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 39 of 66.
“The Mufti of Singapore, Syed Isa bin Mohd Semait, wanted clarification that the proposed legislation will be consistent with Articles in the Constitution, such as Articles 152, 153. The White Paper accord- ingly was suitably amended because there is no inconsistency. Then, some others from the Methodist, Bethesda (Bedok-Tampines) Church, Dr Benjamin Chew, and Bethesda (Frankel Estate) Church, Prof Ernest Chew, and others recommended that the White Paper should also emphasise the importance of respecting common values and the right of each individual to accept or not to accept a religion. You will find that this has also been incorporated in the White Paper. Others such as Dr Chan Ban Leong, Chairman of the Christian National Evangelism Commission Board, Mr Sat Pal Khattar, member of the Hindu Advisory Board, proposed that the notice of intended probibition order should be sent to the Council at the same time it is sent to the individual. The earlier draft of the White Paper, as it then stood, required the Presidential Council to be involved only after the order was made. Now we have changed it so that we have accepted the suggestion and it is referred to the Presidential Council. These are some examples of the changes which were made. In conclusion, Sir, the Government has not closed its mind to further suggestions for improvements. Therefore, so that there can be further opportunity to receive views on the provisions of the Bill, I would like to say that the Government intends to submit this Bill, to a Select Committee. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The Government recommends that we do not take the risk, and that is the approach in the White Paper and in the Bill, because far too much is at stake. Religious harmony is fundamental not just for one or more religious groups. It is vital not just for members of religious groups. It is vital for all Singaporeans because if there is religious strife, all of us are going to be affected. Finally, Sir, I would like to say that this legislation has not been hastily rushed through. We have been deliberating on the matter for more than 2(r) years. In fact, the first draft of the Bill was prepared in June 1987. This is a delicate and sensitive matter. During this period, we have consulted MPs of different faiths, both in the previous Parliament and in this Parliament. We have consulted religious leaders of different religious groups as well as grassroots leaders on the basis of earlier drafts of the White Paper. In all these discussions, we received many significant suggestions for improvement which we have accepted. What these changes are, some of them are reflected in the White Paper and consequentially in the Bill. For Members' information, I might point out, for example, changes which are mentioned on page 20 of the White Paper. Originally, in the earlier draft of the White Paper, it was not the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. It was a National Council of Religious Harmony. In one of the discussions, Archbishop Gregory Yong gave us his suggestion that it should have a higher status - that it should be a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. We accepted that change and it is now reflected in the Bill.”
“For example, the individual can explain or argue why the order should not be made. At the same time, the Minister must also send the proposed notice and notify the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, which also can give its views. A two weeks' deadline is provided. After receiving the views, the Minister has to have regard to them before he makes a decision whether to make the order or not. After an order is made, the Minister has still to send the order to the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony, together with all the representations the Minister has received from the individual heads of the organisations. Although the order has been made, the Council can recommend whether it should be modified, completely rescinded or revoked, and the Minister is to have regard to their views. Sir, the intention is, that the Government seek views and advice from a body, the Presidential Council, which will have considerable moral authority. Because it will not only have representatives of the religious groups from which the individual has come from, but it will be composed of other representatives of other religious groups. If I may sum up, Sir, I can repeat what I said at the outset. We really have a choice of whether to do something, enact this law or not to enact this law. So the question is: should we do something now or let things be? That is indeed a course of action that is open to us. But of course, Sir, there is a risk and a heavy price to be paid, and many countries are now paying the price. Or is it better to take note of the danger signs and put in place now legislative controls and measures which can enable us to nip problems in the bud whenever individuals engage in such irresponsible, senseless acts that endanger our religious harmony?”
“But in many cases, we think a less severe remedy would suffice. Because what is necessary is prompt action to stop him from repeating that act, conduct or speech. Because if he does so again, then it will only exacerbate matters. There will be further counter-attacks and retaliatory measures, and the situation will get out of hand. Hence, the Bill has this concept of a prohibition order. In other words, it puts him on notice that he should not repeat that act or conduct. And only when he repeats and violates the specific terms of the prohibition order can he be prosecuted in a court of law, in which case the Court will decide whether he is guilty or not guilty of a breach of the prohibition order. In other words, Sir, what has been crafted into this Bill is in fact a more limited measure than either resorting to the Internal Security Act or prosecution in a court of law. We think this will meet the problem. Against whom can such prohibition orders be issued? This is spelt out in clause 8. Obviously, it must apply to any religious leader of any religious organisation. But it is also possible that a non-member of that religious group, a person outside the religious group, could try to cause similar mischief by instigation or manipulation. Therefore, the Bill provides in clause 9 that such persons can also be the subject of a prohibition order. Next, the Bill provides procedures to be followed. Before making a prohibition order, the Minister must, first of all, serve notice of his intention and he must serve this notice of his intention to the individual concerned as well as to the head of his religious organisation. Both the individual and the head of the religious organisation are to be afforded the opportunity to give their views and representations.”
