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 38 of 66.
“Sir, when we adjourned yesterday, several speakers have spoken under this item and we did not have a chance to reply. I propose to do so now. The matters raised by Dr Wong Kwei Cheong on touting and Encik Yatiman on the Woodlands Checkpoint will be dealt with by my colleague, the Senior Minister of State. I propose to deal with the other points. On the points raised by Dr Ho Tat Kin on illegal parking, the strategy adopted by the Traffic Police is two-pronged - first, persuasion, public awareness and public education and, secondly, strict enforcement measures. Besides public education, enforcement has indeed been stepped up. In 1988, 172,000 summonses were issued for illegal parking. This figure increased by 17% in 1989. The number of vehicles towed away last year was 4,243 compared to 1,555 in 1988. Besides towing away of illegally parked vehicles, other measures which have been resorted to are increasing the fines for illegal parking, increasing the fines for towing away of vehicles and for storage of illegally parked vehicles. I agree with the Member that there should be stiffer punishments for cars which deliberately obstruct the flow of traffic and in this regard the Traffic Police is paying special attention to this matter. They will step up the measure of towing away, particularly where an illegally parked vehicle obstructs traffic, especially in busy thoroughfares. As for clamping device, unfortunately, this can only be used under certain circumstances, such as a confined area, because if it is used on a busy street, even though a car is parked illegally, it does not enable the car to be removed quickly to facilitate traffic. Between use of clamp and towing away for busy thoroughfares, towing away is a better measure.”
“Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1990/91, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“First, on the question of promotion, whether it will be done annually or twice a year. I am aware of the concern which the Member has expressed. But when I announced the salary revision and the General Police Scheme of Service, I also announced that promotions will be held annually from now onwards. So this takes care of that problem. As for the assets seizure law, perhaps the details would be best left to discussion as and when the first draft of the Bill has emerged. I am sure the problems raised by the Member will not only be tackled then but there will be a host of other similar concepts which will have to be attended to by the draftsman and by the Government. May I suggest that the specific questions he raised as to how many post-graduate officers will be sent for training abroad and the availability of how many scholarships for 'A' level officers, perhaps these are details that can be taken up when the GPC has its regular consultations, because I do not have the information with me.”
“So we will have to make a careful study not only of the laws of other countries but the experience of other countries in overcoming some of these problems. Our draftsmen will have to come out with the law which best suits our purposes to meet our problems and which is best for our legal framework. So it may take some time before the law will be ready. But I am glad to say that we have decided that we will proceed with the enactment of such a law.”
“There will also be provisions for the seizure of assets to be carried out upon court conviction for offences related to trafficking, manufacturing, importing, exporting of drugs. The drafting of this law will not be an easy task, because I do not envisage our draftsmen simply adapting or copying the laws of other countries, because the laws of other countries are framed in legal contexts which are different from ours. To give you one problem. What do we do with the ill-gotten gains of those big-time traffickers who are under preventive detention, under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act? They have not been convicted by a court. They are drug traffickers and they may have assets. Should they be exempt? That is one of the questions which none of the assets seizure laws of other Western countries deals with. Because if they cannot convict a drug trafficker, he goes off scot-free. There is no such thing as preventive detention. Next, we must also ensure that there are safeguards to take care of the point which Dr Arthur Beng mentioned, ie, to ensure that there will be no abuse of this law, such as unwarranted or unjustified requests for information on bank accounts. We must make sure that when information is sought, it is for valid and bona fide purposes and not on the pretext of some other excuse. As for individuals, this law will have to make provisions to safeguard the interest of innocent third parties, because illegal drug proceeds may be intermingled, either intentionally or otherwise, with assets of legitimate businesses. How do we take care of these problems? Provisions will also have to be included to protect financial institutions or other agencies which extend their cooperation to the authorities to disclose information without consent of the client.”
“To enable greater coordination amongst the various HQ staff and to meet the projected space requirements of the SJCDF, we now have plans to redevelop the Bendemeer Camp into a headquarters complex. This new complex is scheduled for completion in 1995. Meanwhile, during the interim period, the Bendemeer Camp will be renovated and the working conditions there made more efficient and suitable for these new functions. Dr Arthur Beng then spoke about assets seizure. I believe he raised this because the question was asked of me last year and I said that this was a matter to which we would give careful consideration. I am glad to inform Members that the Government has decided to proceed with the enactment of assets seizure law for drug traffickers. We already have some of the toughest laws on drug trafficking - death penalty, preventive detention for those whom it is impossible to prosecute in court, caning and so on. And for the addicts, we have DRCs. Why enact an assets seizure law? In our view, an assets seizure law will be useful as a further weapon in our package of legislative instruments to deal with the problem of drug trafficking. The proposed assets seizure law will provide powers in the following areas: tracing, freezing of assets and confiscation of assets of drug traffickers. To prevent a suspected trafficker from liquidating or transferring his assets, the prosecutor will have to have the power to apply to the courts to freeze the assets identified. Also, we will have to make provisions for the custody of these assets and there can be various kinds of assets, not just cash. This is where some of the complication arises. In some other countries, they have had the problem of taking custody of boats, aeroplanes and so on.”
