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 33 of 66.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the aim of this Bill is to deny drug traffickers the enjoyment of the benefits of their crime by confiscating their assets which are derived from drug trafficking. So that the Bill will be made effective, the laundering of drug assets will also be made an offence and benefits derived from this offence will be confiscated. The provisions of this Bill are based largely on the United Kingdom Drug Trafficking Offences Act with modifications to suit local circumstances. Members will recall that our Corruption (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, 1989, was also modelled on this United Kingdom law. While we want this additional weapon to deal with drug traffickers, we, at the same time, have to be cautious to ensure that the Bill will not adversely or unnecessarily affect the operations of the financial institutions in Singapore. Therefore, one of the important concerns in drafting this Bill was that the new law should not undermine the confidence of depositors, investors and property owners over the confidentiality of records of their assets. Many safeguards have been built into the Bill. And with these safeguards, third parties will not be able to pry into a person's financial accounts under frivolous pretext or under the guise of drug trafficking investigations. Equally important, this new law ought not to be more liberal than other financial centres in releasing information to foreign enforcement agencies. Therefore, the Bill provides that such information can only be released to a foreign government agency provided that certain stringent criteria are satisfied.”
“It requires that those who are undoubtedly guilty should be convicted, as well as about those whose guilt there is any reasonable doubt should be acquitted.' Therefore, while we must enable the accused to have as best and competent a defence as possible, in my view, there is no reason whatsoever to disadvantage the prosecution. And bear in mind what I just said that the whole trial process means both defence and prosecution bringing forth and presenting to the court as complete and thorough a ventilation of facts and law. Therefore, fairness in this context must mean fair and reasonable presentation of the case by both prosecution and defence to the court. I think this is especially important in our adversarial system. I have taken note of what Mr Ho Peng Kee said of improved procedures including modern technology in the taking of notes. I am sure this will be taken note of by the judiciary. I do not have, in reply to Mr Matthias Yao, any records of actual disagreements between two judges. I did make an inquiry and over the last 10 years, there were some cases, from murder reduced to manslaughter. But there is no indication in the records of these cases that this was due to a disagreement between two judges. It could have been for various other reasons. Mr Ling How Doong rose -”
“On the facts, he has to decide whether the accused did or did not do certain things. And how does he decide on the facts? These facts are not plucked out of the air. These facts are presented to the judge in the form of evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence. And not only the facts, the judge must also decide the law. How does he decide the law? The legal principles which must flow from a give set of proven facts. Here again, the defence counsel and the prosecution have to assist the court and the judge by bringing forth all the relevant legal principles, past precedents, interpretations to the provisons and urge him why he should adopt either this interpretation or the other interpretation. In both cases, on facts and on law, it is imperative that you have able, competent and skilled lawyers who will, by the totality of what they say, present as thorough a case to the judge, so that he can then make a decision on the facts and come to a well-considered decision. I have noted what Mr Ho Peng Kee said. He said it is fairer to have just one prosecutor and two defence counsels. It is cricket, more sporting. But that is not the point. Because when you say "a fair trial", what do we mean? I think it must mean fair in the interest of justice. It cannot mean fair only from the viewpoint of the accused person. What about the interest of the family who has had their loved one murdered? What is the interest of the state in ensuring that there must be a deterrence to future murderers? As one well-known English law Lord, Lord Diplock, -- I think the name is familiar to Mr Ho Peng Kee -- said in 1980: 'The fairness of a trial is not all one-sided.”
“But, and this is to answer Mr Heng Chiang Meng's question, it does not mean that appeal courts will never ever look into the facts and will never ever disturb findings of fact. Even the Chief Justice himself, sitting as an appellate judge, has reversed trial judge's findings of fact. For the benefit of Mr Ling How Doong, I will give him the citation: Public Prosecutor vs Ho Ho Sin. The report is contained in 1991 3 Malayan Law Journal, page 416. And again indeed as recently as 1991, the Singapore Court of Criminal Appeal with the Chief Justice sitting as a presiding judge reversed a High Court's findings of facts in a capital offence. Citation: Chan Kin Choy vs Public Prosecutor, 1991, 1 Malayan Law Journal, page 260. Thus, it cannot be said that the Court of Criminal Appeal is powerless to reverse the High Court's findings of fact if the court is convinced that it is wrong. The two cases that I have cited demonstrate the ability and willingness of appellate courts to reverse a trial judge's findings of fact where they consider it appropriate in the circumstances to do so. I think Mr Ho Peng Kee made a point in his speech by referring to two defence counsels, two prosecutors, and he mentioned the point as to whether this compensates for the reduction of one judge. I do not think that the Chief Justice actually meant that two prosecutors and two defence counsels would compensate for the reduction of one judge. I think what he meant was that the whole trial process, from the viewpoint of presenting as complete and thorough a case as possible, would be far more superior under his proposal than the present one. What happens in a criminal trial? The judge ultimately decides. How does he decide and what does he decide? He decides on the facts and he decides on the law.”
“And I think we are very fortunate in Singapore that we have a judiciary which is skilled and able and cannot be faulted for their integrity. Dr Arthur Beng asked whether the cost to the accused will increase. I think the Chief Justice has made it clear that if the accused has not made arrangements of his own, then the state will contribute to the additional counsel. If he does not have financial ability to pay for even both counsels, the court, under the procedures for assigned counsel, will provide. I am quite sure that the Chief Justice, when working out the system under the new scheme, will ensure that counsels who are assigned will be competent and able. Mr Heng Chiang Meng raised a point arising from what Mr Ling said. Mr Ling says the appeal courts will not look at the facts. They will only look at the law. And I think Mr Heng Chiang Meng was right in asking: could it be possible that an appeal court of three judges will never ever look at the factual situation, even where there is good reason to do so? I think here, Mr Heng Chiang Meng, a layman, is right whereas Mr Ling, although legally trained, is wrong. It is true that appeal courts usually do not like to disturb findings of fact by the lower court. And there are good reasons for this. The good reasons are that the trial judge is a judge who would have seen first-hand the witnesses, the testimony they gave, the demeanour in which they gave the testimony, how they performed under cross-examination. He would have observed all this. Appeal court judges are not as best placed as a trial judge. For that reason, appellate courts tend not to disturb the findings of fact.”