“The special function it has is with regard to the proposed prohibition orders for any particular individual. The Bill sets out what is a conduct which it should be concerned with. This is spelt out in clause 8. I will not repeat them verbatim but basically there are four categories. One, where a person causes feelings of enmity or hatred between different religious groups. Second, under the guise of religion or propagating religious activity, one carries out political activities for promoting a political cause or a cause of any political party. Third, carrying out subversive activities under the guise of propagation of religion. Fourth, exciting disaffection against the President or the Government of Singapore. I might explain here, Sir, that this term "exciting disaffection" in law is a well-known concept which is found in more than one precedent in Singapore, such as the Sedition Act. It is also to be found in Article 149 of the Constitution and it has many precedents in other Commonwealth countries. Basically, it connotes action taken by anyone to instigate and to provoke the feelings of disloyalty or hatred against an established government. The third feature of the Bill is the concept of prohibition orders. In other words, what should be done when a person engages in such harmful conduct? Should we detain him immediately under the Internal Security Act? Or should we immediately prosecute him under one or other of the existing laws which could conceivably apply, which must result in a court conviction if he is found guilty, and therefore a sentence of a fine or imprisonment? If the conduct is so serious and so dangerous, perhaps that extreme measure may be necessary. It could be necessary and justified.”
“What we need is a device that will enable prompt and effective pre-emptive or preventive action to be taken which can quickly defuse a potentially explosive situation. It must be prompt and effective. Let me now turn to the provisions of the Bill, Sir. I do not intend to go clause by clause. Instead I wish to draw attention to the main scheme of the legislation and the Bill really has the five following features. First, it establishes a Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. Second, it sets out the conduct or acts which we should regard as harmful. Third, it enables prohibition orders to be issued. Fourth, it describes the persons against whom such orders can be issued. And fifth, it sets out the procedure which must be followed when such prohibition orders are issued. First, the Presidential Council. The idea of establishing such a formal body in the law was in fact proposed in the report published by the Ministry of Community Development. The Bill envisages that the composition of the Presidential Council should be a Chairman and a maximum of 15 other members to be drawn from the representatives of the major religions in Singapore, but there would also be persons who can be appointed who have distinguished themselves in public service or community relations. In other words, the Council will have religious leaders plus lay leaders. Why lay leaders? As explained, it is to complement the perspectives of the religious leaders and also to represent the many Singaporeans who do not belong to any organised religious group. There will be a special function as well as a general function. The general function is to consider and give their views on matters generally affecting religious harmony in Singapore which may be referred to it by the Government.”
“Then again, when that happens, what would the party in power, or for that matter all other political parties, do? Can they be expected to be quiet? Surely they will look for religious groups and their flocks to back them up. The end result surely is obvious. It is inevitable that there will be collision between the different religious groups and the Government leading to instability and conflict. It is extremely important therefore that priests and other religious leaders do not mix religion and politics and mount political campaigns. The need for legislation. Coming to this Bill, one may ask, why legislate? In turn, I have to pose this question, Sir. Can we assume that everyone will act with prudence, moderation and sensitivity? Because if that is so, then I think we can conclude that there is no need to do anything and no need to legislate. But our problem is not with the majority of religious leaders and not with the majority of members of religious groups. It is a problem of a minority number of mischievous, irresponsible people. The compilation shows you enough examples to demonstrate that this is not a theoretical or hypothetical solution. But though they may be few, they can cause great harm not to just one religious group but to the very fabric of our society. To contemplate passing laws after the harm has been done will be too late because tensions would have arisen, violence might have erupted, people might be killed, deep feelings of resentment and considerable intense wounded feelings would divide our society for a long time. Sir, we must have some mechanism to curb such elements. It is far better to put in such laws and mechanisms now when relations between religious groups are good than later. And what kind of legislation?”