“And here I am glad to inform the Member, Dr Ho Tat Kin, when he asked about specialised rescue units which he referred to as DART. Let me explain. There are now three specialised squads in Civil Defence. In other words, search and rescue squad which is involved in rescuing people from high-rise situations; secondly, an MRT strike force which was an outfit trained to operate in MRT tunnels; thirdly, the blitz squad which was raised for ground rescues. With the integration of the Fire Service and Civil Defence, the Singapore Joint Civil Defence Force is converting the three squads into one single smaller and effec- tive rescue force which will have diverse expert rescue capabilities. The acronym for this new specialised rescue squad is DART (Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team). The intention is that this new rescue group, DART, will be fully operational by 1991 and will have a strength of three platoons comprising 109 specially selected men, specially selected because of their fitness, their experience, their courage and their leadership qualities. I expect that DART will probably be the most experienced and quick response team in Singapore. In fact, the first platoon has already been formed. Under DART, a platoon will be always on call 24 hours to be able to respond immediately to any disaster rescue situation. He asked about coordination of different commands and stations. With the integration of the Singapore Fire and Civil Defence into the Joint Civil Defence Force, the HQ staff of the new organisation are now housed in two separate locations - Bendemeer Camp and the former IE building at Paterson Road.”
“We have not decided on the option of three years, for the reason that the amount of time and energy involved in training a new police recruit does not warrant giving a three-year contract. So much energy is put into it and so much time is spent in the training of a new police recruit, I think that for optimum results we need a longer period of contract and we think six years strikes a good balance. Let me now go on to the Members' comments on civil defence. I think Dr Arthur Beng and Dr Ho Tat Kin touched on this. First, may I say that part of his comments on the Fire Safety Bureau will be dealt with by my colleague, the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs, when he answers Mr Lau Ping Sum's questions later on, because these two are related. As for the update on the Civil Defence and Fire Service integration, I would like to say that we are pleased with the way things are going and there are some good indicators to show that the integration has yielded positive results. First of all, the integration which involves the headquarters and the divisional HQs of both forces has resulted in more effective and speedier responses to the public in the provision of fire fighting, ambulance and rescue services. For example, the percentage of fire calls responded to within 8 minutes has increased from 70.8% one year before integration to 79.1%, 10 months after integration. That is a significant improvement. False alarms for fire and ambulance services have reduced by 31% when we compare one year before integration to 10 months after integration. It is reduced by 31% from 4,953 to 3,410. Next, with integration, Civil Defence has been able to look at overall improvement of important matters such as rescue services.”
“As for the Police Academy, there are plans to relocate the existing Police Academy in Thomson Road to a different site because the existing site at Thomson Road has to be freed for other public development purposes. The Ministry is now considering an alternative site, I believe in Yishun, and to develop a new Police Academy there. The proposed new Academy of course will be the main training institution not only for the Police but I also hope that it can be a training institution for other related law enforcement organisations, especially now that we have the Police General Scheme of Service like CNB, Prisons, and so on. But it is premature for me to go into more details when the plans are still in a fluid state. Questions were asked about what we have in store for training of police officers. First, Police intends to develop specialist officers in different areas of policing such as CID, commercial crime, and this was mentioned by Dr Ong Chit Chung, white collar crimes, and what was mentioned earlier in the debate on the Ministry of Law, computer crimes. There are new areas where we will have to train officers, particularly when the legislation of computer crimes comes into force. Secondly, Police intends to upgrade the contents of the course which are now conducted in the Police Academy by setting up subject-based units. In other words, these units will be staffed by specialist officers who will develop curriculum in their respective fields such as community policing, police tactics, operations and so on. Dr Ho Tat Kin asked about the recently introduced concept of contracts, why not three years instead of six years?”
“As for post-graduate specialisation, what we envisage is that the outstanding police officers will be given post-graduate scholarships to pursue courses in not only police-oriented subjects in specialised colleges abroad but also in subjects such as public administration, security management in prestigious institutions overseas. Officers with good potential will also be sent to foreign police colleges either in the United States or United Kingdom. If I may turn to the points raised by Dr Ong Chit Chung and Dr Ho Tat Kin. First, let me deal with the point raised by Dr Ho Tat Kin on murder cases. I think we should view figures carefully. If the murder rates have gone up, it may be of interest to Members to know that if we take the figures for the past 10 years on murder rates, about 50% of all murders each year are crimes of passion, ie, murders committed in that kind of situation. Although any murder should cause concern, we should particularly interested to examine the figures for murders which were committed in the course of commission of a crime, such as murders committed during the course of a robbery. That is a good indicator of lawlessness and state of crime. Crimes of passion, while we wish we can reduce them, are not easily preventable. I am glad to say that if you look at the figures for the past 10 years, murders committed during the course of robbery, that category has never exceeded 20%. We will watch the figures carefully. But it is good to know that the figures are under control and they have not gone to the heights which exist in some other urban cities.”
“So here too there will be healthy beneficial sharing of talent, which is very important, because if you look at it in one way, the Police is the agency which has the greatest share of talent whereas the Prisons and Narcotics Services are smaller groups but yet are expected to perform very important law, order, security functions. Once we have the Police and Civil Defence Services Commission with the Police General Scheme of Service, it enables a flexibility which will not only be good for law enforcement but it is also good for the better officers in these Services. I now turn to the specific questions asked by the Members. Career profile - we can only answer it in general terms. We expect that for a junior officer, he would spend, say, the first two years of his career as patrolman where he learns the basic policing skills. During this period, his performance and aptitude will be closely monitored by his superiors. After the two years, he will be streamed into one of the specialised areas of policing such as inves- tigations, community policing, traffic, CID, and so on. If the officer is found suitable in the specialised area, he will be given advanced training. Similarly for senior officers, they will spend the first two years as investigators, after which they will be streamed to respective specialised areas according to their aptitudes. Next question that Dr Arthur Beng asked was about training of recruits. Under the proposed General Scheme of Service, the officers will be recruited into their respective branches - Prisons, Police and Narcotics - as the case may be, according to their attributes. The majority will serve their career there, and it is only the better selected officers who will be cross-posted.”
