-fold.”
“Let us recall, very briefly, the basis for the clemency petition and later the appeal for the stay of execution. When we talk of the clemency petition, there was Flor Contemplacion's own clemency petition of January 1995. In that petition, she never stated that she did not do the crime. Then there was President Ramos' own letter to President Ong in January 1995, where he asked that clemency be considered "on humanitarian grounds". He said that "I address this request on behalf of the parents, spouse and children of Mrs Contemplacion". It is important that we recall what was the basis for the petition. It was on humanitarian grounds. Under the legal procedures in Singapore, after all the final appeals are exhausted, it is mandatory for the Attorney-General and the Trial Judge to give their opinions as to whether the law should take its course. These are considered by Cabinet and Cabinet advises the President. The Attorney-General's view was that there was nothing in this case that recommends a clemency and the law should be allowed to take its course. The Trial Judge, in his report, also stated that he saw no reason why the sentence should not be carried out. President Ong, on the advice of Cabinet, replied to President Ramos on 23rd February that clemency was not granted on the advice of Cabinet. Then we have the appeal for stay of execution. Here too, we need to remind ourselves what was the basis for the appeal. President Ramos' letter was dated 11th March and was delivered to the MFA duty office on 12th March.”
“Sir, I wish to thank Members of the House for the various points that they have made. This is an important matter and the movers of the motion as well as the speakers who have taken the floor have raised points which, I believe, are in the minds of quite a number of Singaporeans. So it is good that we have this opportunity to debate them. I also wish to commend Mr Chiam See Tong for having taken a principled position even though he is a Member of an Opposition party, ie, a principled position of standing up for Singapore which I would like to see in other Members of the Opposition on such an issue. The points that have been raised by Members have only confirmed one point - that this whole episode about Flor Contemplacion is quite a complicated issue. It involves many dimensions. There are many phases to this whole problem. There was the investigative phase where you have criticisms of the police investigation, whether we arrested the right person, whether the autopsy reports by the pathologists were properly done, and so on. There was the judicial phase. Did she have a fair trial? Were the courts right in dismissing the defence of diminished responsibility? Was she given access to counsel at all times, and so on? Then there was the Executive or Cabinet phase, ie, the phase where petition for clemency and the appeal for stay of execution have to be considered. There was the diplomatic phase after the execution and the problems we have in bilateral relations. Did we handle it properly? For today, I intend to concentrate more on the Executive and the diplomatic phases because, although there were important points raised on the investigative and the judicial phases, my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, will deal with this when he takes the floor.”
“We are confident that Japan, whatever its predispositions and its own preferences may be, as Chairman, will do its best to sustain the momentum that has been achieved in Bogor and pave the way for APEC to implement the action agenda. Singapore works closely with Japan in this regard. On ASEAN, we have attached great importance to ASEAN and the major highlight for this year which we will concentrate on is the ASEAN Summit later this year, and that is important because it enables the leaders to take stock of where ASEAN is now, and what are the challenges for ASEAN in the 21st century due to changing international scene and, secondly, due to the enlarged membership of ASEAN, with the entry of Vietnam and with the possibility in the not too distant future of other countries like Cambodia and Laos coming in to join ASEAN, thereby realising the dream and vision of the founding fathers that ASEAN will represent all the countries in Southeast Asia. As regards the Europe-Asia Summit, I am glad to report that the European Union has confirmed that they have endorsed the idea. ASEAN is fully behind the idea and there is ASEAN consensus. The job now is to discuss the details and this will be done this weekend when ASEAN officials are in Singapore and they will get down to discussing the details such as the timing, agenda and participation. 1.15 pm”
“In particular, my Ministry and its overseas missions have gone beyond their traditional roles to provide the necessary support to our regionalisation policy and we will continue to do so. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs therefore takes on a large responsibility in ensuring that the overseas visits by our leaders are effective in laying the groundwork for greater private sector cooperation. Our missions work together with other economic agencies of Government, like EDB, TDB, to ensure the necessary follow-up is carried out. All these have led to concrete progress. In addition, our overseas missions are constantly on the look-out for opportunities for our companies, and would facilitate visits by business delegations and contacts between businessmen. My Ministry also lends support to managing the Singapore Cooperation Programme (SCP) or Singapore's programme of technical assistance to other countries, which is also important in this regard. In view of the limited time, let me quickly touch on the points raised by Dr Ho Tat Kin. On APEC, yes, the Bogor Meeting was a landmark meeting. He asked whether in following up we are optimistic about Japan's chairmanship. I have no reason to doubt that Japan, in the Chair, will work earnestly with all other members of APEC to ensure a successful follow-up. In fact, I would say that Japan, as Chairman of APEC, is now developing an action agenda for trade and investment liberalisation, trade facilitation and development cooperation. For Singapore, APEC is, and will continue to be, a major foreign policy priority.”