“We all know, Sir, that the Constitution guarantees the freedom to propagate one's religion. The question is, how do we go about it? If we denigrate other faiths, there will be consequences. It is necessary to avoid insensitive and aggressive efforts. There is a need, of course, to point out, in the process of propagating religion, differences between one's religion and another's. But it is an entirely different matter to denounce other religions. For example, as is spelt out in the examples in the Annexe to the White Paper, should one say that another person's religion is a greater threat to mankind than communism? Would you expect the leaders of that religious group to take it calmly? Again another example. To say that the head of the Catholic church, the Pope, is the anti-Christ, will that not upset and provoke strong emotions amongst Catholics? Next, Religion and Politics. Why we should be concerned, it is spelt out in the White Paper. Sir, we must bear in mind that religious leaders and leaders of religious groups, in the eyes of their followers, have a special status. They are regarded as being closer to God than anyone else. They may be specially anointed or ordained and their words have a tremendous emotional effect on their flock. If religious leaders enter politics, they must view matters from a religious perspective. There will be emotional appeals in the name of religion and their followers will believe them and their words as interpretations from a divine authority above. Sir, when one religious group involves itself in this way in political issues, it must follow that other groups will do the same. And various groups will want to outdo each other.”
“Because religion is a deeply felt matter. When religious sensitivities are offended, emotions are quickly aroused and it takes only a few incidents to inflame passions and kindle violence. The second factor, Sir, is that while the majority of religious leaders and the majority of followers of religious groups are conscious of the need to be tolerant, the need to be sensitive in our multi-religious and multi-racial society, there are some persons whose conduct can cause considerable tensions and problems for us. These are listed in the Annexe to the White Paper. For example, you have a Muslim priest denouncing Christianity as the most foolish religion. Surely that is going to upset Christians. Then you have Christian groups pasting posters announcing a forthcoming seminar outside a Hindu temple. Is that wise? Then Protestant pamphlets denigrating the Roman Catholic church and the Pope. Surely they would take great offence and umbrage. So considering what is happening in other parts of the world, taking note of what is happening here, it is obvious that religious harmony is a fragile matter. It needs careful nurturing and it will be a folly to assume that it will always be there. Therefore, conscious efforts are needed by religious groups, religious leaders and their followers to ensure that nothing jeopardizes it. There are really two factors: (1) That followers of different religions must exercise moderation and tolerance, and not to instigate religious enmity or hatred. (2) It is important that religion and politics be kept separate. Let me take the first issue, which is that of religion and religion. As the White Paper highlights, the main problem here is that of insensitive, aggressive religious proselytisation.”
“If we just take the news over a period of two or three months - we do not have to go back much further - it is a sad tale because the news is full of examples of many countries which are experiencing violence, strife, disorder, because of inter-religious tensions and conflicts. In India, Muslims against Hindus, Kashmir and other cities. Elsewhere in India, Hindus against Sikhs. Sri Lanka was once held up as a model of peaceful coexistence of different religions. Now a holy war is taking place there. Fiji, always regarded as a tranquil, idyllic Pacific nation, no one would have imagined any such problems arising there. What happens? Suddenly, Sikh temples, Muslim mosques, fire bombed. Lebanon, we are all familiar with the perennial problems there, not just between different religious groups but within one religion there are different rival groups. Northern Ireland, Protestants and Catholics. Philippines, Muslims and Christians. And Muslims against Muslims in the Iran/Iraq war. The list is endless, Sir, with Armenia, Azerbaijan and so on. Compared to Singapore, these countries are older societies, larger countries and more well-established nations. Yet they have inter-religious strife. They are torn apart by the conflicts. How about us? Singapore, in our tiny corner of the world, what is so special about us that we can assume that we will always be an exception. Let us consider the local context and there are two factors. First, the heightened religious fervour amongst all religious groups. This heightened fervour and increased competition has made the search for new followers more intense, but this is part of the worldwide trends. We cannot be isolated. But this trend increases the possibility of friction and misunderstanding among different religious groups. Why?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the rationale for this Bill has in fact been set out in quite a comprehensive manner in the White Paper entitled "Maintenance of Religious Harmony" which was presented to Parliament dated 26th December 1989. What I propose to do this afternoon is to highlight and reiterate some of the more important points in the White Paper as well as to draw attention to the main scheme in the Bill. Perhaps I should start off by reminding ourselves what kind of a society are we, what kind of a nation Singapore is. We are a young nation, small country, densely populated and we are not a homogenous society, because we are made up of different races, languages and religions. As far as religions are concerned, we have in Singapore all the great religions in the world represented - Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Hindu, Sikhism and many denominations of Christianity. No single religion can be said to be the dominant religions, nor is any religion an official religion of the State because Singapore is strictly secular. We have been fortunate that over the years we have had religious freedom and religious harmony. Is religious freedom and religious harmony just a desirable ideal, a lofty principle to be enshrined in the Constitution? The answer is no. For us, it is vital for our survival as a nation. It is essential for our stability and law and order. But can we be sure that the religious harmony and tolerance that we have had over the years can be preserved? Why does this question arise? It arises if we observe what is happening around the world and if we take note of what is happening in Singapore. First, let us look at the international context. What is happening elsewhere?”