“In other words, each branch - Police, Narcotics, and Prisons - will continue to be responsible for recruitment of the staff to the three branches. Most of those recruited will serve their careers in the three branches, but the better officers, more outstanding officers, those who have the potential, will be selected for cross-posting. Therefore, it will be these officers who will have to be trained for different roles as and when the occasion arises. Related to this is the other development of the establishment of a Police and Civil Defence Services Commission. This is a proposal contained in a Bill, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 2) Bill, which will be taken through its final stages (Second Reading and Third Reading) sometime next week. The Police and Civil Defence Services Commission, like the proposed Education Service Commission, is one of two sub-Commissions of the PSC which will be established. There are advantages. It is hoped that this sub-Commission over a period of time will gain sufficient familiarity and in-depth knowledge of the requirements of the Services, that means, the Police General Scheme of Service and the Civil Defence Scheme of Service, as well as have an in-depth knowledge of the various officers. It will enable the sub-Commission to make decisions not only on career development, postings, promotions, but also it will be able to take decisions on transfers as between the Services, that means, from the Police General Scheme of Service to the Civil Defence Scheme of Service.”
“Sir, if I may first take up the questions on the Police raised by Dr Arthur Beng, Dr Ho Tat Kin and Dr Ong Chit Chung. With the salary revision, we hope and are confident that the Police can get a share of good and talented recruits. But as Dr Ho Tat Kin said, everyone, private sector and public sector, is competing for the limited talent pool. So I do not want to mislead Members that although we may be more successful this round, I think Police will always face a manpower problem. It is important that the Police takes conscious attempts to maximise whatever resources they have and this is what the Commissioner of Police plans to do - to concentrate available resources on priority functions of crime prevention, crime detection, law enforcement, order and security. Apart from the salary revisions, one of the two other important recent developments touched on by the Member was the Police General Scheme of Service under which there will be three components - the Singapore Police Force, the Prisons Department and the Narcotics Service. The advantage of this new General Police Scheme of Service is that although you have three different branches, it will enable the sharing and infusion of talents vis-a-vis the three branches. And it will mean that there can be cross-postings of the more outstanding selected officers which will be beneficial for them as it will expose them to wider aspects of law enforcement problems, including rehabilitation problems. It will be good for their career development. But in answer to Dr Arthur Beng's question on training, we do not envisage that every recruit into the three branches of the Police General Scheme of Service will have to be trained in everything.”
“Sir, I will be very brief. First, the Management Services Department did a study of the manpower requirements of the Legal Aid Bureau and they recommended after the study, that there was no need to increase the manpower of the Legal Aid Bureau except for certain clerical staff, ie, support staff for the legal officers. I am glad to say that after discussion with the Director of the Legal Aid Bureau he does not think there is an urgent need to increase the number of legal officers because he is concentrating on matters such as productivity improvement and computerisation of case files, management of cases, which will really improve the tracking of cases and files in the Legal Aid Bureau. As to raising the minimum income ceiling, I realise that it has not been increased for some time, but what the Member should note is that of the many thousands of cases, about 9,000 each year, the Legal Aid Bureau is able to accept as much as 80% of all those who apply.”
“Sir, the appointment of Senior Counsel is a matter that has been vested in the hands of the Senate of the Academy. I cannot give directions to them, and they in their wisdom will decide on who will be appointed and when they will be appointed. As to consultation, I take it that it is axiomatic that the Minister for Law will never do anything without consulting the GPC!”
“Mr Davinder Singh asked for a progress report on the points he raised last year about the Insolvency Bill. I am glad to say that the Attorney-General's Chambers has now prepared a first draft of the Insolvency Bill which touches on some of the points he spoke about and the first draft of this Bill has been sent to the Law Society as well as to the Institute of Certified Public Accountants for their comments. Thereafter, we will improve the Bill and here again I hope that the Bill will be in a shape that we can present it to Parliament.”
“It says: 'QCs can be admitted who in the opinion of the court have special qualifications or experience of a nature not available amongst advocates and solicitors in Malaysia.' So there are various possible solutions to remedy this problem. I repent that I will have to discuss this matter with the Judiciary, the Attorney-General and the Law Society. Obviously something has to be done. Secondly, on computer crimes, the Government has been concerned with this area which was touched on by Dr Ho Tat Kin, Mr Lau Ping Sum and Dr Low Seow Chay. Therefore, we have had an inter-Ministerial committee formed by representatives of the CID, Commercial Crime Division, Auditor-General's Office, Attorney-General's Office, National Computer Board and Monetary Authority of Singapore. They have studied the problem and have in fact come out with a report with recommendations to have legislation meet the areas where there may be gaps at the present time. This includes the areas touched upon by the Members - hacking, wilful destruction, alteration of data or programmes, theft of computer time and services and so on. They have recommended that there should be a separate omnibus legislation to deal with the problem of computer crime. I would like to assure the Members who have expressed concern that the report of this committee will be sent to the various interested bodies, both in the public and private sectors, for their views, after which the Ministries of Law and Home Affairs will jointly make proposals to Cabinet for the enactment of legislation on computer crime. In short, the matter is being considered by the Ministries and we hope to see some legislation during the course of the next year.”