“It is not that there have been many cases where this kind of scandal has happened. Because if it has happened, then both the judiciary and the Ministry's law enforcement agencies should be made accountable. But the Chief Justice has proposed this because he has warned us that if we do not do this, this is a scenario we are headed for. That is the point which I want to emphasise. If I may go on to some of the other points raised. Mr Ling again posed the question: can there be a miscarriage of justice? Can there be mistakes? Mr Ho Peng Kee has answered this. I think I will be dishonest to say that in the whole decision-making process in the court, whether it is death penalty or other cases, if the question is: could there be a mistake made by a judge?, I think it is possible. It is possible whether you have a one judge, two judges, three judges, five judges or a seven-man jury. It is possible. Do we avoid the risk of making a mistake by doubling the number of judges, tripling, quadrupling the number of judges for a particular case? It does not follow. For what is important, in my view, is that in the ultimate analysis, first, the integrity of the system; second, whether we have a competent, skilled, judge and a person of integrity who will make a decision impartially on the basis of facts and law which are put to him in a competent and able way by competent and able lawyers. If we do not have these requirements, you can have incompetent judges who are biased or do not decide on a case on the facts before them, and you can have incompetent lawyers presenting these cases. In that kind of a situation, you can have two judges, four judges, but if they are not competent, the system breaks down.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think Mr Ling is right in giving the impression to something which has been lightly thought of or introduced in a cavalier manner. The Chief Justice and his brother judges have given very careful consideration to this before they made this recommendation to Government. And mind you, we have to consider that from the judges' point of view, it is more convenient and more comfortable for them to continue with the present arrangement because two judges share the burden of sentencing a person to death. If it is a single judge, a tremendous burden is on a single judge. So one could say that from the point of view of the judiciary, it is a comfortable arrangement. You cannot pinpoint and say that that judge was a person whose decision has resulted in the execution of a particular accused. Therefore, the Chief Justice, in his speech at the opening of the Legal Year, pointed out that the judges and the Judicial Commissioners have worked through the system, lived closely with the system and are prepared to continue with the existing system but they realise the problems and are willing to shift from a shared responsibility to individual responsibility of judges to hear a case. This is a tremendous burden and I am sure they realise it. So let us take note of what it means when the judges themselves recommend this to us. Secondly, Mr Ling has completely missed the point when he says, "produce statistics, how many cases in the past 10 years or so where there has been a long delay. After the long delay the person has been acquitted." The whole idea of this exercise, if he read the Chief Justice's remarks carefully and if he had listened to my speech, is "to avoid this ugly and unacceptable risk", the words which the Chief Justice used.”
“Members may recall reading a case in the newspapers some years ago, which was a Malaysian case, where the Judge lamented that the accused persons in that case had been kept in custody for nearly five years before the case went to trial. The Judge expressed his "grave displeasure at the intolerable delay in the disposal of these cases", and he called it "a public scandal". We should try never to have this situation in Singapore. I should add that this change does not adversely affect the fairness of the trial. The law has always been that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In other words, the court will not convict unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the capital offence for which he was charged. The Bill does not change this aspect of the law in any way. Even where the accused has been convicted, he can still appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal and if, in the Court of Criminal Appeal, the three appellate judges are not unanimous, there is presently a further appeal to the Privy Council. Sir, this change in the law would result in the improved functioning of the courts by avoiding long delays in the hearing of capital cases. It will undoubtedly improve the overall administration of justice. It does this by enabling the expeditious disposal of criminal and civil cases because the Judges who would otherwise be occupied with accompanying their brother Judges in the same court in hearing a capital offence case, can then be assigned to hear other capital cases or other criminal or civil cases. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“' Sir, let me underscore the following points made by the Chief Justice in the extract which I have just quoted. Firstly, the serious problem of delays. He said that more than 1,400 judge days would be needed for trial of the remaining capital offence cases. Secondly, the serious risk which he referred to, if we did not do anything about it, that an accused person may spend several years in prison on remand before the trial is heard and he is acquitted. Thirdly, that his proposal has the concurrence of all his brother Judges and Judicial Commissioners. Fourthly, although it is up to Parliament to enact or not to enact such an amendment, the Chief Justice stressed that Parliament should not delay the enactment of such a law in the interests of a more efficient functioning of the courts. Sir, the Government accepts the recommendations of the Judiciary because their reasons are sound and compelling. Furthermore, they are the unanimous recommendation of the entire Supreme Court Bench who, as the Chief Justice has said, has lived and worked very closely with the existing system. I hardly need add, Sir, that this problem which the Chief Justice refers to exists even though we have had a 100% increase in the size of the Supreme Court complement of Judges. It is also despite various improvements to procedures, such as pre-trial conferences and measures to try and control the use of court and judicial time. This change of procedure will ensure speedy disposal of capital offence cases. It would also ensure that future trials of capital offence cases will not be inordinately delayed, and will avoid keeping persons in custody and in a state of suspense as to their fate for an unusually long time.”
“In view of our present requirements, and the experience which we have gained, the time has come when the practice should be changed. Section 194 of the Criminal Procedure Code which provides for two judges should be amended, so that capital cases will henceforth be tried before a single judge. This would enable the courts to deal with more cases, and reduce the waiting times. It is of course a matter for Parliament to decide, but it is a decision which, for the more efficient functioning of the courts, should not be delayed. In the event of a conviction by a single judge, there is an appeal to three judges in the Court of Criminal Appeal, and, unless all three judges are unanimous, there is presently a further appeal to the Privy Council. On the other hand, there is the ugly and unacceptable risk that, if the waiting time for such cases is not shortened, an accused person who is eventually acquitted may have spent several unnecessary years in prison before his acquittal. The present Judges and Judicial Commissioners of the Supreme Court who live most closely with this problem have been used to sitting in pairs, and thereby to sharing the weight of responsibility; but they recognise the serious nature of the problem and are ready and prepared to sit singly, if the law is changed. To achieve a fairer trial of capital cases, it occurred to me that what is even more important than having them heard before two judges is to have them prosecuted by two DPPs and similarly defended by two counsel. The Attorney-General has readily agreed to the suggestion. Accordingly, in all capital cases in future in which the accused persons have not engaged their own counsel, arrangements will be made for the two counsel to be assigned to the defence.”
