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 36 of 66.
“Sir, I thank the Chairman of the GPC for his support for the various computerisation programmes. I think the concerns that he has expressed are indeed legitimate because many law firms are small firms and also I agree that problems can come about because of decentralized computerised projects and different databases. I also agree with him that the different computerised projects that we have involve different departments in my Ministry as well as in the Attorney-General's Chambers and other Government departments and also the Judiciary. To some extent, and I hope to a large extent, many of the problems that he has outlined may be met by a very significant computerisation programme called LawNet, which will cover the Ministry of Law, the Attorney-General's Chambers, the Judiciary, the Law Society and even the Law Faculty's resources. A LawNet National Council will soon be formed to provide a national umbrella, as it were, to integrate and coordinate these computerisation efforts in the entire legal sector. And the members of this Council will be the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, the President of the Law Society, the Dean of the Law Faculty, as well as myself. Who will benefit from this project? I would say not only the lawyers but also corporations and businesses which use legal services and, most importantly, the general public who require legal services. They will benefit because legal services will be available to them more speedily than now.”
“It depends on who is looking at it from which way. It can of course be said to also protect the interest of the lawyers in the sense that certain fees are fixed. But in the ultimate analysis, from my point of view, in these matters, it is the interest of the public that is paramount. MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1991 TO 31ST MARCH, 1992 Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [3rd Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Head M (cont.) - Resumption of Debate on Question [14th March, 1991], "That the total sum to be allocated for Head M of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100." [Mr Goh Chee Wee]. Question again proposed.”
“It must follow that when I said that I will review, it will be reviewed.”
“The thrust of Mr Heng Chiang Meng's question is diametrically opposite to what Mr Chiam is saying. I am not conversant at this stage with the details of the HDB transactions but I am under the impression that HDB transactions are in fact not governed by the scale fees under the solicitors' scale and that this benefits a large number of Singaporeans who purchase HDB flats. But since he has raised this point, this can also be a matter which I will refer to the committee for consideration.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on his first point concerning the review, I will be happy to refer this to those who are now charged under the Legal Profession Act with administering the scale. Under the Legal Profession Act, the decision on the scale fees is entrusted to a statutory committee comprising the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, the President of the Law Society, and two solicitors nominated by the Law Society. I will be happy to refer this matter to them and also to discuss with the Law Society the arguments for a review. As to his other point of allowing non-lawyers to do certain kinds of conveyancing, I am aware that in certain countries they have allowed banks and other agencies to engage in such work. Whether this can be done in Singapore or not, I think, needs careful consideration. The primary consideration must be the interest of the public who will be the clients and who will be the potential vendors or purchasers. We must also bear in mind that conveyancing is a highly specialised and indeed technical area of the law. But I would not like to preclude or pre-empt the decision to be taken on this. It has been done in other countries, perhaps it can be done here. But I would like to discuss this with the members of the legal profession and I assure the Member that I will take this up.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 1, after line 6, to insert - "(2) The President may appoint different dates for the coming into operation of the different provisions of this Act.". Sir, my explanation may be very brief. Since the Constitution (Amendment) Act itself has a provision providing that different provisions of that Act can be brought into operation at different times, it is logical that such an analogous provision be in this Bill also. Amendment agreed to. Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“Fifthly, to repeal section 3 of the Audit Act; and Finally, to make consequential amendments to the Interpretation Act, the Civil List and Pension Act, the Defamation Act, the Development Fund Act, the Government Contracts Act, the Internal Security Act and the Statutory Corporations (Contributions to Consolidated Fund) Act. In substance, I should inform Members that all the amendments in this consequential legislation follow from, and are consistent with, the constitutional amendments we have already adopted relating to the Elected President at our last sitting. Sir, I beg to move. 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. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 -”
“It seeks to make the following consequential amendments: First, to amend the Central Provident Fund Act, the Housing and Development Act, the Jurong Town Corporation Act and the Post Office Savings Bank of Singapore Act to provide that no person can be appointed as Chairman, member or Chief Executive Officer of the Central Provident Fund Board, the Housing and Development Board, the Jurong Town Corporation and the Post Office Savings Bank of Singapore without the President's concurrence under Article 22A(1) of the Constitution; Secondly, to amend the Currency Act, the Monetary Authority of Singapore Act, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act to provide that the President, acting in his discretion, may refuse to appoint any persons as - (i) the Chairman or member of the Board of Commissioners of Currency, Singapore; (ii) the Chairman or director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore; (iii) the Chairman or member of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony; or (iv) the Director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, and to refuse to revoke any such appointment if the President does not concur with the advice or recommendation of the authority on whose advice or recommendation he is to act; Thirdly, to amend these Acts to require the relevant statutory boards to obtain the approval of the President for their budgets before their adoption; Fourthly, to amend the Asian Development Bank Act, the Bretton Woods Agreement Act, the External Loans Act, the International Finance Corporation Act, the Loans (International Banks) Act, the Local Treasury Bills Act and the Treasury Deposit Receipts Act to provide that no loans or guarantees shall be raised or given by Government under those Acts without the President's concurrence.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, at our last sitting, the House approved the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill which provides for an Elected President who will exercise a safeguard role over the financial reserves and the integrity of the public services. Those changes to the Constitution which we approved in turn affect the provisions of many existing statutes, and therefore it is necessary to make consequential amendments to those statutes. Therefore, Sir, this Bill is really a technical and consequential legislation.”
“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. STATUTES (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Fair enough, we say that there can be a possible conflict of interest if he were to appear in the courts and argue cases before his brother judges. So that restriction should continue. But it is perfectly reasonable to allow a judge to go back to the practice of law. How many retired judges have actually wanted to go back? I know of at least two retired judges who have personally mentioned to me their sorrow and unhappiness that they cannot go back and dabble in the law, the field that they love, because of this restriction. There may be many more. The former Prime Minister has had greater experience and contacts with lawyers than I, but I know of two judges. And how many senior lawyers actually have been put off? I know of one recent appointment and he was most reluctant to take on the appointment. He is a very sound and able senior lawyer who was finally persuaded to take on the appointment. His reluctance was that he was not sure whether this is something he wants to do for the rest of his working life. He was prepared to consider it. He was prepared to give it a shot. But if it does not work out, if it is not what he wants to do, he would want to return to the law. If he has served three years as a judge, the law says, "No, you cannot go back." Why do we want to discourage him and other such able lawyers from considering judgeship? It does not make sense. I have met many others, and the Chairman of the GPC has also met other senior members of the Bar, who have told us that if we do not make an amendment along these lines, they would not even begin to consider the prospect of accepting judgeships. So it is a real problem. It is not a figment of our imagination. Sir, I think I have answered both questions. Question put, and agreed to.”