“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 lawyers. It is for this reason, I believe that the scheme for the provisions of QCs also allows for the Law Society, in addition to the Attorney-General, to specifically put their views on each application of a QC to the court. So if they have objections, they can and should register the objections with the court, because then the court taking note of all views expressed before it can make a decision. I too have had feedback from lawyers expressing the same concern of the three colleagues that the system of admission of QCs has gone in a direction which might have not been intended by the legislature and that they are being admitted for the simple, routine and ordinary cases. Such a trend not only was never contemplated or envisaged by Parliament, but I agree with the Members that one unhealthy consequence of this would be that it will stultify the growth of a specialist bar in Singapore. It will impede the growth of a core of good litigation lawyers in Singapore. As to what needs to be done - whether we need to amend the law or whether we need to have a committee, like Mr Davinder Singh suggested, to provide stricter guidelines or do we need more radical surgery, as Mr Shanmugam suggests, possibly with a view to splitting the profession - I will have to discuss and I will discuss these matters with members of the Law Society, the Attorney-General and also seek the views of the Judiciary. I should mention parenthetically that the provision in Malaysia is narrower.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first can I respond to Dr Arthur Beng, Mr Davinder Singh and Mr Shanmugam's comments on Queen's Counsel? I think the best way I can respond to it is by answering Dr Arthur Beng as to what was or could have been the legislative intent when our Legal Profession Act provided for admission of QCs. It is worthwhile recalling that QCs are allowed to come in because we the Government and Parliament specifically have so provided for in the Legal Profession Act. The reason why we allow QCs to come in is really public interest and national interest, ie, it is a recognition of the fact that there are cases or there can be cases of such complexity or difficulty that there may not be the local expertise here or there may not be enough of the local expertise here to provide that kind of skills to handle cases of such complexity and difficulty. If that is the reason why QCs were allowed in and why the Legal Profession Act provided for it, I would say that reason continues to exist. With Singapore trying to be a leading financial and commercial centre, we will have this need for expertise to handle difficult and complex cases. So I too share the views expressed by the three of them that the practice of allowing QCs should not be stopped and it should continue. The specific provision in the Legal Profession Act says that QCs can be admitted on an ad hoc basis where "he has special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case". So 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.”
“I just asked him what he meant by the Attorney-General being "personally involved". Did he mean that there was no improper motive but that the office of the Attorney-General was involved in giving advice and he confirmed that that was the interpretation. If that is so, will it make him feel happier if a lesser official than the Attorney-General were to sign the opinion?”
“If that is so, then there is no difference between this case and many other cases where applications are made to the President for pardon. Drug traffickers who are sentenced to death appeal to the President for clemency. Many other criminals do so. And all criminal prosecutions in Singapore are under the charge of the Public Prosecutor who is the Attorney-General. Therefore, should the Attorney-General refrain from giving his advice to the President in all these other cases?”
“When Dr Lee Siew-Choh says the Attorney-General was personally involved, do I take it that he does not impute any improper motive but that the office of the Attorney-General was involved in the prosecution? Am I right?”
“Because when Mr Jeyaretnam applied for a pardon, his application for a pardon was based on the Privy Council judgment. So the President needed advice on the implications of the Privy Council judgment and the Attorney-General in giving his advice not only did not act improperly, he was carrying out a duty which the Constitution places on him.”
“Sir, I will be brief because both points are essentially old points. In July 1986, Mr Jeyaretnam brought up in this House the same point, that the Attorney-General had reached the age of 55 on January 1984 and since there was no gazette notification in announcing his extension, therefore there was a doubt about the legal position of the Attorney-General. Presumably, the fact that there was no gazette notification in January 1989 has led to this question being asked again. And I have to give the same answer that the Attorney-General, Mr Tan Boon Teik, is still Attorney-General. Because after the expiry of his term of office under the first extension in January 1989, his term was extended by another three years. But there is no need to gazette this appointment because there is no requirement in the Constitution to require such gazetting. The second point is that he says the Attorney-General ought not to have advised the Cabinet or the President on the implications of the judgment of the Privy Council. Sir, if the Attorney-General, is not to advise, the Government on a matter which the Government seeks or the President seeks legal advice, then who is to advise the Government? Dr Lee Siew-Choh should have a look at Article 34(7) of the Constitution, which I will read: 'It shall be the duty of the Attorney-General to advise the Government upon such legal matters and to perform such other duties of a legal character as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the President or the Cabinet and to discharge the functions conferred on him under this Constitution.' It is a duty of the Attorney-General. That is what he did when he was asked by the President or the Government to advise on the implications of the Privy Council judgment.”
“Sir, Members may be interested to know that the existing system for the making of transcripts for civil cases is from handwritten notes of the Judges which are transcribed, I believe, by the Private Secretary of the Judge. For non-civil cases, there are teams of verbatim reporters. Of course, under this sytem, the preparation of the transcripts can take several weeks. The pilot project was a pilot project to evaluate the feasibility of a mechanical system of recording the proceedings and obtaining a transcript faster than the existing system. It was introduced in 1988 in three courts. The results of the pilot project, I understand, will be evaluated this year. I have spoken to the Registrar of the Supreme Court who has informed me, not surprisingly, that there are definitely advantages with the mechanical recording. The advantage is that the transcript can be obtained much faster. The extent to which it will be applied to all the courts and how soon this will be done are, of course, decisions which the Judiciary will take. But I understand that it will depend on the evaluation of the pilot project. Also, the implementation of this system does require a highly trained staff. So not only will it depend on evaluation of the pilot project, it will also depend on the availability of trained manpower and funds. I am afraid I am not able at this stage to give more information than that. But on his final point, if and when it is introduced in all the courts, I am quite sure that the consumers will be pleased because they are able to obtain the transcripts faster. I must envisage that they will have to pay for part of this increased efficiency and I am confident that they will not begrudge the extra payment.”