“I would say that our approach to the United Nations is not an uncritical or blind approach. We have not, for example, hesitated to express our views when we felt there were trends which did not really advance the interests of the United Nations as an organisation. For example, last year, at the UN General Assembly, Singapore together with many other countries, opposed a draft resolution on capital punishment because we felt it was wrong in principle to use the United Nations' body to adopt a position which reflects the views of one group of countries on a matter on which there was divergent international practice. Sir, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations and we have set up a National Committee under the chairmanship of Ambassador Tommy Koh to celebrate the event here. This will provide a very timely reminder to all Singaporeans about the importance of the United Nations and its relevance to Singapore. Singapore will continue to play its part as a responsible member of the international community by supporting the activities of the United Nations wherever possible and within the limited resources that we have. On regionalisation, Mr Bernard Chen asked how my Ministry and our overseas missions will follow up on the many visits made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers during the course of the year. Since he himself recounted the countries which have been visited, I will not repeat them. My Ministry recognises that the goals of regionalisation can best be achieved if the public sector plays a strong supportive role to the private sector. The investments and trade must be private sector driven, but we must give the supportive role.”
“As a responsible member of the international community, we have, within our limited resources, tried to play such a role in the UN. Let me give some examples. First of all, we have strongly supported the role of the United Nations in peace keeping efforts. We have very limited personnel to spare but yet we have participated actively in several UN peace keeping operations, including in Namibia, Cambodia, Angola and currently in Kuwait. Secondly, a big problem for the United Nations is the failure of countries to pay their dues on time. Singapore makes our financial contributions in full and on time. We have also participated actively in the discussions to resolve the financial crisis of the UN which amounts to some US$2.2 billion in arrears. Singapore is a member of a very important Committee of experts known as the Committee on Contributions. Thirdly, we have also played an important role in the on-going discussions in the United Nations on the reform and expansion of the UN Security Council and we will continue to play this role in other areas as well. Fourthly, our representatives at the United Nations and their staff have played a very constructive role in several UN forums and I would say they have done Singapore proud. Our previous Permanent Representative, Ambassador Tommy Koh, was President of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea and later on he also served as Chairman of the Preparatory Committee on Human Environment which led to the Rio Summit in 1992. Our current Ambassador, Chew Tai Soo, was until recently one of the two Vice-Chairmen in the Working Group on Security Council Reform. Our Permanent Representative in Geneva was elected as the first Chairman of the General Council of the WTO earlier this year.”
“Sir, I will deal with the points in the order in which they have been raised. First, Mr Bernard Chen talked about Singapore and the United Nations. Sir, the UN is a much criticised and often maligned organisation. Sometimes, the criticisms are valid, sometimes, they are not. They are not because its critics do not understand how it operates and they do not realise that the United Nations can only be as effective as the members are willing it to be. We all know its shortcomings and imperfections. But having said that, we cannot escape the fact that despite its imperfections, the United Nations remains the only truly global collective security effort that we have. Mr Bernard Chen asked how can small states, like Singapore, with its limited influence, derive benefits from our membership. I would first say that for small countries like Singapore, the United Nations is very important. The principles in the United Nations Charter on non-use of force, respect for sovereignty of member states, non-interference in the internal affairs of member states, are all vital principles for the conduct of international relations. The rule of law is particularly critical for small and law-abiding states like Singapore. Countries like ours will have much to lose if there is no United Nations to promote international cooperation and uphold international law. The UN enters its 50th year now. During this period, Singapore has been a member for some 30 years. It is a political reality of the international system that bigger countries have greater influence in bodies like the United Nations, But that does not mean that there is no room for countries like Singapore to play a useful and constructive role and help to strengthen the United Nations.”