“The question is: either he has breached the law or he has not breached the law. If he has breached the law, then a prosecution would follow. If it is a civil case, if a politician is a plaintiff, either he has a good case in law or he does not have a good case in law. The law is well settled. It is applied by the courts. If Dr Lee Siew-Choh has had difficulties in getting representation or getting any Singapore lawyer, his conclusion is not necessarily the correct conclusion. The conclusion could also be that the lawyers he approached concluded that he had a pitiful case and they did not want to take on such a case and he had no case in law at all. So his conclusion does not follow. So I cannot accept the suggested amendment or variation he wants to make on QCs. As regards retired judges, I disagree with him that the proposed amendment would commercialise the judicial system in so far as it allows a retired judge to go back and practise law. Whether or not a retired judge is going to make a lot of money by going back to law in addition to his pension is not the point. The point is this. Let us say a person has retired as a judge after many years on the Bench. His life has been the law. Everyday he has been dealing with the law. Then he retires. If he is still physically fit, mentally sound, not senile, and he wants to go back to the only area in which he has been working in his adult life, why are we preventing him? It does not make sense that we say, "Look, you cannot go back and practise law." Most judges have a love for the law as an intellectual discipline and as a professional vocation. I think most retired judges would like to go back to the law and practise it.”
“Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. The Chairman of the GPC supports the amendments and so does Mr Davinder Singh. I think Dr Lee Siew-Choh also supports the amendments although I believe he has reservations on the amendment on QCs. So I shall just touch on the two points raised by Dr Lee Siew-Choh. First, his reservations on QCs. It would appear that he wants an amendment written in for cases wherever it involves a politician. This of course is absurd because such an amendment would be totally unwarranted. Let us not forget that very few countries in the world have a policy of allowing QCs whereby lawyers outside the legal system could come in and practise. We are one of the very few countries and we do it because we consider it is useful in our national interest, particularly in our efforts to develop Singapore as a banking and financial centre. But they must be admitted not for any routine simple case, because we have our own legal profession. If we take the NCMP's thesis to its logical conclusion, it means that in any case where a politician is involved, where he is prosecuted for a breach of the law, then automatically a QC should be allowed, even if it is a traffic summons regardless of the complexity and difficulty of the case. Our point is that whatever situation for which a QC is sought to be admitted, that case must have sufficient difficulty and complexity to warrant a QC being admitted. If it cannot be shown to the courts that there is this element of complexity and difficulty, then there is no need for a QC to be admitted. I think it is a very reasonable proposition. Dr Lee Siew-Choh's thesis implies that politicians have a certain amount of special immunity or basis for special treatment. There is no basis for that.”
“Conveyancing in Housing Developments Finally, Sir, the amendment concerning conveyancing in housing developments. This final amendment is also based on a proposal from the Law Society which is related to professional ethics. The amendment is to disallow a solicitor while acting for the developer in a conveyancing matter from also acting for the purchasers of other units in the same housing development. Sir, the Act presently covers the case where a solicitor acts for both the developer of a housing development and the purchaser in the sale of the same unit. But it fails to cover the case where the solicitor acts for only the developer in the sale of one unit and only for the purchaser in the sale of another unit but in the same housing development. To remove this lacuna, clause 8 will expand section 79(1) of the Act to incorporate the Law Society's proposal. I agree with the Law Society that this is undesirable as it could lead to a situation where conflict of interests could arise. It could arise, for example, where the solicitor by acting for the developer is privy to confidential information which may adversely affect the interests of the purchasers for whom he is also acting but in another conveyancing transaction in the same housing development, albeit two different units. The solicitor would thus be placed in a very invidious position where, whichever way he acts, he will be in breach of his duty to either one or the other of his two clients. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“In private practice, the period of pupillage is only six months which means that six months' experience in the Legal Service is equated to only one month of pupillage in private practice. Also, the seniority of legal officers in the Bar will always be two and a half years behind their contemporaries in private practice. With the diversity of legal work and tutelage of experienced senior legal officers now available in the Legal Service, this difference, in my view, is no longer justified. Sir, this amendment will boost the standing and morale of the Legal Service insofar as it removes the apparent discrimination against experience in the Legal Service. Qualification for Pupil Master If I may turn to the qualification for pupil master. Clause 3 will amend section 14 of the Act to allow a solicitor's period of service as a legal officer and conversely a legal officer's period of experience in private practice to be taken into account for him to qualify as a pupil master. This amendment will remove the perceived discrimination against experience in the Legal Service as not counting for such eligibility. The present situation is such that a former senior legal officer (who, if I may add, might also be conferred the title of Senior Counsel) cannot be a pupil master until after five years in private practice. Really, this is not logical as that officer was qualified to be a pupil master to legal officers when he was in the Legal Service. It deprives fresh law graduates of the benefits of the skills and experience of former legal officers. This amendment is also consistent with section 30 of the Act relating to Senior Counsel. In determining a lawyer's eligibility for appointment as Senior Counsel, section 30 recognises his experience in the Legal Service.”
“Where a law firm is negligent, the client will thus be assured of some financial compensation regardless of the firm's financial position. The Government agrees with this proposal and I would like to commend the Law Society for its initiative. Clause 7 will, therefore, introduce a new section 75A to give legislative basis for such a scheme. In order to give the Law Society some flexibility, the scheme can either be in the form of insurance or a fund. The provision will enable the Council of the Law Society to work out the details in rules to be made by the Council but subject to the approval of the Chief Justice. This provision, I might add, is modelled on a similar provision in the United Kingdom Solicitors Act 1974. Shortening of Pupillage for Legal Officers If I may turn to the shortening of pupillage for legal officers, Sir, it is important to the administration of justice and the efficient workings of Government that the Legal Service continues to attract and retain some of the best legal minds from the law graduates each year. Given the wide disparity in remuneration obtaining in private practice compared to the Legal Service, it is already difficult to attract good graduates to the Legal Service. But the problem is compounded by some provisions in the Act which discriminate against legal officers when compared to their counterparts in the private practice. These provisions may have been relevant in the earlier days, but now when the Legal Service has developed considerably, they would have to be reviewed. Clause 2 seeks to amend section 13 of the Legal Profession Act to reduce the period of pupillage from three years to six months for legal officers in the Legal Service. If I may explain.”