“Sir, I understand the concern expressed by the Member. The figures in the Budget book do not mean a lack of plans for the Subordinate Courts. I understand from the Judiciary that the number of Subordinate Courts until recently was 26. In 1988 six more were added. So there are now 32 Subordinate Courts. I understand that the Judiciary has plans to increase the number of Courts by an additional 22, and they will be putting forward proposals to the Ministry of Finance and PWD. If I may elaborate. The plans which the Judiciary has to improve the Subordinate Courts include the following. First, sometime this year, hopefully in June, the Ministry of Labour's present Headquarters will be taken over by the Subordinate Courts so that there can be space for additional facilities. Secondly, it is hoped to construct a new annexe building at the site adjacent to the existing Subordinate Courts Complex, in which can be housed the Courts' Civil Division. Thirdly, there will also be renovation and relocation works to be done internally in the existing Subordinate Courts Complex. The costings for all these works are being undertaken by the PWD and will take some months to finalise, after which the necessary project paper for funding will be submitted to the Development Planning Committee. When the funds are approved in time, these will then be reflected in the Development Estimates for the ensuing financial year. Mr Loh Meng See: Sir, I am very happy with the Minister's reply. I beg to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“The answer is simple, Sir. This practice and procedure for appointment of Judges is something that we have had in our Constitution from time immemorial. It is a practice rooted in good precedents from other Commonwealth countries, and there is no reason to change it just because the Workers' Party has criticised it. I forgot to mention, Sir, that the Member has repeated the point about the Chief Justice and the constitutional amendment we made last year. I must state for the record that there was no mistake which was regularised. It was the Workers' Party's Secretary-General who raised it as an issue in the Privy Council. It was not adjudged, but because he raised the issue and raised it out, that was to put it beyond any doubt.”
“The Constitution, I should add, Sir, has requirements for the Prime Minister to consult the Chief Justice in respect of Judges. Here again, Dr Lee Siew-Choh is wrong in making out that this is some provision or practice that is unique to Singapore and therefore it should comes in for criticism. That is not so. This provision is to be found in Malaysia and many other Commonwealth countries. In fact, I would like to invite Dr Lee Siew-Choh to let me know how many former Commonwealth countries in fact do not have a system where the Prime Minister recommends to the Head of State on the appointment of Judges. He has said that this system has brought about criticisms from abroad and locally. As far as I know, the only criticisms, innuendoes and insinuations about the process of appointment of Judges or about the Judiciary have come from the Workers' Party and Mr Jeyaretnam.”
“Thank you. Sir, I can be brief because this is nothing new. It is a repetition of points which have been made in this House by Mr Jeyaretnam and more recently by Dr Lee Siew-Choh. First, appointment of Judges for fixed terms. This is not a provision which is unique or special to Singapore. The appointment of Judges or Judicial Commissioners for fixed terms to the Bench is to be found in the Constitutions of many countries, particularly Commonwealth countries. Malaysia and other Commonwealth countries have similar arrangements. It is common even in England where Commissioners of Excise, now called Deputy Judges, hold short-term appointments. And not only that, Sir, in England, Judges there as well as in other Commonwealth countries hold office as Judges beyond their normal retirement age for fixed periods and, even in some cases, just for specific cases. For example, I understand in England, Lord Justices of Appeal who have retired are appointed ad hoc to hear cases. This is nothing new and I had explained on previous occasions why in Singapore we have difficulty in getting some of the most talented, the ablest, the best of our legal practitioners to take up judgeships. I have explained in this House that even when they are persuaded, some of them are not prepared to do it indefinitely. They themselves request that they do it for one or two years. Some of them may stay on, but others might want to go back to their practice. Secondly, he says that there is too much power given to the Prime Minister because under the Constitution, the Prime Minister is involved in that the Judges are appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.”
“Sir, can I take it that Dr Lee has spoken on both his amendments.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, "ice" is a crystallised form of methamphetamine which is usually consumed through smoking. The Central Narcotics Bureau has not detected any case of such drug abuse in Singapore. Our laws, however, have adequate provisions to deal with this problem if it should surface here. Methamphetamine is a controlled drug listed under Class B of the First Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act, the trafficking of which is punishable by jail sentence of at least three years and not more than 20 years and also to caning of at least three and not more than 10 strokes. As for those caught abusing "ice", they can be admitted to the drug rehabilitation centre for treatment and rehabilitation. In addition, they are also liable to prosecu- tion in a court punishable upon conviction to a jail sentence of not more than 10 years or a fine of $20,000, or both. COMMODITIES BROKING FIRMS (Measures to regulate and monitor business activities) 5. Dr Ho Tat Kin asked the Minister for Finance how many unlicensed commodities broking firms there are in Singapore; and what measures are being taken by the Government to regulate and monitor the business activities of these firms.”