“As we gain more experience in administering, in policing and supervising such CWOs, I think we will have greater confidence in its extension. I should say in response to juvenile offenders, my understanding is that last year a committee was formed under the aegis of the subordinate courts to review the Children and Young Persons Act. One of its terms of reference was to examine if the existing sentencing options under the Act are sufficient. The committee is inclined to the view that the adoption of community service orders as a sentencing option for young offenders should be considered. This is one area where we can look at. Sir, with that response, I hope the Member will be satisfied.”
“Sir, in reply to Mr Davinder Singh, as he himself pointed out, the Government, when it introduced corrective work orders for littering offences, in fact, made a policy decision that we would consider this system of punishment. I would take his question to mean: will we consider extending this kind of punishment to other offences? I think the answer to that is yes, Government is receptive to considering such an extension. Why? For many of the reasons which he has mentioned. But I would add that it is unlikely that we would introduce it as a blanket form of alternative punishment. Because, in my view, the community work order is not a suitable solution for all offences. Obviously, as he pointed out, for some of the serious offences, we may want a penalty like jail or some such harsh punishment to carry out the deterrent effect of the penalty. It may be more suited for offences where the mischief is more anti-social in nature, and it may be more suitable for juvenile offenders. Another principle to be borne in mind is that we must not let the alternative of corrective work order become a soft option. It should not be regarded as a soft option. The third point which we have to bear in mind and which has been conveyed to me by administrators of such systems in other countries is that it is very labour intensive and requires considerable supervision. In fact, I have been cautioned by people in charge of Ministries of Justice where they have such systems to be careful not to go into this in an omnibus or general way. Our approach will be that we will be selective in the types of offences where such a system of penalty can be introduced. We will go step by step.”
“Briefly, it is not true that the Legal Aid Bureau takes an inordinate time or delays in responding to cases. We have done a study and found that in divorce and separation cases which form a large part of the Legal Aid Bureau's work, in fact, the matters have been disposed of in a reasonable time. The perception amongst people who apply to the Legal Aid Bureau that it takes a long time is there in some cases. But the trouble is that many laymen do not understand the intricacies of the law. They go to the Legal Aid Bureau, they make a claim and they think that the matter will be resolved within a matter of days. But the legal process has to be complied with. If the wife wants a divorce, the papers have to be served on the husband and sometimes the applicants themselves do not give information that is required in order to process the case. There is a perception and this perception has to be rectified. I have looked into the matter and I can assure him that there is no unjustified or inordinate delay. But of course the Legal Aid Bureau will endeavour to do even more to see if the speed with which cases are dealt with can be expedited. 12.45 pm”
“CASE, which is involved in consumers' interests, also has a role to play. But it should work together with SIAC and the Ministry of Law to see how it can facilitate the growth of ADR.”
“Once the infrastructure is in place, the onus will be on private organisations, like the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises, the General Insurance Association of Singapore and other bodies, to put in place ADR as a first or preliminary step before the final decision is taken whether to go to the courts. I think the associations can play a role here. It will be welcomed particularly by disputing parties who would like to avoid costs of engaging lawyers and paying court fees. The Small Claims Tribunals, in my view, also offer a useful avenue to encourage ADR because the Small Claims Court itself is a form of ADR. The procedures are simplified and the lawyers do not have a locus standi, unlike in the courts. We will explore ways and means of improving and expanding the Small Claims Court system. We are thinking particularly of a scheme whereby there can be regional centres of the Small Claims Courts in various places, perhaps located in community centres or town councils or elsewhere which will bring this method of resolution of conflict nearer to the people.”