“I may add that a transitional provision provides that the present procedure will continue to apply to any trial which has already commenced before a Court of two Judges before the coming into operation of this amendment. Sir, this Bill is to give effect to the recommendation strongly urged upon us by the Chief Justice and his brother Judges that such a legislative amendment be passed by this Parliament. The Chief Justice had in fact written to me last year forwarding his recommendations. He then spoke on the need for this change to the law at the opening of the Legal Year on 4th January 1992. So that Members can understand what led the Chief Justice and the Judiciary to propose this amendment, I think it is necessary for me to quote in extenso extracts from the Chief Justice's speech at the opening of the Legal Year, and he said: 'The main problem area which remains is in the disposal of capital cases in the High Court, where cases may take 10 days or more and take up the time of two judges in each case. A study done in mid-year showed that the 17 cases which had then been fixed for hearing, none of which were unusual, had been estimated by both prosecution and defence counsel to require 233 court days, or 466 judge days. If the remaining 52 cases then awaiting dates for hearing were to be assessed at the same rate, we would need more than 1,400 judge days. This is a requirement of a magnitude which we simply cannot meet, with the present inflow of capital cases and our limited judicial resources.' Still quoting from the Chief Justice: 'The practice of using two judges in trials of capital offences was introduced more than 20 years ago, when we did away with jury trials for murder. It is a practice which is peculiar to Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to amend the procedure applicable in trials involving capital offences. At present, the procedure is that such capital cases are conducted by two judges who are required to arrive at a unanimous decision. If there is disagreement, the accused could be convicted for a lesser offence. This requirement of trial by two judges was introduced in 1969 when jury trials for capital offence cases were abolished. It may be of interest to Members to know that about ten years before that amendment, all criminal trials before the High Court (not just capital cases) were tried by jury. However, this was amended in 1960 and thereafter only capital offence cases were tried by jury. The procedure for all other cases was substituted by trial by a Single Judge sitting alone. When the then Law Minister, Mr E. W. Barker, moved an amendment to the legislation to abolish trial by jury for capital offences in 1969, he referred to this earlier 1960 amendment and said: 'Where the changes brought about [ie, in 1960] have been so successfully implemented, may it not be asked, whatever the objectives to these changes proposed in this Bill, why have they not been extended to cover all criminal cases irrespective of the penalties involved?' Sir, in a sense, therefore, this amendment can be said to be a logical conclusion to the amendments made in 1960. The proposed amendment in this Bill will change the procedure so as to enable a single judge of the Supreme Court to hear and determine such capital offence cases.”
“Not only would we be able to deal with the drug and illegal entry problems, but there will be better utilisation of manpower at the Woodlands Checkpoint for clearance of both rail and road passengers. This centralised clearance of rail and road passengers will enable us to check all rail passengers immediately upon their entry into Singapore at the Woodlands Checkpoint. This was mentioned in the Ministry's Addendum to the President's Address. At the moment, PWD is finalising plans for the redevelopment of Woodlands Checkpoint to incorporate Immigration and Customs clearance for all land entries, ie, by road and rail for passengers as well as cargoes. New railway arrival and departure platforms will be built. Railway cargo clearance facilities will also be provided. We plan to complete these facilities in 1994 or 1995 so that Singapore Immigration and Customs clearance for rail passengers and cargo can be then relocated from Keppel Station to the Woodlands Checkpoint within two to three years. I might also add that we have informed the Malaysian Government of our intention and our officials will discuss with their counterparts from Malaysia the details concerning the implementation of this shift of clearance from Keppel Station to Woodlands.”
“Sir, my Ministry is very concerned over the problems which we have encountered in drug trafficking and illegal entry due to the fact that the passengers arriving by rail are not cleared at the checkpoint, and they are cleared only after they have arrived at the Keppel Station. Although CNB and the Police main tain vigilance, it is really not possible to station officers all along the very extensive line from Woodlands to Keppel Station. The fact that there is no prior clearance at Woodlands gives rise to many opportunities for passengers to throw out of the window enroute to Keppel Station prohibited goods, particularly drugs, as well as it is possible for persons who are illegal immigrants to pass Woodlands, but before the train arrives at Keppel Station, to jump off the train. As for drugs, for the last two years, CNB has detected at least 15 cases of drugs, either on board the train, or being thrown outside on the railway track. It is very difficult to catch the offenders, although we have caught some of them. Recently, one has been sentenced to death. As for illegal entry, since 1989, we have detected at least 11 cases of illegal entry jumping off the trains after entering Singapore and reaching Keppel Station. Those are the instances where we have detected, but because we cannot station people at every segment of the railway, I suspect the numbers are very much more. The Government has therefore decided that we cannot allow the situation to continue. Therefore, we intend to shift Immigration, Police and Customs clearance for rail passengers and cargo from Keppel Station to Woodlands Checkpoint.”
“We have in fact tried the various possibilities of extending the electronic monitoring system, but I want to be very sure that what we are trying out now is fully evaluated - what are the problems and what measures we can take to overcome the problems before we make extensive use of it in other areas. We must be sure that it is feasible and practicable.”
“The Bill is now being drafted and I expect to be able to introduce the Bill some time in the second half of this year.”
“But it is not enough for the Fire Safety Bureau to vet building plans for fire safety. Regular checks have also to be carried out by Civil Defence. Such checks would ensure that all fire protection systems are serviced and properly maintained. And the fire escape routes are kept clear for quick evacuation during an outbreak of fire. We also conduct surprise checks on premises where managements have previously flouted the fire safety rules. During festive seasons when shopping complexes are packed with shoppers and shops stocked with goods, sometimes blocking fire exits, surprise checks are also intensified. Sir, I hope that answers Mr Zulkifli's queries on measures which are being taken.”
“The value of such exercises is also to remind the public to be constantly vigilant and to be alert and to react correctly in such fire situations. Periodic exercises to test CD's contingency plans to fight major fires are therefore necessary and will be carried out. As for Mr Zulkifli's questions on fire safety, we have been reviewing the fire safety legislation. The fact is there are many inadequacies in our existing laws. For example, what do we do when the management of a building ignores basic requirements like making free access to the fire exits? What happens if they lock it up? Or they obstruct it with heavy equipment which cannot be moved in a fire? Civil Defence needs additional powers to abate fire hazards and to place more responsibility on building managements and owners to maintain fire safety systems. Managements and owners of public buildings will also be given added responsibilities to ensure that fire preventive measures such as evacuation drills are carried out. Therefore, we have completed the review of the legislation and new laws concerning fire safety will be introduced in Parliament. As regards a Fire Code, the Fire Safety Bureau has completed a review of the Code in November last year and the new Code incorporates changes to fire safety requirements such as provision for exits from residential units, smoke control systems for atriums and so on. This Code was reviewed with the active participation and contribution of both practitioners such as architects and engineers as well as Government authorities such as PWD, Building Control Division, URA and HDB. They contributed their experience and knowledge of fire safety design in this review process. The professionals have been given a six-month grace period to comply with this new Code.”