“I do not think the Member expects me to answer that question, because we have never laid as a pre-condition that they must appear on TV. The release is based on the security assessment and that is the basis for release, continued detention or lifting of restrictive conditions. PUBLIC LISTED COMPANIES (Disclosures of annual incomes and perks of directors and executives) 6. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Finance whether he will make it a legal requirement for directors and executives of publicly listed companies to make detailed disclosures of their annual incomes and perks and/or cash compensations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have been through all this in the several debates we had on the ISA or on Marxist detainees as to why ISA cases cannot be put for judicial review in a court of law. If the Member, notwithstanding the several debates we have had in the House, wishes to have another debate, we can always do so. He can file a motion and the Government will again reiterate and explain why for security cases the Executive decision cannot be justiciable in a court of law.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Member will read the communique that has been published with care. The CPM has not disbanded itself, nor agreed to cease to be a party organisation. All that it has done is to announce the cessation of hostilities. I have asked the Member to read carefully what has been published. It has not agreed to give up its struggle by any other means.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not an excuse. In this House, I have given a list of instances where Chia Thye Poh advocated the use of force. It is all documented in Hansard and I do not think, Mr Speaker, Sir, you want me to repeat what can be found in the Hansard.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, that question has been answered by me in this House on several occasions. He has refused consistently to renounce the CPM or the use of force. Nevertheless, we have released him to Sentosa. The strict restrictive conditions are necessary, as we said in the Government press statement, to make sure that he does not get involve again with the CPM or be involved in communist United Front activities. And until we are satisified that he poses no risk, that will be the position.”
“These conditions on Chia will be lifted when the Government, on ISD's advice, is satisfied that Chia poses no security risk. Until then, Chia will remain on Sentosa.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first correct the Member: Chia Thye Poh is not a detainee. He was released to Sentosa in May 1989. At the time of release, the Government made it very clear that the lifting of the restrictive conditions and allowing him to return to the main island depends on the assessment of the ISD as to whether he still poses a security threat. It was also pointed out that the Government had consistently required detainees associated with the CPM to renounce the CPM or disavow the use of force before releasing them. Chia has refused to do so. However, the ISD was satisfied that the CPM to which Chia was linked had been sufficiently weakened and disrupted such that Chia's release to Sentosa would not pose a security problem. At the time of making this assessment, the ISD had taken into consideration the likelihood of the CPM concluding an agreement with the Malaysian and Thai Governments. Sir, the CPM has only agreed to disarm but not disband itself. Thus the party organisation remains intac, and so also its ability to conduct subversive undergrouund and United Front acitivities in which Chia Thye Poh was involved. We must also not forget that the CPM had given up its arms once before when ther Japanese Occupation ended in 1945. However, it was able to resume armed insurgency and subversive activities shortly thereafter. It also remains to be seen if all the CPM members emerge from the jungles as envisaged under the agreement on termination of hostilities. Therefore, as long as the CPM continues to exist, even without its armed units, the Government must be vigilant. Therefore, there is no question of lifting of the restrictive conditions on Chia merely because of the developments on the Thai-Malaysian border or elsewhere.”
“Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. COMPANIES (AMENDMENT) BILL (As reported from Select Committee) Order for Third Reading read. 6.35 pm”
“Of course, I do not think we want to send out questionnaires and interviewers to every home of a drop-out. Because although a large percentage of drug addicts may be drop-outs, it does not follow that all school drop-outs are drug addicts. Let me say that the profile of the drug addict and the profile of the drug addict population are carefully examined by the authorities in designing the strategy, both in terms of rehabilitation and also as to which should be the target groups to pay attention and priority. So Encik Wan Hussin's point will be borne in mind here. He asked about assets seizure law. The discussion we had in Kuala Lumpur was really more an exchange of views and to find out how they have in fact implemented their assets seizure law. As for what we are doing in Singapore, this is one of the legislative ideas that are being explored, but asset seizure law is quite a complicated piece of legislation. My Ministry will have to discuss with other Ministries, particularly the Ministry of Finance, which has got an interest in regard to the protection of banking secrecy and other such laws, so that the views of all Government agencies will be taken into account before any decision is taken on whether to proceed with such a law. In this regard, we must examine how other countries have enacted such laws, what safeguards they have, and what problems they have experienced in the practical implementation of such laws. I think I have answered most of the questions, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. Jayakumar].”
“Community must help by more volunteers and counsellors coming forth. What are the safeguards for corporal punishment? First of all, the safeguards are that in fact they will be confined to a narrow category of what I call "major breaches of discipline" and this will be spelt out in the regulations. This will consist of, for example, bringing drugs into the DRC. The drug addict is incarcerated in the DRC so that he will not have a supply of drugs and it is absurd if drugs are supplied; we must consider it to be a major case of indiscipline. Aggravated or repeated assault on other inmates or on DRC staff, that is a major indiscipline. If we cannot control it, the whole system of rehabilitation will break down. Wilfully vandalising DRC property is another serious offence. So it will be confined to very serious offences of that nature. Secondly, the procedures, the guidelines, will be spelt out. There must be an inquiry. He must have a chance to be heard before the final decision is taken. The other safeguards like persons over 50 years cannot be caned, females cannot be caned, the presence of a doctor, all these well-established safeguards, I can assure the Member, will be in the Bill. Finally, Encik Wan Hussin asked about the programmes for the pre-school leavers. I take it that he means drop-outs.”
“If I may go on to the points raised by Encik Sidek Saniff and Encik Yatiman. Both of them made a common point, ie, that the Government should consider caning for drug addicts. In other words, I take it that their point is that this Bill does not go far enough. Encik Sidek Saniff's variation of Encik Yatiman's point is that we should consider this in three years' time. Perhaps we ought not to be so pessimistic that this law will not have its effect. Like all laws, we always continuously review it. I am not sure whether the proposal to cane drug addicts per se is necessary at all. I take note of their point that this, in their view, is not going as far as it should. But I will suggest that we approve these measures now. Corporal punishment is for a very limited category. And down the road in later years if indeed there has to be a review of all these measures, let us review them. But perhaps for the time being, I would urge colleagues to give support to these measures as spelt out in this Bill. Dr Vasoo urged that there be a strong rehabilitation programme. The details of our rehabilitation programme have been spelt out in this House before. All I want to say is that the Government can do its part, the DRCs, and so on. But rehabilitation of drug addicts cannot be a job to be done only by the Government. The community must play its role and the family of the drug addict must play their role. Because all of our studies have shown that where the family neglects or ostracises the addict, that addict is bound to come back to the DRC. So I take note of his point that we pay attention to rehabilitation. But for rehabilitation efforts by the Government to work, there must be support from the community and the family.”
“But a drug trafficker has an insidious, pernicious effect on society, on the individual. He is rendered useless to himself, to his family, and to society. And every Singaporean who becomes a drug addict, his potential contribution to himself, family and society is robbed. In that sense, the drug trafficker deserves even less mercy than what I would call an ordinary murderer. I do not want to dwell too long on Dr Lee Siew-Choh's point because in the Comittee of Supply and other occasions, we have spelt out that it is not true that the sole thrust of the Government's drug enforcement and rehabilitation programme rests with the death penalty. The Government's efforts rest on a whole panoply of policies which are designed on the one hand to reduce supply and on the other hand to reduce demand. So we have the death penalty, we have prosecution in a court of law, where we cannot prosecute we detain them under the Criminal Law detention, we have the DRCs, we deny passports to known traffickers and hard-core addicts, and to foreigners who are trafficking we deny them entry into Singapore, just to name a few. And on the addict side, detention, compulsory treatment, counselling, after-care, educational programmes in schools and so on. So it is a wide range of policies. And the fact is that they work. When we have visiting delegations from other countries who expressed the wish that they had similar programmes in those countries. But alas, they pointed out that it was too late for them. On corporal punishment, it is not as Dr Lee Siew-Choh points out that they are patients who will be caned. As I pointed out, the persons who will be subjected to corporal punishment are those who commit serious breaches of discipline.”