“A study done for me by two members of the academic staff of the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore on admission of QCs for the period 1985 to 1989 showed that commercial law cases formed the majority, some 60%, of cases where QCs were admitted. It is desirable that they continue to perform this role. Therefore, any amendment which we craft to ensure that there is no abuse and that QCs are not admitted for the very simple, routine or uncomplicated cases, must not shut the door to admission of QCs in those areas where solicitors are especially needed, particularly in banking and commercial law sectors. Obviously, it will take some time to develop a significant pool of local litigation lawyers who can service the requirements of Singapore as an international financial and commercial centre. When we will achieve that is difficult to predict. In the meantime, however, we should not deprive our financial and commercial centre of the assistance of QCs. The proposed amendment will allow the Courts to continue to liberally admit QCs for the important and complex commercial and banking cases. The Government has consulted the Judiciary on the amendment. I have also discussed this amendment with the Attorney-General and the lawyers, including the President of the Law Society. This approach is acceptable to them. Professional Idemnity If I may now turn to the question of professional indemnity. The amendment is proposed by the Law Society, and it is to protect the public generally and clients of lawyers in particular. The amendment empowers the Council of the Law Society to establish a compulsory scheme for professional indemnity for all practising lawyers.”
“But I also added the following that: " ... the legislative policy is very clear. They are obviously to be admitted for cases of complexity or difficulty where the needed skills or experience or the specialist knowledge is not readily available here. To put it in a different way, Parliament never envisaged or contemplated that they should be admitted for the routine or the ordinary or the simple case which can easily be handled by Singapore laywers." I also said that Government will give careful consideration to the kind of amendment that should be made and I will consult the Judiciary and the Law Society. Sir, the existing section 20 of the Legal Profession Act allows QCs to be admitted on an ad hoc basis. The discretion is vested in the Courts. The problem is that the existing provision does not give any criterion or guidance to the Courts except merely to state that the QC must have "special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case". What the proposed amendment before the House seeks to do is to meet this gap by adding a criterion that the Court must be satisfied that the case is one of "sufficient difficulty and complexity" to warrant a QC being admitted. It is important to note that this amendment leaves the decision to the Courts. This is underscored by the fact that the amendment also states that the Court shall have "regard to the circumstances of the case". Sir, this amendment better reflects the original intent of the legislature while, at the same time, preserving the exercise of discretion by the Courts. We have taken some time to craft this amendment because Government considers QCs to perform a useful role in our efforts to be the leading commercial and financial sector.”
“I agree that it would not be proper for a former judge to appear before his ex-colleagues on the Bench as he may then appear to have an undue advantage over other lawyers, but this restriction should not be so wide as to remove him altogether from the practice of the law. Such a wide prohibition is not only not logical but also discourages able lawyers from accepting appointments as judges. There should therefore be no objections to allowing a former judge practising only as a solicitor, without appearing in the Courts. Therefore, Clause 6 of the amendment Bill seeks to amend section 26 of the Legal Profession Act to allow a former judge to apply for a practising certificate enabling him to practise as a solicitor but without the right of audience in any Singapore court. Queen's Counsel If I may turn to the question of Queen's Counsel. Members will recall the debate we had on this matter last year during the Committee of Supply. The Chairman of the GPC for Home Affairs and Law, Dr Arthur Beng, noted the increasing tendency to use QCs for cases which are not complex and he expressed the fear that such a trend could impede specialisation by local lawyers. Mr Davinder Singh believed that QCs continue to play a useful role in Singapore but he felt that there must be "stricter guidelines" to limit admissions of QCs "to highly complex matters". Mr Shanmugam on his part also felt that QCs provide a useful service and we should not shut the door on them altogether. But he felt that the present system should be reviewed to "tighten the rules" so as to ensure that "only in really necessary cases ... QCs are admitted". In response to them, I said that the rationale for admitting QCs continued to be valid and the practice should not be stopped.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill has four main objectives. Firstly, it amends the provision on admission of QCs (Queen's Counsels) to provide some criteria on which applications can be decided. Secondly, it removes the restriction in the Act which prevents a retired judge from practising law. Thirdly, it enables the Law Society to introduce a compulsory professional indemnity scheme. Fourthly, it makes the Legal Service more attractive by removing provisions which in some way discriminate against officers in the Legal Service. Limited right to practise for former Judges If I may touch, Sir, on the first point about the limited right to practise for former Judges. I think Members will know that there has been publicity recently to the importance of appointing more judges to reduce the backlog of cases in our Courts. During the parliamentary debate on the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill in 1989, I informed the House that Government was reviewing the provision which disqualifies a former judge of the Supreme Court who has served on the Bench for three years or more from applying for a practising certificate. That provision follows the settled convention in Britain, Malaysia and other Commonwealth countries that former judges do not re-appear as advocates in the courts over which they had presided. Sir, while there may be good reasons why a retired judge ought not to resume practice in the Courts before their former colleagues on the Bench, I think to exclude them from the practice of the law altogether would be too wide a restriction.”