“I can be quite frank in this House about the main preoccupations of Civil Defence and the Ministry as to what peace-time civil defence disasters that we are worried about. We do not have the kind of disasters that other countries have - earthquakes, typhoons, floods on an extensive scale. I think it is also very unlikely that we will get many incidents like the Hotel New World collapse. So what is the peace-time civil defence disaster that we worry about most? It is that of a major high-rise fire. Fortunately, we have very strict building controls and fire safety requirements. But then, even in Singapore with these controls, because of a human error or a lapse in judgment, we can have a towering inferno. And when a big fire takes place, everyone, the building management, the occupants, as well as Civil Defence and other Government agencies which respond to the incident must know exactly what to do. That is why we take fire prevention and fire fighting seriously. And that is why we also place such importance on exercises. Exercises are important because our CD fire fighting and rescue personnel must be fully equipped and ready to tackle any fire. We must be prepared for the worst while hoping for the best. That is the motto of the Civil Defence. With so many high-rise buildings in Singapore, Civil Defence has to be geared to fight even the biggest and the worst fire in a high-rise building. For this reason, Civil Defence and the Police have organised and conducted a high-rise fire exercise at Raffles City last year which involved more than 1,000 people from some 10 Government agencies. This helped the various emergency authorities coordinate and improve their plans to cope with high-rise fires.”
“For a start, we will test on a pilot project where there will be four teams of medics, each having two medics on motorcycles. They will be deployed in two shifts during peak traffic hours. They will respond to road traffic accidents, to render first-aid to victims and we believe that these medics on motorcycles will be able to get through traffic even more speedily and arrive ahead of the ambulance which will be despatched at the same time. These fast response medics are not a substitute for an ambulance but they can reach an accident victim faster. They will administer first aid to the victim and the ambulance that will come later will convey the injured person to hospital. With a faster response time, this idea that we are going to implement will save lives and faster attending to injuries. When introduced, the Civil Defence aims to reach a road traffic accident victim within seven minutes even in bad traffic congestion. This pilot scheme of fast response medics on wheels will be launched in the last quarter of this year. Selected medics will be trained by the Ministry of Health and Civil Defence. The pilot scheme will run for about a year, after which we will evaluate the results and, if successful, more medics will be trained and deployed and the scheme can then be formalised and be more extensive. 12.45 pm As for Mr Zulkifli's points about airconditioning of ambulances, I will have to look into this and give him a situation report on some other occasion. Next, his points about fire safety. I wish to assure the Member that we take fire safety and fire fighting very seriously, in particular in high-rise buildings.”
“Sir, let me first respond to Encik Zulkifli's remarks and questions on the ambulance service. I share his concern over the response time for emergency ambulance and if the response time is not satisfactory, there will be a delay in arriving at the site and to attend to casualties. In particular, I take his point that the emergency ambulance responses during periods of peak traffic and during periods of congestion are matters which have to be looked into. Over the last three years, the response time for emergency ambulance service has, in fact, improved from 10.17 minutes to 8.7 minutes last year. Moreover, the percentage of ambulance calls which were responded to within 11 minutes increased from 64% to 74% last year. One of the reasons for this achievement was the introduction of computer-aided despatch system, known as the Singapore Ambulance and Fire Emergency System (SAFES). This is a good achievement, but it is difficult to keep this response time of eight minutes when we are talking of peak hours or when there is tremendous congestion on the roads, particularly when an accident occurs. This can delay the arrival of the ambulance. Last year, our survey showed that of a monthly average of 800 road traffic accidents where ambulances were called, about 150 cases, or 19%, the response time was more than 11 minutes and this, we found out, was mainly because the ambulances had been delayed in traffic congestion. This works out to about five accidents per day in that kind of situation. So we have, in fact, been studying this problem and figuring out what is the best way to tackle it. What we have decided to do, Sir, is to introduce what we call Fast Response Medics on Motor-cycles, similar to the UK and Hong Kong.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates for the financial year 1992/1993, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Therefore, stints will also be planned to facilitate the building up of valuable experience and expertise. With such specialisation, I am confident that the junior police officers will be better equipped to deal with such sophisticated criminals. Able officers will be continually motivated through timely promotions. The very best among the junior officers can make it to the senior ranks and, with these measures, I am confident that the public will be served by a highly motivated and competent group of police officers.”
“In other words, everybody has to do their part because Police cannot be everywhere all the time. With regard to Mr Choo Wee Khiang's question on restructuring of the Junior Police Service, he wanted to know the results of the review. The 1990 review, Sir, of the Junior Service was quite well received. Recruitment has indeed improved. In 1990, the Police recruited 447 junior officers, compared to only 361 in 1989. Last year, we had a bumper recruitment of 687 out of some 4,600 applicants. This is, in fact, the best recruitment figure the Police has achieved for 10 years. Not only that, the recent recruits are also increasingly better qualified. Morale of our junior officers has improved considerably. Catch-up promotions given to good officers have taken place and over the last two years, more than 5,000 junior officers have been promoted. Promotion exercises for all ranks are now held annually. A system of selection has been established to ensure that every officer is carefully considered for promotion. A manpower board has been set up in every Police unit to monitor the performance of every officer. The officers are now more motivated because of the awareness that good performance will be duly recognised through promotions. But, Sir, being motivated alone is not enough. Junior police officers must also be competent because criminals are more sophisticated and their tactics and modus operandi more complex. Our officers must keep pace with this. Therefore, the police has a system to develop specialist officers in police functions, such as crime investigation, intelligence analysis, community policing and traffic enforcement. These officers will be specially trained through a series of skills training.”