“Various circumstances of course have to be taken into account - the circumstances in which he was found to be consuming drugs, whether it was the first time, the amount that he had consumed, the place where it was found, the company, and the whole set of circumstances. A determination has to be made whether he will be benefiting from compulsory supervision. And this determination will have to be made just as similar decisions will be made on the exit counselling progrmame. Dr Lee Siew-Choh was most unhappy with the death penalty. He supports it, I think, for what he called the kingpins. Of course, one can argue that the death penalty should be only for the kingpins. But does it mean that if we do not have the death penalty for others that the level of trafficking would be what it is today? I have no doubt at all, and our enforcement authorities have no doubt, that if we did not have the death penalty, the level of trafficking in Singapore would be manifold times what it is today; in fact, it will reach epidemic proportions. In other words, whoever it is, whether the kingpin or a courier, he knows when he takes a risk what is the consequence if he is caught. Dr Lee Siew-Choh says that death penalty, in his view, should be reserved for murderers. That is a point of view which some may have. I respect that point of view but I disagree. Because in my view and the view that the Government has taken over the years is that the drug trafficker really should be considered worse than a murderer who kills an individual person for the reasons that were spelt out by Dr Vasoo. A murderer kills one person. It is very unlikely he is going to repeat. He deliberately does it for crimes of passion or in the course of robbery and so on.”
“This is most unlikely to be the case because the quantum that you find specified in the Schedule which would lead to the death penalty, is worked out with the Department of Scientific Services of the Ministry of Health so that the amount which is specified, let us take heroin, is based on thousand doses. If you take heroin, one dose for daily consumption, I am told, is 0.015 grammes. The amount stipulated is 15 grammes. That is a dosage of a thousand times. By no stretch of the imagination or logic can a person claim that that amount is for his personal consumption. As for safeguards, I can assure him, first of all, that the amended presumption provision is an improvement over the previous presumption clause. Because section 17, as it stands, has two presumptions as it were worked into it. It says: 'Any person who is proved or presumed to have had in his possesion .... shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have had that controlled drug .... for the purpose of trafficking'. We have in this approach moved away from that so that it must be proved that he had it in his possession, and then only a rebuttable presumption arises. Secondly, Mr Tarmugi also asked how would we differentiate between the drug addicts who would be put on compulsory supervision and those drug addicts who may be subjected to earlier release under the exit counselling programme. This must depend on an assessment by the Central Narcotics Bureau together with the other authorities in the same way that an assessment has to be made as to whether a drug addict is amenable to be put on the exit counselling scheme.”
“His main point was a plea for greater understanding of the problems of discharged drug addicts inmates, in their desire to fit into society and to obtain employment. I fully share his concern. In fact, CNB, the Superitentent of the DRCs and the Ministry of Home Affairs' common position is that to facilitate rehabilitation and to prevent drug addicts from relapsing, it is essential that they obtain employment as early as possible. So any move that would increase their chances of getting employment is to be welcomed. And just to demonstrate this, the Ministry of Home Affairs, together with SCORE, has worked towards the establishment of a new cooperative under the auspices of SCORE, which is to cater for employment of newly discharged inmates and prisoners who may have initial difficulties in getting employment. This is part of the process. But Dr Arthur Beng is right that the community as a whole must have this approach. Because if they are stigmatised and barred from all jobs even if they have kicked the habit, then you are going to have a vicious cycle where they will never be employed and chances are that they will relapse, and we have the problem going round in cycles. Therefore, with regard to his specifc point about taxi licences and so on, I assure him that I will discuss this with my colleague, the Minister for Communications, and see whether this additional idea can be followed up either indepedently or as part of what the new cooperative plans to do. Mr Abdullah Tarmgui has raised two points. His concern was over the presumption clause and he said that a person could be wrongly convicted because the amount of drugs that he has may be for his personal consumption.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Members who have contributed to the debate. Before I touch on some of the individual points that have been raised, I may make the general comment that the views which have been expressed show that there is no single way to solve the drug problem and those who have been following events in other countries know that in other countries they are also having a big debate. In the west, in some of the countries the drug menace has reached almost epidemic proportions that they have practically thrown in the towel. They are talking of legalising the drugs. We have opted for a different approach. We cannot let drugs take on an epidemic proportion in Singapore. We have a drug problem. Our priority is to contain it and control it as best as we can which is not easy because, as I said, the world-wide supply and trafficking of drugs is on the increase. There is a lot of money to be made and they are powerful, as you can see from what is happening in Latin America. So just to stay on top of the situation itself and keep it in check is a major exercise. Even with the number of speakers who have spoken, we can see that there are diverse approaches. Dr Lee Siew-Choh frowns upon corporal punishment, which is not for all drug addicts. Corporal punishment in this Bill is only for addicts who commit serious breaches of discipline in the DRCs. Whereas on the other side of the coin, we have had Encik Yatiman Yusof and Encik Sidek Saniff urging the House to go beyond what is in the Bill, and to consider imposition of caning on drug addicts as a whole. Let me now touch on the individual points that have been raised. Dr Arthur Beng supported the Bill.”