“For the moment, I think extending our legislation to service marks is already a step forward and perhaps we should have some experience in that area first. The second point raised was with regard to the reasons for the deletion of reference to Part B of the UK Register. In response, let me say that, first, at the moment there is no reciprocal recognition of such rights where the United Kingdom is concerned. Secondly, it is also not the practice in most of the other jurisdictions, to the best of my knowledge. Thirdly, it might unduly hamper the discretion of our own Trade Marks Registry in adopting suitable criteria for registration. Finally, it will not enable us in Singapore to develop our own system of registration. Of course, these considerations will also apply to the registration of service marks. I hope I have answered the two queries by the Chairman of the GPC. 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. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 -”
“Sir, I thank the Chairman of the GPC for Law and Home Affairs for his support. He has raised two points. One is why the Bill has not provided for the registration of retail service marks. Sir, for trade marks or service marks, protection can be said to be more or less perpetual in duration, and it serves the dual purpose of protecting the goodwill of traders and establishments as well as preventing consumer confusion. Therefore, it is necessary to have a clear, specific definition of retail service marks. Part of the problem on the question of retail service marks is that it is very difficult to have a clear and specific definition of a retail service mark. I consider the definitions which have been suggested to my Ministry to be too wide for our purposes and will pose problems. The definitions which have been suggested, for example, may in fact cover more than what is intended, such as services other than retail services, petrol kiosks providing cleaning of windscreens, checking and topping of engine oil, battery water, also the sale of provisions like optical shops selling spectacles and so on. I am not per se against the idea of considering the registration of retail service marks. But before we embark on such legislation, we need to see whether the problems that can arise from imprecise definition can be avoided. I should also add that some of the established jurisdictions on trade marks and service marks by the United Kingdom and the United States do not extend protection to retail service marks. But let me assure the Chairman of the GPC that if and when other established jurisdictions do venture into legislating for retail service marks, I will be prepared to review the matter.”
“I should add, however, that these provisions on service marks will only be brought into operation after the Registry of Trade Marks has made the necessary administrative preparations to deal with the huge initial surge of applications which can be expected, as was the experience in the United Kingdom and Australian Registries. For example, when service mark registration was introduced in Australia, applications for such marks were 50% more than the normal trade mark registration applications. The Bill also modifies the requirements for the registration of trade marks under Part B of the Trade Marks register. Presently, a trade mark for consideration under Part B must have been in Singapore for not less than two years prior to the date of application and be capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods. The criteria for determining distinctiveness are less onerous than those for the main part. This provision was copied from the old United Kingdom Trade Marks Act of 1919. However, this requirement was omitted from the subsequent United Kingdom Trade Marks Act because of the unnecessary delay caused by the requirement as to use. This condition precedent of two years bona fide use of the mark in Singapore will be deleted to expedite registration in Part B of the Act. Sir, currently the Act provides that where any mark has been registered in Part B of the United Kingdom Register, the proprietor of the mark may apply to have it registered in Part B of our Register provided that there are no conflicting marks on record. It is proposed that reference to Part B of the United Kingdom Register be deleted. My Ministry has consulted the Law Society on these amendments and several of their suggestions have been taken into account. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill has two main aspects. First, it is to provide greater protection for trade marks against infringement and against sale of counterfeit products. Secondly, it also introduces the registration of service marks. On the first aspect, Members know that there has been a growing problem in respect of counterfeit goods sold in Singapore. This has been compounded by the related problem of touting caused by the sale of such counterfeit goods. Parliament has already acted in June 1989 to enhance the penalties for touting. That alone, however, is not enough. It is also necessary to provide more severe penalties for the sale of counterfeit goods to protect the rights of owners of these goods who have invested heavily in research, design, pro- duction and marketing. The proposed new penalties are consistent with those in other related Acts, such as the Copyright Act, Consumers Protection (Trade Descriptions and Safety Requirements) Act. On the second aspect, the existing Trade Marks Act does not provide for the registration of marks used for distinguishing services offered in the course of trade or business. Many establishments in Singapore offer services in their trade or business and they use distinguishing marks for that purpose. These are useful business assets and the proprietors should have a right to their exclusive use. The present trend world-wide, including the United Kingdom, is to provide for legal protection of service marks. The introduction of service marks would benefit Singapore entrepreneurs as such marks enhancing the identity of business operations are the foundation on which market reputation and recognition stand.”
“The Land Surveyors Board supports the Bill. It will be brought into operation simultaneously with the Architects Bill and the Professional Engineers Bill when they too have been enacted. Mr Speaker, this Bill, as I said, had been drafted in consultation with the Land Surveyors Board. However, in order that individual professionals, as well as other related professional bodies, may have the opportunity to present their views on the new provisions in this Bill, I propose to commit the Bill to a Select Committee after today's Second Reading. It is connected with the Architects Bill and the Professional Engineers Bill which have also been referred to a Select Committee. I have discussed with my colleague, the Minister for National Development, who is in charge of those two Bills and both of us recommend to you, Sir, that instead of having three separate Select Committees, the Committee of Selection appoint one Select Committee to consider all these three Bills as they are all related. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, That the Bill be committed to the Select Committee appointed to consider the Architects Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. PARKING PLACES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Sir, the Bill also provides for the issue of practising certificates to registered surveyors in private practice and statutory boards. This will enable the Land Surveyors Board to take disciplinary action against a registered surveyor if he fails to renew his practising certificate. At present, a surveyor's name is automatically removed from the register if he fails to renew his certificate of registration. Therefore, a recalcitrant surveyor could avoid any disciplinary action intended against him by merely not renewing his certificate of registration and be at liberty to continue practising as a professional surveyor in activities not regulated by law, such as construction and engineering surveys, topographical mapping for development planning and design, and other consultancy services which are not regulated by law. The Bill also abolishes the present fixed scale of fees payable to a registered surveyor for undertaking title survey work. The amendment will enable private registered surveyors and statutory boards to quote their own fees. The only scale of fees to be prescribed will be those payable to the Survey Department for rendering statutory services in connection with title surveys. Registered surveyors will take these prescribed fees into account in their quotation of fees for title survey jobs. This amendment will stimulate competition, promote efficiency and enhance the quality of such professional services. The Bill also provides for the appointment of an Investigation Committee by the Land Surveyors Board to investigate complaints against registered surveyors or licensed corporations and partnerships. This will improve the disciplinary procedure because the Board investigates and hears the complaints against any registered surveyor.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill repeals and re-enacts with amendments the existing Land Surveyors Act, Chapter 156. It is related to two other Bills which were moved by the Minister for National Development at our last sitting, namely, the Architects Bill and the Professional Engineers Bill. They are related in that they enable multi-discipline corporate practice for allied professionals. The Bill enables registered surveyors to form partnerships or unlimited companies with persons who practise in related professions in the building and construction industry and for the licensing of such corporations. Other aspects of the Bill are to abolish the prescribed scale of fees payable to registered surveyors, to enlarge powers of the Land Surveyors Board in disciplinary matters and to provide for the issue of practising certificates to registered surveyors. Sir, the rationale for allowing the proposed multi-disciplinary practice was well stated at the last sitting by my colleague, the Minister for National Development. Major building projects require integrated inputs from architects, engineers and land surveyors. This Bill will allow land surveyors to team up with architects and engineers to form such multi-discipline corporations to provide comprehensive services. The growth and formation of such multi-discipline consultancy firms would give greater credibility and better competitive edge for international consultancy works. Provision is also made to include other building professionals as and when required. This amendment is also proposed in the Architects Bill and the Professional Engineers Bill.”