“The Police will review the NPPs to identify areas where community support can be made more vigorous and more structured. For example, the Police will want to extend the concept of community policing to commercial complexes and also to involve the management of public buildings, private residential buildings and condominiums when it comes to crime prevention. In other words, not just public housing estates, but these others as well because these other locations can play a major role in improving the crime situation. They can install security alarm systems, employ private security guards to increase the level of security, and help to prevent crimes in the building. That is why I agree with Mr Choo Wee Khiang that the Police should work closely with the management of these buildings on crime prevention and in improving security. Similarly, we think that sundry shop owners and even small retail outlets should be encouraged to form into Neighbourhood Crime Prevention Committees, perhaps, on a smaller scale centred on the town or Neighbourhood centre, to cooperate on crime prevention matters. The Police are also reviewing how the National Crime Prevention Council can further assist and encourage in the formation of such crime prevention groups. I would ask the Police to consider Mr Choo Wee Khiang's suggestion of exploring how private security agencies and even auxiliary police forces can be more involved with NPPs and the community. Just to end up, the overriding consideration guiding the Police in its effort is quite simple, but important, that in crime prevention, crime detection and apprehension of offenders, we need a partnership between the Police and the community - community meaning individuals, families, shops, residences, whether in public or private residences.”
“Apart from persuasion, talks and counselling which I mentioned, for some of the more serious cases, it must be accompanied by a strong message that will have a deterrent effect. And the Police, therefore, plan to take such delinquent youths on visits to prisons, let them see how life in prison is like, and we hope that they will then say, "Wah, never to land up there" and to take a straight path thereafter. In fact, such programmes are successfully run in Australia, the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Similarly, for those who are mixing with drug peddlers and drug pushers, we will also take them on visits to DRCs. These visits we expect to introduce some time in May. Regarding Mr Choo Wee Khiang's question on Neighbourhood Police Posts, the NPP system was established since 1983. To-date, we have 90 NPPs established and are now operating in all the Police Land Divisions. With the network of NPPs forming the backbone of our community policing system, there has, indeed, been better rapport between the residents, grassroots leaders, various sectors of the business community, with whom the Police have to deal with in solving and preventing crime. I referred earlier to a public attitude survey conducted by an established firm of research consultants for the Police. They surveyed some 1,200 respondents. They found that eight in 10 people were aware of the NPP in the residential areas. Three in 10 had even visited the area NPPs and of those who made use of the NPP services, 60% recalled being attended to immediately. The majority of those who were surveyed felt that the introduction of NPPs help to reduce crime rates, while half of them felt that the NPP system was responsible for enhancing Police's capability in solving crime. I was asked about the review of the NPPs.”
“Some of the other measures are that the Police give talks in schools, and to youth groups on crime prevention and the evils of secret societies. Some 129 talks have been given in 74 schools last year involving 65,000 students. Talks were also given at the CID when organised student groups turned up. Police make frequent checks on youth groups, either checks by uniformed officers, or plain-clothed detectives, in various locations where the Police know that they congregate. In this way, the youths know that the Police are keeping an eye. There is also counselling of delinquent youths. The CID Secret Societies Branch calls up students who are on the brink of involvement in secret societies whom they think are salvageable. They are warned, they are counselled in the presence of the parents in lieu of immediate action being taken against them. And some six months to a year later, they are again interviewed to monitor the progress and to ensure that they have not relapsed. Police not only talk to them and warn them, but also show them visuals and tapes of their peers who have been injured or killed in gangland incidents, to warn them of the possibilities of similar fate if they do not turn over a new leaf. CID officers also tell them of the alternative outcome of their further involvement, in other words, imprisonment or very strict prohibition order under the Criminal Law Act which will require them to be indoors at night. But, Sir, the Police want to salvage these youths who are already getting one foot into the criminal underworld and secret society arena, because the Police want to avoid detaining them under the Criminal Law Act, or serving them with the Police Supervision Order.”
“Sir, can I take up the points raised by Mr Choo Wee Khiang on his three topics. But in view of the approaching "guillotine" time, I might want to take up first his third point on youth involvement in secret societies because it has a bearing on one of the points raised by Dr Arthur Beng, so I might as well attend to it now. As far as youth involvement in secret societies is concerned, I would say that the Police are aware that teenagers, aged mostly between 14 and 18 years of age, often congregate in void decks, playgrounds, shopping centres and other places of recreation, either for company or for sense of belonging. Sometimes, they get involved in skirmishes and disputes with other groups over what appear to be very petty matters. Some may also be influenced to associate themselves in secret society gangs. The Police closely monitor the involvement of teenagers in crime and in secret society activities. But I would like to assure the House that the situation is not alarming, especially when it comes to students. The number of students detected to be involved in gang activities in 1991, for example, is only 54 per 100,000 student population, and most of these activities do not occur in schools. In fact, if they get involved in gang activities, it is mainly through association of peers in the neighbourhood where they live, or places where they frequent in their spare time. What are the measures which the Police take? As I said, the Police take a very serious view and they have a very close liaison with the schools. There are at least 24 police officers who have been appointed to sit in the School Advisory Committees to strengthen this liaison.”
“In response to Mr Choo Wee Khiang's question, my Ministry expects to be able to introduce the Computer Misuse Bill some time this year. Members may recall that during the 1990 Committee of Supply debate I have already informed this House the reasons for tightening the laws to deal with computer crime and I also mentioned that there was an Inter-Ministerial Committee specifically set up to study what this legislation should cover. I am glad to say that they have finished their work and a draft Bill has been prepared. The main features of this law, which Mr Choo Wee Khiang wanted to know, are that it makes unauthorised access to any computer and abuse of its information an offence. The following specific new offences will be created: First, unauthorised access to computer material or hacking. Second, unauthorised access with intent to facilitate or commit further offences such as using a computer to transfer money illegally into one's account. Third, unauthorised modification of computer material. Fourth, unauthorised use or interception of computer service, for example, theft of computer time. It will also be a specific offence if one introduces a virus into a computer and this will be under a section dealing with unauthorised modification of computer material. To ensure effective enforcement, the offences will be made seizable, ie, police can arrest without warrant. The law will also make consequential amendments to important concepts such as documents, publications, in our relevant laws so that we can update the law to encompass computerised information. At the moment, we are now in the process of consulting the computer industry on the provisions of the Bill and I expect, as I said, to introduce the Bill some time this year.”