“Sir, in answer to the question asked by the Non-Constituency Member, the supplementary provision is really for payment of agency fees to the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) for acting as Government's agent in State Land sales. Agency fees are paid to URA for presale matters relating to tenders and after-sale services. These services include the identification and clearance of sales sites, tender specifications, processing of tenders and the collection of premiums that are due to the State. The rates of agency fees are always duly cleared by the Ministry of Finance. I do not have the details here, but if the Member wants the details I shall be happy to supply them. Dr Lee Siew-Choh: I would like to withdraw, Sir. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $12,915,150 for Head S ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April 1989 to 31st March 1990. Question, "The sum of $61,290,490 shall be supplied to the Government under the Heads of Expenditure for the Public Services shown in the First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1989/90", put and agreed to. Head T - The sum of $1,055,014,100 for Head T ordered to stand part of the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April 1989 to 31st March 1990. Question, "That the sum of $1,055,014,100 shall be supplied to the Government under the Head of expenditure for the Public Services shown in the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1989 to 31st March, 1990", put and agreed to. Resolutions to be reported. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“Sir, I have ascertained from the Registry of the Supreme Court that this additional request is for payment of legal fees to assigned counsel in criminal cases and criminal appeal. If the Member wants a breakdown of this, I shall be happy to get it for him.”
“4 of 1990) AND FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE (Paper Cmd. 5 of 1990) FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1989 TO 31ST MARCH, 1990 Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair]”
“SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY BILL "for making supplementary provision to meet additional expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1989 to 31st March, 1990", recommendation of President signified; presented by Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Co-operative Societies Act (Chapter 62 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister of State for Community Development (Dr Seet Ai Mee); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. CENSUS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Census Act (Chapter 35 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Mah Bow Tan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. STATISTICS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Statistics Act (Chapter 317 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Mah Bow Tan; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY MAIN ESTIMATES AND FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES FOR FY 1989/90 (Business Motion) Resolved, That notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the First Supplementary Main Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1989 to 31st March, 1990 (Paper Cmd. 4 of 1990) and the First Supplementary Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1989 to 31st March, 1990 (Paper Cmd. 5 of 1990) be taken today. - [Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau]. FIRST SUPPLEMENTARY MAIN ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE (Paper Cmd.”
“Sir, first, as an aside, although the Ministry of Home Affairs is responsible for many things, Customs does not come under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Sir, let me state the Government's position. The Government cannot, and will not, interfere with a person's religious preferences in respect of his own personal life and private habits, such as food or dress attire, so long as these do not offend public decency and morality. But they cannot insist that such personal preferences be imposed on others or on Government in order to change established norms that are observed outside of the sphere of one's private life. The practice of allowing Sikhs to wear turbans is a carry-over from the British days. In the 25 years since Independence, no religious group has had any problems with Government's uniform regulations. The Government cannot agree if any individuals or groups should insist that because of a change in their religious practice, rules and norms which have been established for decades since colonial times should be upset. BILLS INTRODUCED 3.13 pm CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL "to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore", presented by the Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. SUPPLY BILL "to provide for the issue from the Consolidated Fund of the sums necessary to meet the estimated expenditure for the financial year 1st April 1990 to 31st March 1991", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if Mr Chiam prefers to be under the jurisdiction of the Korean National Security Agency, he is entitled to his view. But we in Singapore must decide based on the circumstances in our own country. WOODLANDS IMMIGRATION CHECKPOINT (Barring of Muslim women from wearing headscarfs during working hours) 3. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will modify a directive issued in November 1989 by the Head, Woodlands Checkpoint, Immigration Department barring Muslim women from wearing headscarfs during their hours of work. Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me inform the Member that no women in the Immigration Department, or any department for that matter, are prohibited from wearing headscarfs as such. They are free to do so. But for the staff whose jobs require them to be in uniform, they must follow standing instructions in the civil service which require them to wear uniform while on duty and not to modify uniforms issued to them. All Government departments, including Immigration Department, have been asked to draw the attention of their officers to this instruction. The directive referred to by the Member is in compliance with these established civil service requirements and there is no reason for the Minister to interfere.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have stated on numerous occasions in this House, whether a detainee will be released and on what conditions, depends on the professional assessment and recommendation of the Internal Security Department. These decisions are always based on security considerations and cannot be based on extraneous factors, such as celebrations of National Day or other celebrations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn to Friday, 2nd March, 1990. Mr Speaker, Sir, on 2nd March, the Minister for Finance will deliver his Budget Statement. As it is customary for him to deliver his Statement in the late afternoon, may I ask that the sitting on 2nd March commence at 3.00 pm? Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn to Friday, 2nd March, 1990.”
“Secondly, bear in mind that this is not a law to decide religious matters or theological issues. It is a law to ensure public order and to deal with people whose actions can threaten religious harmony and affect public order. Thirdly, for the reasons which we have spelt out, and again reiterated by my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, such matters have to be decided by the Executive and are not matters to be decided either by religious groups or by the judges. On that note, Sir, I thank you. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and such other Members as may be nominated by the Committee of Selection. - [Prof. Jayakumar]. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to Monday, 26th February, 1990." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes to Five o'clock pm to Monday, 26th February, 1990. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WAIVERS AND REMISSION OF MEDICAL BILLS 1. Dr Aline K. Wong asked the Acting Minister for Health what were the numbers and percentages of in-patients and out-patients who received partial and full waivers/remissions of medical bills at the Singapore General Hospital and government hospitals in FY 87, FY 88 and FY 89 (up to the latest convenient date).”