“So you see, Sir, although the Adjournment Motion baldly speaks of harassment, the substance of what Dr Lee Siew-Choh raised were essentially legal issues which ought to be taken up in another forum, another place, another time, if there is a court trial and the few instances of harassment are not really harassment. He gave examples of other fund raising and so on. I do not have details of how those funds were collected. I certainly cannot recall the PAP or any other political party which has had to pay legal cost and damages going around house to house or streets pestering people to give them money. But if the police have a report that any individual or group has in fact violated the provisions of the House to House and Street Collections Act, or violated the provisions of any other law, I have no doubt the police will investigate. There is nothing to stop people from giving donations to the Workers' Party or any other political party. The only observation I will make is that I would expect that those involved in this process will comply with the provisions of the law. So, Sir, I do not think there is anything else that I need to say about this.”
“In fact, Sir, when I received a copy of the notice of Dr Lee Siew-Choh, I had to ask the police and the Ministry officials what could it be about. Then I was told that the only possible thing could be that there is this ongoing investigation. So I said, "What could be the things which the police have done that have prompted this Adjournment Motion?" The Member has referred to certain matters. Somebody vomited. The facts are: this person who vomited turned up for questioning. After he vomited, he said he had not had breakfast. What did the police do? They stopped the questioning and told him to take time off for a meal. Is that harassment? Another person told the police when asked to come for questioning that he had recently been ill. So the police said, "In that case, you do not have to come down to our place. We are prepared to come to your house to interview you." But he chose instead to come down on his own to the police premises to answer questions. Is that police harassment? The Secretary-General of the Workers' Party and others who were asked for questioning told the police that the dates given for the interview were inconvenient and therefore they would not come. The police gave them alternative dates. Is that harassment? The Secretary-General, Mr Jeyaretnam, and others also insisted on having certain documents before they agreed to attend questioning. And the police gave them those documents. How is that harassment? Searching the house at 11.30 pm, midnight? I do not know. These are operational matters which we must leave it to the police. I would just assume that that is to ensure that the person is in the house and premises when the search takes place. How is this harassment? Have doors been broken down? Have people been assaulted? Furniture damaged?”
“He has said that he did not think it was an offence under the House to House and Street Collections Act. He refers to the seizure of bank accounts. He says there is no power under section 58 and section 68. I have not looked at these sections. But whether the police have power or not is a matter to be argued before a court of law. And I am sure the Workers' Party has lawyers in its committee, or amongst its members, to raise these issues properly in court if the matters come up to court. Dr Lee Siew-Choh says they are harmless and legitimate activities. If they are so, then there is nothing to worry about. He says the police action is illegal. There are remedies for this. If the Member considers that these legal issues are at stake, are they to be raised here? Whether or not seizure of the money was properly done in accordance with the law? The police have had a long experience in implementing laws and provisions of the Penal Code or the Criminal Procedure Code relating to seizure of bank accounts. I find it inconceivable that in this case they would have transgressed the law. So these are questions of law which were raised, ie, the guilt or innocence of the Workers' Party. It is not for me to decide, not for Members here to decide. It is for the courts to decide should the matter come up to the courts. And it has not even reached that stage. So it is highly premature. Now, harassment. What harassment? When the police have a report, they have to investigate. They have to question people who they believe may have information or knowledge about the alleged offence. There are well established procedures, whether it is for seizure of documents, search of the premises and so on. And there are provisions in the law governing what is permissible and what is not permissible.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I was listening to Dr Lee Siew-Choh, it became clear that the Adjournment Motion was being used for no other purpose than to raise and prejudge certain matters which may or may not come up in a court of law. And I think it is highly undesirable and, in fact, highly inadvisable to have used processes of this Parliament and opportunities it gives to do such a thing. Let me explain. When the police get information or report that an offence might have been committed they have to investigate. What is an investigation? What does it entail? It entails questioning of people, taking of statements, obtaining documents, exhibits, and whatever in connection with that matter for the police to arrive at some conclusion as to whether or not there is cause for putting up papers to the Public Prosecutor. And the Public Prosecutor has to decide whether there are grounds to prosecute, whether an offence has been committed. In other words, when the police have an ongoing investigation, there may be a prosecution or there may not be. There may be a court trial. It depends on the police investigation. It depends on the Public Prosecutor's decision. Is it desirable? Is it advisable to discuss details here which may form the subject matter of a court case should there be a prosecution? By all means, raise matters which one considers to be abuse of police powers or harassment, which is the wording of the motion. But under the guise of an Adjournment Motion, I do not think one should bring into this House issues of guilt or innocence, in this case, of the Workers' Party or any of its officials. It is not for this House to decide. It is totally improper to ask this House to consider these matters. Let me just indicate evidence of such abuse.”
“The reclamation will be carried out in three phases over a 10-year period from 1991 to the year 2000. In view of the Gulf crisis, the timing of the reclamation will be reviewed if there is any further significant increase in oil prices. SPECS Consultants Pte Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of PSA, will be the Government's agent for the reclamation. Sir, I beg to move, Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 113), approves the reclamation by the Government of that portion of foreshore/seabed at Changi East containing an area of approximately 1545 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN 5/90" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. ADJOURNMENT TO A DATE TO BE FIXED (Motion) Resolved, "That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“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 the Government of that portion of foreshore/seabed at Changi East containing an area of approximately 1545 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN 5/90" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, the Ministry of Communications and Information and the Ministry of Defence have jointly proposed to reclaim approximately 1,545 hectares of the foreshore and seabed at Changi East. This is to create additional land at Changi for future airport expansion and for relocation of the Republic of Singapore Navy's (RSN) naval base at Pulau Brani. The proposed reclamation is shown coloured pink on the plan marked "Land Office Reclamation Plan No. 5/90", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. Approximately 820 hectares of the reclaimed land will be used for future airport expansion. Based on the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore's long-term projections of passenger and aircraft movements, a fourth passenger terminal and a third runway may by required around the year 2006 and 2013 respectively. Approximately 125 hectares will be for RSN's Changi Naval Base development. The Changi Naval Base will replace the Pulau Brani Naval Base which has to make way for PSA's container port expansion. Approximately 315 hectares will be set aside for industrial and recreational uses. The balance area of approximately 285 hectares will be taken up for roads and replacement beaches.”
“Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 113), approves the reclamation of the foreshore/seabed in the channel between Sentosa and Buran Darat containing an approximate area of 69 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN 4/90" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. RECLAMATION (Changi East)”
“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 of the foreshore/seabed in the channel between Sentosa and Buran Darat containing an approximate area of 69 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN 4/90" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Trade and Industry proposes to reclaim about 69 hectares of the foreshore and seabed in the channel between Sentosa and Buran Darat which is an existing islet off the south-eastern coast of Sentosa. The area is shown coloured pink on the plan marked as "Land Office Reclamation Plan No 4/90", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. The proposed reclamation will link Buran Darat to Sentosa and will create choice sites at the east of Sentosa for private participation to develop a 400-600 berth marina, a resort hotel, up-market private housing and other commercial developments. This would enable us to maximise the potential of Buran Darat which is currently unutilised. The construction of the bridge link from the mainland to Sentosa will provide the critical mass that will make the reclamation of Buran Darat a logical development. This reclamation is estimated to cost $106 million. The Sentosa Development Corporation, as agent of the Government, will undertake the reclamation which will take about 2(r) years to complete. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Religious harmony and racial harmony are far too important for us and we cannot take things for granted. The Bill therefore is a preventive measure which we should put in place. I would say that the best case scenario is that no occasion arises where we need to invoke this Bill. But if one day some individuals, irresponsible or just thoughtless or mischievous, embark on a reckless conduct which can threaten religious harmony, then we would have this limited mechanism in place which can be invoked in a restrained manner to ensure that it does not succeed. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“But in most cases, a less severe, more limited, measure may suffice. Sir, preserving religious harmony is not just a high sounding goal for us in Singapore. I think it is crucial for our survival as a nation. We are young, we are a small nation with people from many races, religions and languages. We can ill-afford to have religious or racial strife or conflicts which plagued other countries. Just consider the very sad situation in India where many have died and suffered - both Muslims and Hindus - over the dispute concerning the construction of a Hindu Temple in Ayodhya on the site where a mosque now stands. In the last General Elections in 1989, a Hindu-revivalist political party campaigned for the removal of constitutional safeguards for Muslims and that India should be established as a Hindu state. After the elections, the party further exploited the issue to garner political support from the Hindus and proposed to demolish the mosque, built more than 500 years ago, and to build a new Hindu temple. Thus, the dispute not only pitted religious group against religious group, but also was made into a political issue with all the resulting disastrous consequences. The national unity of that country has been threatened. We here cannot and should not judge the merits of that problem. But I am sure all in this House and all Singaporeans will agree with me when I say that we must never allow that to happen here. Imagine that nearly a hundred thousand people had been detained. Imagine such a strife and conflict taking place in Singapore, in our tiny Republic. Where would we find places to detain so many thousands of people? And if it takes place here, would Singapore ever be the same again after such a conflict? I think the answers are obvious.”
“First, it was pointed out that clause 9 of the Bill was not complete because it did not cover a situation where an individual who was not a member of any religious group, through conduct or speech, nevertheless, caused enmity, hatred, etc, between different religious groups. So an amendment is made to clause 9. Likewise, it was pointed out that the original Bill provided for the Presidential Council for Minority Rights to be involved in the appointment of members of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. But there is no such mention with regard to removal. This is now taken care of by an amendment. Sir, those are some of the amendments which I have touched on. I should also point out, as stated in the Report, that although it was a general principle, which was emphasised during the Second Reading, that the method to tackle this problem cannot be judicial review or to be left to the Court, quite a number of representors made representations advocating that the final recourse should be with the Courts. Opportunity has been taken by the Select Committee to set out in a fairly detailed manner all the reasons why the Select Committee considered that this ought not be the solution. These reasons are fully spelt out in the Select Committee Report and it is unnecessary for me to repeat them. Sir, if I may conclude. What we have in this Bill is really a mechanism which has been crafted to deal with the kind of problems that I summarised at the beginning of my speech. Of course, we can deal with such persons with other legislation that exists. We can take them to the courts, prosecute them, have a criminal conviction, or if their actions are more grave, even to deal with them under the Internal Security Act.”
“The third category of amendments is connected with the composition of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. There was a host of ideas and suggestions about the provisions relating to the Presidential Council. The Committee has accepted quite a number of these proposals, for example, there should be a minimum number stipulated, two-thirds of the members should be representatives of religious groups, the terms of office of the Council members ought to be varied subject to a minimum of one year, so that there would be continuity, ie, the whole Council would not be vacated at the same time. Fourthly, there is provision for qualifications and disqualifications for Council members which are modelled on the provisions of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. Provision for a quorum is another example. The fourth category of amendments are those designed to improve the procedures to be followed both before and after an order is made. Amendments in this category are, first, a new provision that when the Minister sends the Notice to the individual of the intention to issue an order, it should be accompanied by grounds and allegations of fact. Secondly, a new provision that the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony is empowered to hear individuals in person if they consider it necessary. Thirdly, every order should be reviewed at least once a year. As regards the fifth category of amendments, several representors thought that in certain respects, there were gaps in the Bill and the Select Committee has made amendments to address these concerns.”