“Sir, I do not think the Member wants me to go into the detailed specifications. These are details that will, of course, be announced and publicity will be given in the course of the next few weeks.”
“The details of the scheme are being worked out with a few leading insurance companies and will be released by the insurance companies and Traffic Police shortly. They expect to implement the scheme some time in June this year.”
“Ample notice has already been given to the car importers to enable them to comply with this requirement. Details of the dates and of the requirements will be announced some time within the next week by the Traffic Police. I am aware of the concerns expressed by Dr Arthur Beng, and we will ensure that there is no undue hardship and inconvenience. As with other countries, we will only require all available seat belts to be used. Therefore, where there are only two rear seat belts in a car but there are three rear seat passengers, only two of them need to belt up. This is the practice in many countries. Also, existing models without rear seat belts do not have to install rear seat belts. In other words, we will not require retrofitting because many of these cars do not have the anchorage points for rear seat belts to be properly installed. Therefore, the requirement to use available seat belts for new cars will come into effect from 1st January 1993. For the time being, compulsory use of child restraints will not apply to taxis because there is a problem in requiring taxis to carry a whole range of child restraints to cater for children of different ages and sizes. This is also the present position in the United Kingdom. He asked about incentives for drivers, which is a point mentioned in the Ministry of Home Affairs' Addendum. In the middle of this year, the Traffic Police will introduce a scheme with participating insurance companies to offer persons with clean driving records of three years an additional insurance premium rebate. This additional rebate will be on top of the no claim bonus which drivers currently enjoy.”
“As for rear seat belts, it is not children only with whom we are concerned. For many years, the wearing of front seat belts has been mandatory. Many lives have been saved and serious injuries have been reduced. Adult passengers in the rear seats, not wearing seat belts, expose themselves to similar risks. These risks can be considerably reduced by the wearing of seat belts. Many developed countries, USA, the UK, Sweden and so on, have recognised the need for belting up in the rear and have introduced legislation requiring this. Last year, my Ministry announced that it will make mandatory the use of child restraints to enhance the safety of children conveyed in cars. We will also require the use of rear seat belts. Quite of bit of education has been done, particularly with the cooperation of the press which have carried stories on this. But these measures would be implemented over different phases in the coming months and will be preceded, I wish to assure Dr Arthur Beng, by ample publicity and public awareness programmes. The first stage will be in the middle of this year when all children, below the age of 8 years,travelling in the front seats of vehicles must be properly secured with appropriate child restraint. The second stage for children will be four months later when children must be secured with child restraint in the rear seats where seat belts are available for their use. As for rear seat belts for adults, in the last quarter of this year, all rear seat belts, where available in the car, must be used by passengers. I stress "where available in the car" because this point needs to be noted. From next year, 1st January 1993, all new cars must be fitted with rear seat belts.”
“But the Ministry and the Police will discuss these concerns with SBC and see how, while SBC has to promote its entertainment mission, it can at the same time take into account these concerns which could have long-term effects. Let me go on to Dr Arthur Beng's points on road safety. I am glad to say that over the past decade, the road accident and fatality situation has actually improved considerably. This is despite an increase in the number of vehicles on our roads and increase in the population. Fewer people have been killed and injured on our roads. I would say that there has been some 32% improvement in fatalities, and 55% improvement in injuries resulting from road accidents. 3.45 pm One may ask, if the situation has improved to such an extent, why is there a need for other measures, like the measures which we announced a year ago, for child restraint seats and rear seat belts? Many parents do not realise how very dangerous it is to drive young children without restraints, or with the child sitting on their laps. The fact is that tests have shown beyond a shadow of doubt that in a collision, unsecured children could be thrown about within the car and can die or suffer serious injury. The irony is that the parents who are using the seat belts would probably escape serious injury. Also, the fact that this can happen even at moderate speeds which are common in city areas, the collision would exert such great force on an unsecured child, as Dr Arthur Beng said, the child could be flung against the wind shield or the dash board. Also, an adult holding a child acts as a propelling force on the child and can crush the child in an accident. Therefore, we must follow the example of other countries whose laws require that children should be secured in child restraints.”
“I do not think that we can produce conclusive proof that excessive violence on TV does have an effect on criminal tendencies or attitudes. 3.40 pm [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] But let me say this. My Ministry and the Police are quite concerned over excessive scenes of violence being depicted on TV programmes of late, propagation and glorifying themes like vendetta, undying loyalty and brotherhood among criminals. In fact, I have discussed this with my senior police officers including the Commissioner of Police, the Deputy Commissioner, Chief of Staff, Director of the CID and the Director of Police's Public Affairs Department. Their anxiety and concern in this regard is not so much with the immediate cause and effect, but what effects this could have in the long term on our youth, in terms of values and attitudes to violence, lawlessness and so on. My Police officials fear that too much of this on TV may inevitably lead to segments of our youth to believe that aggressive or anti-social behaviour is an acceptable way of dealing with others. The scenes mentioned by Dr Arthur Beng are illustrative. But I can best indicate the concern of the Police if I tell Members of the House that the Director of the Public Affairs Department of the Police informed me that he refuses to allow his 8-year old son to watch certain of these programmes, for the fear that he will learn the wrong values. I do not think he is alone in this. So when our top Police professionals tell us this concern, I think we should take note, because he is sounding an alarm bell. I realise that SBC must have its entertainment objectives and must air programmes that are interesting.”