“A variation of the ques- tion was asked by Encik Ibrahim Othman and some others referred to MPs being advisers to religious organisations. It is a question which has arisen even in grassroots organisations. As far as the Government is concerned, there is really nothing wrong with a Minister or MP attending functions of religious groups, whether of his own faith or some other faith. Far from it being wrong, we in fact encourage them to accept such invitations, whether to the Seventh Moon Festivals or other functions, and even to speak. But he should not be promoting a political cause on such occasions. As long as this is observed, there is no reason why he should turn down the invitation to speak or be an adviser. Sir, there are other miscellaneous points which will be taken up in the Select Committee, for example, who will authorise the release of information which otherwise cannot be released. Should the proceedings be privileged and special provisions made for this in the Bill? Mr Davinder Singh has a good point as to what happens in the 14 days during which representations can be made. It may be necessary to have an interim restraint order. This and other points will be considered by the Select Committee. If I may close, Sir, the Government does not take the position that this Bill is not capable of further improvement. We realise that this is a novel legislation. There are not many precedents in other countries. Therefore, we welcome any suggestions that can improve the Bill and make it more effective, provided that we bear certain parameters in mind: first, it must be a mechanism that enables us to nip problems in the bud and it must enable quick, prompt and pre-emptive action.”
“But in the rare instance where prohibition orders are extended, I take the point that it ought to follow that the same procedure should apply. If this is not clear in the Bill, then at the Select Committee stage we should make it clear. Some Members asked the question, why not have a warning letter and other preliminary steps? More than one Member referred to this. I would like to assure the House that the fact that we have this Bill does not mean that all other avenues and remedies would not be resorted to. It does not mean that every time we are put on notice of some situation, a prohibition order will automatically follow. Because if the problem is not serious, if its danger is not imminent and the person is innocently misguided, it may be possible indeed to counsel the person, advise the person, warn the person or, as some other Members said, get the head of the religious institution to discuss with the person concerned. In other words, let the organisation take care of their misguided members. It is possible. In other words, enactment of the Bill does not mean that all these approaches will be abandoned. It will be possible to resort to these measures. If the problem is not grave and there is no imminent threat, it will be possible to leave it to the religious leaders to restrain their individuals who commit these acts. But if time does not permit or the situation is urgent, or if the person is not controllable by the head of the religious organisation and indeed there have been cases where this has happened, then it may be necessary to resort to a prohibition order. Encik Zulkifli posed the question whether there will be anything wrong for a political leader going to a religious function and speaking.”
“The reason for this is really that we want to have a Presidential Council whose members feel that they can discuss things candidly and frankly, not from the viewpoint or perspective of the particular religion but from the viewpoint of what is best for Singapore. I doubt if this can be achieved if the proceedings - who said what, who voted in which way - are made public. The Presidential Council members would come under tremendous pressure, especially from the representatives of the religious group to whom the individual belongs. But I think Dr Dixie Tan's point was to agree that that should be confidential and not make public. But she posed the question whether in the interest of achieving credibility for the Presidential Council and to show the integrity of this whole system, whether the final recommendation of the Presidential Council ought not to be made public. I think that is a point that may be worth considering further. One other Member pointed out that the Bill does not specifically make provisions for reference to the Presidential Council of further extensions of the prohibition order. In my own view, I do not envisage really that it will be necessary to extend prohibition orders frequently or often. Ideally the prohibition order should have a salutary effect on the individual concerned because if he breaches the prohibition order there will be court prosecution. Of course, the court is entitled to decide that he did not breach, in which case he will be acquitted. But if he is guilty, there will be a fine or a penalty imposed by the court. I doubt very much if after having gone through the process the individual continues to repeat. But if he does, of course, there will have to be extensions.”
“I think the Chairman of the GPC for Home Affairs and other Members asked: why not give it, what they referred to as a proactive role? My colleagues may be interested to know that in the earlier draft of the White Paper, it read differently on this point. It read as follows: 'The Council will advise the Minister on matters affecting the maintenance of religious harmony and foster good relations among the various religious groups. The Minister may also refer to the Council specific matters concerning religious harmony and tolerance and to seek its views and recommendations.' In the final White Paper this was changed because we received representations that it may be unwise and, in fact, imposing a tremendous burden on the Council to allow them to discuss matters free for all and this was elaborated and put across very succinctly by Mr Dhanabalan that you can have situations where there could be confrontation in the Council, accusations and counter-accusations. Members might want to consider this point. If it is strongly felt, this can be reviewed in the Select Committee. The question was asked whether the Presidential Council can seek clarifications and ask for further information. I think that we should have a flexible working arrangement. We need not have too many provisions in the Bill. I think a practice must and will evolve eventually. For example, we have many other advisory committees which advise the Minister in exercise of discretionary functions and they too in actual working operations do ask questions and raise requests for further information and these are provided. Several Members, particularly Dr Dixie Tan, spoke about the provisions in the Bill which provided for secrecy or confidentiality of the proceedings of the Presidential Council.”
“The first point was the Presidential Council should have a final say and not the Minister, in other words, reverse the roles. This was mentioned by several speakers. We have first to remind ourselves that the concept of prohibition orders under the Bill is not to regulate religious affairs. This is essentially a Bill designed to prevent tensions and is a Bill to deal with law and order situations. So the question is, on matters of law and order, who should be ultimately responsible? Who should be accountable if a wrong decision was taken or no decision was taken or there was undue delay in the taking of a decision? As a result of that, some harm has arisen - tensions, violence and, worse, killings. It surely must be the government. The buck cannot be passed to the Presidential Council and we cannot get the 15 members into this Chamber and ask them to be accountable to the people. It must be exercise of government responsibility, accountability and authority. But it would be foolish for a government to lightly disregard the unanimous or majority view of the Presidential Council if it advised against the making of the order. The Government will have to take their recommendations very seriously because the Presidential Council's credibility will otherwise be affected and they will let it be known. But in the rare instance where the Government feels that its assessment of the situation calls for the making of an order, it must have that final right to take the decision even if it disagrees with the Presidential Council. Then other colleagues asked why the Presidential Council in its general function can only discuss matters referred to it by the Government.”