“The change also is that the President acts on Cabinet's advice except where, as would be provided in the Constitution, Cabinet's advice is contrary to the recommendation of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, in which case, the President, acting in his discretion, can refuse to confirm the order. This would be consistent with the proposed safeguard role of the Elected President in the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 3) Bill which is before the House and this will take effect after that amendment is enacted. This important change achieves several objectives. First, it is not just the Minister, but the entire Cabinet which is involved in confirming the order. It formalises what invariably takes place in practice. If I may remind colleagues, Cabinet comprises Ministers belonging to many different faiths. The second advantage is that the President is involved, and the third objective is that it takes into account the proposed additional safeguard role for the Elected President in regard to this Bill. The effect of this is that the recommendations of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony cannot be lightly ignored by the Minister and Cabinet. The second category of amendments are those which address the concern of the element of subjectivity in clause 8. In this regard I will just refer to two amendments. First, the deletion of the phrase in clause 8(1)(a) "prejudicing the maintenance of harmony". This has been deleted and it will meet the concern of those who felt the subjective element in clause 8(1)(a) should be reduced. Likewise, in clause 8(1)(d) the amendment which establishes a nexus between the concept of exciting disaffection and the abuse of religion would meet the concerns of those who felt that that limb was too wide.”
“In that situation, even if he had ample grounds to act, some may believe that there was a likelihood of bias. Some of the written representations also echoed these concerns. I had pointed out that in actual practice, no Minister acted alone isolated from Cabinet. Dr John Chen proposed that the reference to Cabinet could be written into the Bill. I said I would be prepared to consider this and I also referred to the model of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act under which the procedure is the Minister first makes the order, it is referred to an Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee makes its recommendation whereupon the President must confirm the order, acting on the advice of the Cabinet. I assured the House that we would discuss this. The Select Committee did take this into account in making a major change to the process of making an order. Under the original Bill, the Minister makes the order. After he has received the representations of the individual and religious organisation, he has to have regard to their views. Likewise, after the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony gives its views, the original Bill prescribes that the Minister would make the decision whether to modify or rescind the order. This has now been revised by the Select Committee. Under the revised procedure, the Minister makes the order in the first instance after sending the Notice to the individual. There is no change there. However, the change is that all orders must be confirmed by the President within 30 days of receipt of the report of the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. If the order is not confirmed, it will lapse.”
“Dr John Chen urged that the practice of the Minister consulting Cabinet would be usefully incorporated in the law and this has been accepted. Let me now proceed to discuss the amendments made by the Select Committee. The detailed reasons for the amendments are set out clearly and I would not repeat them. I would categorise the main amendments under the following. First, amendments which address concerns that the Bill frames the individual Minister's powers in rather excessive terms and that there should be additional safeguards. The second category of amendments are those which dealt with concerns that clause 8 of the Bill has language which is subjective in nature and might give rise to difficulties. Third, amendments concerned with the composition of the proposed Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. Fourth, amendments designed to improve the procedures to be followed before the making of an order and after the order is made. The fifth category of amendments are those which dealt with so-called gaps in the original Bill. Let me take the first category, ie, concerns that the Bill was drafted in such a way that the Minister's powers may seem absolute or excessive and that there should be additional safeguards. During the Second Reading in this House, some Members expressed concerns that on such a potentially delicate and sensitive matter as religion, it should not appear that a single Minister has absolute or excessive powers, especially since the Bill also provided that the merits of the decision would not be reviewable in the Courts. A variation of this concern was that a difficult situation may arise when a Minister may have to act on a complaint by a religious group to which he himself belonged.”
“I welcomed suggestions which could improve the Bill, ideas that could make the Bill more workable, practical and effective. I also said that this must be within certain parameters. The Bill must be a mechanism that enables us to nip problems in the bud and enables quick, prompt and pre-emptive action. I also reminded colleagues that this is not a law to decide religious issues or theological issues. It is a law to ensure public order and to deal with people whose actions can threaten religious harmony. I also listed as another parameter that such matters have to be decided by the Executive and are not matters to be decided either by the religious groups or by the judges. I, therefore, Sir, intend to focus on the Report of the Select Committee and on the amendments made to the Bill by the Committee. Members will know from the Report that the Committee received some 79 written representations, the majority of which were in support of the Bill. From the nearly 20 amendments which the Select Committee has made to the Bill, it must be clear to Members that the Committee has made a serious effort to address the valid concerns expressed to the Committee. The Committee did not just confine themselves to the views put forth by the representors. They also took into account views expressed in this House. Let me give you some examples. Mr Chandra Das suggested that the term "Prohibition Order" should be changed to "Restraining Order" and this has been accepted. Dr Dixie Tan proposed that while the provision on the secrecy of the proceedings of the Presidential Council might be retained, she advocated that the final recommendation of the Council ought to be published. This has also been accepted.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Sir, I do not propose to restate all the arguments and the reasons for this Bill for that would be burdening the House with a repetition of arguments which have been presented on more than one occasion. In fact, we have had two Second Readings of this Bill. But if I may just recapitulate quickly, the purpose of the Bill is preventive, to nip problems in the bud. It is to prevent matters from escalating and creating tensions, frictions and conflicts between different religious groups. Fortunately, the majority in each religious group in Singapore are conscious of the need to be tolerant and sensitive in our multi-racial society, parti- cularly in the manner they go about practising their faith and persuading others to join them. The problems are usually caused by a small number of people who are either insensitive, thoughtless, irresponsible or worse mischievous, and these few people must not be allowed to jeopardise the precious religious harmony that we have maintained all these years. The full and detailed rationale for the Bill was set out in the White Paper on the "Maintenance of Religious Harmony" presented to this House in December 1989. That White Paper also had a compilation of actual incidents in Singapore which illustrated that the kinds of problems which the Bill addresses are real problems and not academic. We have had a full debate on the Second Reading in February this year on an earlier identical Bill. During that Second Reading, Sir, I said that the views expressed in this House would be considered carefully. In referring the Bill to a Select Committee, I also said that the Government did not take the position that the Bill could not be improved.”