“We have already announced the good results we have had from the computerised operations room which has resulted in greater effectiveness in Police response, the results we have achieved from the automated fingerprint identification system, and we are now moving into DNA fingerprinting and polylite. But this is not all. The Police will be doing feasibility studies into other advanced technology such as computer voice stress analyzer and computerised imaging system which should also aid investigations. Dr Arthur Beng asked about regional criminals and whether this will pose a problem for us. True, with the emergence of Singapore as a key communications hub, we are aware of Singapore's increased attractiveness to criminals and criminal syndicates in this region, and I share his concern. The Police will be vigilant and the Police have established close liaison with their regional and international counterparts in police agencies, because this is the only way that we can keep track of and monitor criminals who operate across different borders who may want to come to Singapore. In the past few years, there has been no significant increase in the number of offences committed by regional criminals in Singapore. Let me turn to his questions about the young, traditional values, street gangs and so on. As for teenage crime and street corner gangs, perhaps I should take this up when we come to the cut to be moved by Mr Choo Wee Khiang on youth involvement in secret societies. Dr Beng has raised quite an interesting point concerning the erosion of traditional values. He has posed the question whether the depiction of so much violence on TV could, in the long term, have adverse effects on some sections of our youth.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the points made by the Chairman of the GPC were law enforcement, crime trends, prevention and rehabilitation. I will not dwell on the good results which have been achieved in the reduction of crime rates. These have been publicised and, like him, I think the Police deserve congratulations for keeping these crime rates low and bringing them down, and also we should be grateful that the public has responded to the community oriented policing. Let me say that public perception and attitudes towards the Police have also been most encouraging. In a survey of public attitude towards the Police which was conducted last year by a private public relations firm, it was found that eight in 10 Singaporeans felt that Singapore was safer than most other countries, and three-quarters of those surveyed felt that the sense of general security had increased over the last five years. But as Dr Arthur Beng said, we cannot be complacent. We must build on public support. Sustaining the current downward crime trend, while difficult, can be done through continued close cooperation between the Police and the community. For the past five years, arrests made for major offences through public assistance have been high, between 35% and 40%, and the Police are confident that the public will contribute even more in the coming years as they build up the community oriented policing system. But to complement this, the Police will explore and further exploit modern technology for crime prevention and detection.”
“First, the Patent Cooperation Treaty of 1970, which I mentioned; second, the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1983, and third, a treaty known as the Budapest Treaty on International Recognition of the Deposit of Micro Organisms for the Purpose of Patent Procedure, 1977. Because of these procedures that are required, we expect the new proposed patent registration system to be implemented some time in 1994.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, the present patent registration system is rather costly, time-consuming and difficult. I am glad to say that the Government has decided to change the system. The Government has approved the proposals put up by the Ministry of Law and the Ministry of Trade and Industry for a revised patent registration system. In coming to this decision, the views of other Ministries, statutory boards, tertiary institutions, have been sought and the advice of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has been sought on the various options open to the Government. In the revised patent registration system, Singapore will become a party to a treaty known as the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) of 1970 which will give Singapore registry access to international search and examination reports which are conducted by seven PCT offices - Australia, Austria, Japan, Sweden, USA, former Soviet Republics and the European Patent Office. In other words, applicants may file their patent application in Singapore, and Singapore registry will grant patents based on international search and examination reports. Of course, the onus will be on the applicant to maintain a strong patent. The advantages of this new system are that, first, it will avoid on the part of the Government to invest heavily in the building up of fully-fledged search and examination capabilities. Secondly, it will save local applicants' time as well as cost. And thirdly, it should develop local patent expertise. The proposed revised system will mean that Singapore will have to join three international conventions.”
“And if there were complaints against the civil service, MPs have not failed to bring them up in Parliament or with Ministers or the Prime Minister, and these have been resolved. Since our present system has worked and we have people of integrity and competence, both in Government and the civil service, if we continue this, then the system will continue to work.”
“Similarly with the SIU, when complaints are addressed to SIU, these are investigated and replies given. Citizens write to the press, replies are given by Government departments. TV has Feedback, Points of View and other programmes. Then we have the CPIB. Of course, the CPIB really investigates the more serious complaints of corruption. But even when CPIB concludes that there is no offence of corruption but the facts disclose some wrongdoing which may warrant disciplinary action, the CPIB does refer the matter to the relevant department or Ministry and disciplinary actions are instituted. For these reasons, therefore, while the thinking behind the office of the Ombudsman is laudable, I do not see any pressing need at the moment for introduction of the office, because there are these other avenues. If I may add, Sir, we can devise, of course, as many new procedures, institutions and mechanisms that we can think of. But what counts in the ultimate analysis really is whether we have an honest government that does not cover up and does not condone abuse of power, wrongdoing, malpractices and corruption. Equally important is whether we have a civil service whose competence and integrity is beyond doubt. If we do not have these elements and this commitment and attitude of the Government, then no amount of Ombudsman can really prevent maladministration, because they themselves will be absorbed into this corrupt and incompetent administration. We have operated our system of government successfully without an Ombudsman for some 32 years. Mr Davinder Singh himself says we have an excellent record. There has been no major complaint of maladministration.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. Sir, it cannot be denied that the idea behind the office of the Ombudsman is in principle a good one, that is, there should be a check against maladministration and that citizens who feel that they have suffered an injustice or have any other grievance as a result of decisions of civil servants or Government bodies, have a channel to make their complaints and to obtain redress. Whether we should have the office of the Ombudsman in Singapore, the question really is whether there is a real and pressing need now for such an institution in Singapore. Or to put it in the way Mr Davinder Singh has put it, are the avenues and mechanisms available adequate or not adequate for those who have grievances on a Government decision and who want it to be looked into? If we quickly look at the available avenues, first of all, within Parliament, we have Question Time which MPs can use. And if it is used effectively, it can be quite a useful vehicle for taking on the Ministers and Ministries on specific decisions and policies, and MPs have done this. And MPs have meet-the-people sessions. Every Government department receives many letters and representations from MPs which are looked into and answers given. MPs also write to Ministers and I speak for the Frontbench when I say that when the Minister receives a letter from an MP, he looks into it personally, and it is not just handled by the civil servants. Then there is the Feedback Unit and the Service Improvement Unit (SIU) mentioned by Mr Davinder Singh. The Feedback Unit, established by Government, submits feedback to Government departments and they have to give replies.”