“So there are various possibilities for further discussion and consideration. Several Members raised the issue of the subjectivity of the decision making. Terms like "aggressive proselytization" are very subjective. How do we define the dividing line between politics and religion? What is meant by a "political cause"? Yes, I would have to agree that these determinations are subjective. But the question is because it is subjective, ought we then not have this law? I would like to remind Members that even under the ISA which enables more severe action to be taken, the wordings in the law are also subjective "acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the nation." What is a matter which is "prejudicial to the security of the nation"? This calls for judgment to be made and judgments have to be made by someone. I agree that it is not easy in some areas. Some acts which are listed out in the ISD's compilation are clearly harmful to any reasonable person. One can imagine other acts which would clearly be perfectly permissible. There may be grey areas. The White Paper itself concedes this. But because it is a subjective matter it cannot be qualified or measured as if you have a Richter scale. It calls for a subjective determination. The approach in this Bill is to temper the subjectivity by consulting the Presidential Council. I would welcome suggestions, and I am sure the Select Committee will welcome suggestions, from anyone in this House or elsewhere if they have ideas to make it more water-tight or to provide workable indicative factors that can give better guidance to the Minister and the Presidential Council. Next, several issues were raised with regard to the Presidential Council. I will deal with the more important ones.”
“He does not act without inputs from officials and the Minister does not act on his own because how is he in a position to know what is happening on the ground, whether on an ISA security matter or on the matters within the purview of this legislation? He has to rely on professional inputs and advice from the police or the ISD. The Minister will have to obtain the facts and evidence before he can even contemplate the making of an order. There have to be a report and recommendations put up to him. Then he has to send the facts and the supporting documents to the Presidential Council, as provided for in the Bill. In other words, if there is no basis whatsoever, the Presidential Council is bound to express their unhappiness and disagreement. Then again, do not forget, Sir, that the Minister's action in this Bill will be a very high profile action. It will be closely watched by the public, not just by the religious group concerned and not just by the Presidential Council. If he is foolhardy to make a reckless decision, it will incur considerable political cost not just for the Minister but for the whole Government. Finally, no Minister acts alone, isolated from the Cabinet and the point was made by Dr John Chen and others that perhaps we should consider formalising this into the Bill. This is something that can be considered. For example, we might consider borrowing the practice under the Criminal Law detention provisions where an order is first made by the Minister. It is referred to an advisory committee which reviews the order and it makes the recommendations. After receiving the report of the advisory committee, the order has to be confirmed by the President and the President acts on the advice of the Cabinet.”
“The first answer to that is let us ensure for the future of our country and our future generations that we always elect men of integrity into the government. But having said that, if you ask the question whether it is possible that our electoral system can throw up by some chance a government which is corrupt, dishonest, anti-religion or anti some religions, the answer must be yes. There is that possibility and there is no guarantee that any future government will be committed to the same goals as this Government of carefully nurturing and preserving racial harmony and religious freedom. Let us not delude ourselves. When and if such a government comes into power, it does not need this proposed law to carry out its evil designs. Such a government will pass draconian legislation. If it has a two-thirds majority, it could amend the religious freedom Articles. I would like Members to consider that. What we are proposing in this law is the exact opposite. Instead of resorting to more severe measures which we already have at the disposal - either ISA or prosecution in the court -we are proposing a more limited, proportionate measure and we say let us deal with the trouble makers with this more circumspect measure. In fact, our approach is more liberal than either the ISA or court prosecution. A related question that was asked was: should so much powers be given to an individual Minister? I am not saying that this concern has no validity. But I would like Members to consider the following points. First, under our system, no Minister, whether the Minister for Home Affairs or any other Ministers, with this kind of discretionary powers really acts on his own impulse, on his own personal bias or animosity.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank Members who have spoken during this debate and I also want to make the observation that except for two Members, the NCMP and the Member for Potong Pasir, the principles in the Bill have received almost unanimous support from the other Members although they have expressed legitimate concerns and made suggestions for improvement. What is even more remarkable is that the Members who have spoken in support come from a wide variety of religious faiths. I think that augurs well for our country and also underlines the need to ensure that we preserve this state of affairs. My task in winding up the debate, has been made easier because of the intervention by my Cabinet colleagues, the Second Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for National Development, the Minister for Trade and Industry and the important statement made by the First Deputy Prime Minister, and they have dealt with various facets of the problem. They have dealt with issues which other Members have raised, such as whether the Bill will curb religious freedom, is it a measure to silence dissent and so on. What I propose to do, Sir, is not to comment on each and every point that has been raised by Members. I would just deal with the major themes or issues which have been raised and other details or specific suggestions may be more suitable to be considered by the Select Committee. First, one recurring point in speeches of many Members was the fear of abuse and the point was made that we may trust the present Government or the present leaders but the Bill can be abused. The powers contained in this law could be abused by some future governments.”
“Sir, this is a new line. Why did not his Workers Party say that they wanted a referendum on the Marxist arrests at that time?”