“Under the proposed Article 148D of the Bill, if the President blocks the budget of the Government, against the advice of the Council, then by a two-thirds majority, Parliament can reverse the President's veto. However, if we look at the Council of Presidential Advisors, there are six members. In a case of three votes against three votes, the Council will not be able to advise the President. Under such circumstances, bearing in mind the number of members in the Council of Presidential Advisors it would seem to be a conflict with Article 148D of the Bill. I would like to seek a clarification from the First Deputy Prime Minister on this matter too. Under the proposed Article 5(2A) of the Bill, if there is any need to amend the powers given to the Elected President, then there are two ways of doing it. One is to amend it with the consent of the Presi- dent and a two-thirds majority of Parliament. The other way is to get a two-thirds majority of the general electorate voting in favour of such an amendment at a national referendum. Between the two ways, I feel that the former is much easier than the latter. For this reason, I suggest that the second way be altered by providing that the amendment be made by a two-thirds majority in Parliament followed by a simple majority in the national referendum. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. 2.30 pm”
“It would serve a useful purpose. If we have a good government which is always acting in the interest of the people, then this kind of government will not require any form of supervision. But if it is a bad government, then very often this kind of bad government will abuse its powers for their own political or personal interest. Under these circumstances, this kind of bad government may abuse the laws and powers where the Ministers have the absolute power without being subject to review by the court. For example, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, the Internal Security Act, and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill which has been read a Second time. So, if part of the functions of the President is to supervise over the implementation of these laws, then the Government will be unable to abuse its power. Here, I would like to ask the First Deputy Prime Minster why the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act is not included in the functions of the Elected President. What I mentioned above gives an indication as to the advantage of having a good President against a bad government. If we have a good government but, at the same time, we have a rather uncooperative President and a Council of Presidential Advisors, what would the situation be like? In that kind of a situation, we can expect the President to frequently go against the Government, and then the country and the people may suffer in the end. Under this Amendment Bill, there is no mention as to what kind of solution can be provided to deal with such a situation. This may be the inadequacy of this proposed Bill. I hope that the First Deputy Prime Minister can explain this to the House.”
“Fortunately, over the past 31 years, the Singapore Government has not been doing things according to its own whims and fancies or abusing its powers. So, in this respect, it is the good fortune of the people of Singapore. But good fortune may not stay foreever. If at any time, should there be a bad government winning a general election in future, and in order to fulfil its promises of welfare services and other benefits made during the election campaign to win votes, it will have no alternative but to draw down the reserves of the country. By do doing, all the reserves that we have built up over the years will go and vanish into the air. But with the veto power of the President, we will have some safeguard for our people's savings. So, I feel that this is a major change for the protection of our people's savings. It is a proposal in the interest of the people and, therefore, worthy of our support. All this while, the Government has been adopting a policy of meritocracy. Only those who are talented and capable are selected to head the various Government departments. These Government departments, in coordination with the development of the other sectors of our economy, enable us to progress steadily in our economy, security and maintenance of law and order. In order to pave the way for its own convenience and in order to reward those who had contributed to its well-being, a bad government may make radical changes to the departmental heads. As a result, it will be detrimental to all that we have achieved in the past. The damage to our economy, security and stability may be far too great to be described in words. Having a President with a veto power over such matters, we could, at least, prevent a bad government from commiting all kinds of outrages.”
“Members will recall that in 1986, the Legal Profession Act was amended and one of the purposes was to provide that the Law Society would assist the Government and the courts in all matters affecting legislation submitted to it. After the Second Reading vote has been taken, we will submit this legislation to the Law Society. I will point out to them that this legislation, being technical, new, and unique in many respects, I think we can benefit from the views of the legal experts, especially Constitutional law experts in the profession and we will invite views on the specific provisions and whatever improvements they have on the Bill. But I must make it clear that obviously we are not inviting political pronouncements on the issue whether to have an Elected President or not. That is a matter for the Government and Parliament to decide. I think I should clarify that, because Members will recall that some years ago, the then Law Society leadership took on itself to make political pronouncements on the amendments to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act and we made it clear that this was a matter for Parliament and the Government to decide. But I am sure, and I am confident, that the legal experts in the legal fraternity can contribute to improvements and strengthening of the provisions of the Bill. Dr Low Seow Chay( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I support this Bill. We are practising a unicameral Parliamentary system. Under the Constitution, a Government with a majority of seats can do practically anything it desires, although it may have to face queries by Members of the House. The policies of the Government need not be blocked or examined by any party at all.”
“The latest amendments now before us for the Elected Presided, in my view, must be seen in this context. Our Constitution must evolve in a way that takes into account our special circumstances and our special problems, including problems that we may have down the road, which have been pointed out by the First Deputy Prime Minister and many Members. The test must be not whether it is unusual or unique, but whether it is an amendment that will serve the long-term interest of our nation. In my view, the Elected President concept is a good check and balance, a safeguard in the form of a blocking mechanism. It is really an insurance against disaster from which we may not recover. Do we know of any big corporation which operates without taking insurance? Is there any big corporation which takes pride in telling its shareholders that they are unique in facing pitfalls in the future without any insurance? What more when it comes to the future of our country? I would, therefore, strongly commend the amendments, but I am sure this being a novel and unique legislation, it can be improved in many respects. And I am sure the First Deputy Prime Minister and the Select Committee, which will be set up, will consider not only the views which have been expressed in the House, but other views which will be submitted to the Select Committee. Finally, Sir, in response to Mr Chandra Das, Chairman of the Feedback Unit, who mentioned yesterday that the Law Society probably ought to be invited, I wish to assure him that my Ministry will be writing to the Law Society to invite its views on the specific provisions of the Bill.”
“But it is a wise move for our own circumstances. The fifth milestone was in 1988 when the Constitution was amended to provide for Group Representation Constituencies, the objective of which was to ensure that whatever happens in the polls, there would always be in this Parliament a minimum number of representatives from the minority groups, whether from the Government Party or Opposition Parties. Is that good or bad? Obviously, it is a plus. But it does place a fetter on the Government because it will make it that much more difficult to ensure that we have the candidates for fielding in an election. Now, the sixth milestone was earlier this year, when the Constitution was amended to provide for Nominated MPs. Again, as a result of this amendment, not only will we have Opposition MPs, NCMPs, but yet another group of MPs. I would say this is yet another example of a self-imposed burden on the Government. It is a burden because you will have another group in this House who, on some occasions, may agree with Government, but I have no doubt, if they are men of convictions, they will also criticise the Government. But I think it is a useful innovation in the long-term interest of our country as it helps to provide greater ventilation of constructive views in Parliament. I have traced this contextual development, Sir, to show how our Constitution has evolved, how we have shaped and moulded the Constitution, and these major milestones have been guided by what is necessary in Singapore's long-term interest. These changes which I have described show that many of the changes resulted in imposing restrictions or Constitutional constraints on Government itself. The Government need not have made theseamendments. But I think they were necessary and they were useful.”