“We have taken an approach where the law applicable is Singapore law, there must be a Singapore lawyer involved, but we leave some area of flexibility for the client to decide which should be the precise role of the foreign lawyer vis-a-vis the Singapore lawyer. But what I wish to stress is that we must view international arbitration in Singapore in the context of developing our country as a financial international centre. As Mr Davinder Singh quite correctly pointed out, why should an international multi-national corporation or bank or financial institution which has an arbitration want to choose Singapore as a location? Or why would anyone agree to a clause in a contract providing that Singapore be the location or that the applicable law of the arbitration in the arbitral clause be Singapore law when they know in advance that they cannot bring their desired lawyer, whether he is a European, American or whatever, to appear before them in such arbitration proceedings? That is the nub of the question, Sir. 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. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. GOVERNMENT SECURITIES BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Davinder Singh for his support of the Bill. With respect to his specific question, last year I did have more than one round of informal consultations with the President of the Law Society and some of his Council members and other lawyers. I would sum up these informal consultations as follows: They have no problems with foreign lawyers appearing in arbitration where the applicable law is not Singapore law, but they would have some reservations for the appearance of foreign lawyers when it comes to arbitrations where the applicable law is Singapore law. One could perhaps say, from the viewpoint of the practising lawyers in Singapore, that their reservations are understandable. But from the viewpoint of Government, and indeed of Parliament, we should look at arbitrations not as the exclusive turf of any particular profession, but in the context of developing Singapore as an international financial and business centre. And as I pointed out just now, this international arbitration business is highly competitive. There are many other centres which are trying to get the same business. We in Singapore are the only country in the Commonwealth Common Law jurisdiction where we do not allow foreign lawyers to appear in arbitrations. The approach in the Bill has been crafted quite carefully and we have not overlooked the interest of Singapore lawyers. In fact, we could have taken a completely different approach. For example, the approach in England where anyone, including a non-lawyer, can appear in arbitration proceedings, whether the law applicable is English law or French law or whatever.”
“If the applicable law is Singapore law, foreign lawyers can still appear in arbitration proceedings if they appear jointly with a local practising advocate and solicitor. This requirement of appearing jointly gives flexibility to enable the client and the lawyers to decide whether the foreign lawyer is assisted by, or is to assist, the local lawyer. If Singapore law is the applicable law, then Singapore lawyers must be involved because logic and reason require this of us. This requirement of jointly appearing also acts as a safeguard as the local lawyer can advise the foreign lawyer on aspects of the local law which the foreign lawyer may not have expertise or sufficient expertise. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“In Malaysia, subsequent to the Turner's case, the Malaysian High Court in 1990 ruled in the opposite direction by deciding that American lawyers are entitled to appear in arbitration proceedings. I do not want to go into the legal merits of the Turner's case. But it is not in our interest that this uncertainty be allowed to remain. Whether the case was rightly decided or not, it has the unintended adverse effects on the commercial reputation of Singapore as a centre for international arbitrations. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre was set up in July 1991 to boost Singapore's status as an international trading and business centre. It is the third Asian country to set up such a body. The other two centres in Asia are Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong. Both these countries allow foreign lawyers to appear in arbitration proceedings. Furthermore, in the Asia-Pacific region alone, there are several other international arbitration centres such as Australia, Los Angeles and Vancouver, all competing for such international arbitral business. Hence, it is necessary to amend the Legal Profession Act to overcome the effects of Turner's case and to enable the Singapore International Arbitration Centre to be as competitive as the other centres. I might add, Sir, that in the Commonwealth Common Law jurisdiction we are the other country which does not allow foreign lawyers to appear in arbitration proceedings. The Bill before the House will amend the Legal Profession Act to insert a new section 34A to provide that the exclusive right of practising Singapore advocates and solicitors to practise law and act as an agent in legal proceedings will not apply to arbitration where the law applicable to the dispute is foreign law.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill was originally introduced last year in July, but it lapsed due to the dissolution of Parliament, and I have re-introduced it. Sir, the Bill is to amend the Legal Profession Act to clarify the position of foreign lawyers appearing in arbitration proceedings. Why is this clarification necessary? In the local case of Turner (East Asia) Pte Ltd v Builders Federal (Hong Kong) Ltd & Anor, which I will refer to it as the Turner's case, the Singapore High Court ruled in 1988 that foreign lawyers are prohibited from appearing in arbitration proceedings in Singapore where a dispute in Singapore involved questions of law and legal rights and obligations by virtue of sections 29 and 30 (which are now renumbered sections 32 and 33) of the Legal Profession Act. The Court's decision was based on the ground that these provisions of the Legal Profession Act provided that only practising Singapore advocates and solicitors can practise law or act as agent to a party in proceedings, which the Court interpreted to include arbitration proceedings. The Turner's case has attracted considerable local and international publicity and attention. It has given rise to both speculation and uncertainty as to the participation of foreign lawyers in international arbitrations held in Singapore. For example, one international journal (International Financial Review) reported after this decision, and I quote: "Singapore is no longer a place for international arbitration since its High Court removed the right of foreign counsel to appear in arbitral proceedings ...". Sir, in some other jurisdictions, arbitration proceedings are considered to be outside the scope of legal proceedings.”
“Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with Section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 113) approves the reclamation by Government of the foreshore and seabed off Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong Kechil containing an area of about 657 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/92" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (Motion)”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, in accordance with Section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 113) approves the reclamation by Government of the foreshore and seabed off Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong Kechil containing an area of about 657 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/92" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, the Government will reclaim about 657 hectares of land off Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong Kechil, and connect these two islands with a low land bridge. The area to be reclaimed is shown coloured pink in the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/92", a copy of which has been displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. The reclamation along the shallow waters of the two islands is part of the 2,480 hectares that can eventually be reclaimed in this area. By beginning the reclamation early, the land reclaimed can consolidate naturally. The additional land and the land bridge will maximise the interim recreational potential of the two islands. At a later stage, they will be developed for new towns and other uses. This has been explained in the Concept Plan and in the Addendum of the Ministry of National Development. The islands will then be connected to the mainland by the MRT and a major road through a tunnel or a bridge. The proposed land bridge linking the two islands will take into account the road and MRT alignment in the Concept Plan. Sir, the Housing and Development Board, as Government's agent, will carry out the reclamation at an estimated cost of $1.4 billion. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“It is interesting to note that he, in not so many words, dissociates himself from the Secretary-General of his political party. I think it is very serious to say that in 1972 there were violations of the Parliamentary Elections Act, but the only reason he did not pursue it was that legal expenses were involved. Elections irregularity is a serious matter. I am sure that if he believes that there were irregularities, he would have brought them before a court of law. Finally, Sir, I should also point out that he quoted Mr Lee Kuan Yew as saying in the court action in 1978 that the votes were not secret. I do not think Mr Lee Kuan Yew ever said that because he, in fact, in response to a request by Mr Jeyaretnam, gave an assurance that the vote was secret and Mr Jeyaretnam then publicised it in assuring the people that the vote was secret. In fact, as I said, when the question was put to Mr Jeyaretnam whether he accepted the assurance of the Prime Minister, Mr Jeyaretnam said that he did.”