“I hope the Minister will take this up with the Minister for Communications and discuss this further. Sir, lest that I be misunderstood, let me elaborate that SCORE has extensive plans to widen its scope of work into many other areas, besides taxis, of rehabilitation to provide our addicts and ex-addicts to find gainful employment so as to complete the rehabilitation cycle. Finally, Sir, may I close by again appealing to family, friends and the community at large, to give the ex-addict a second chance to lead a normal life. Rehabilitation is a life-long process. They deserve our every support. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“In summary, or simply put, self-discipline and motivation are the essence of the drug rehabilitation programme. If discipline breaks down in a DRC, then the DRC will be the worst place in the world to put a drug addict in as the negative effects would be irreparable. The GPC has also been assured that corporal punishment will be reserved for only serious breaches of discipline, eg, for those who assault other inmates or prison staff. This is not unreasonable. Sir, no rehabilitation programme will be complete until the ex-addict is accepted back to society, accepted again by his family, his friends, and society at large. Central to this, he must be able to gain meaningful employment. As MPs, time and again, we see ex-addicts who have a problem trying to make a meaningful living. The stigma sticks. As many of them have low educational qualifications, one common request is for a taxi licence. The Registrar of Vehicles is reluctant to issue one on the grounds that it is dangerous to have a person driving under the influence of drugs. Yes, we cannot fault that argument. The question is: when is society going to give the ex-addict a chance to prove that he has turned over a new leaf? May I propose to the ROV a scheme to be administered by the experts in the DRCs? Each ex-addict, before he drives a taxi, has his urine tested before and after his shift. If we can start with, say, 100 taxis or any number that is commercially viable, then maybe SCORE (the cooperative for rehabilitation) can be given the task of administering this programme. As technology advances, now with instant urine analysis available, ie, the instant detectors, we should give this scheme a try. The responsibility is now shifted to the rehabilitation experts and I am sure that they will accept the challenge.”
“In spite of the death penalty already in place for heroin, we have read time and again of Singapore being used as a transit centre for transshipment to other countries. We must, of course, not be so naive as to think that Singapore itself is not a target. With growing affluence and increasing travel, cocaine is a drug that we must be ever vigilant against. The second important facet of a successful drug programme is the rehabilitation of the addict. Singapore is amongst the first countries of the world where there is a compulsory rehabilitation programme. As the number of drug addicts increases, the strain on manpower and other resources makes it inevitable that we from time to time review our own rehabilitation programme and central to this programme is the drug rehabilitation centre. I am glad to note that the present amendment distinguishes between the first-timers from the hard-core repeat offenders, especially those with a criminal record. For the first-timer or experimenter, the aim will be to return him to society as soon as possible after successful treatment. The rehabilitation programme, however, continues with the ex-drug addict under supervision orders. In our GPC visit to the DRCs, the GPC for Home Affairs and Law is also glad to note that the authorities are making strenuous efforts to categorise and separate the addicts so that the hard-core addicts will not be able to assert a negative effect on those more amenable to successful treatment. This I think is an important step forward. Sir, the introduction of corporal punishment for indiscipline in the DRC is something that I was initially not convinced of. As a doctor, I ask myself: will I cane a patoent who is ill? After much discussion with our experts in the DRCs, I began to see their point of view.”
“It is no respecter of national boundaries. Its danger is further enhanced by the fact that bumper crops of several drugs have been produced in the last two years, hence increasing the availability and reducing street price. The changing pattern of abuse, with the widespread use of cocaine in the West is also a cause of concern to us. Soon, as the markets of the West become increasingly saturated, cocaine abuse will make its way to this part of the world. We must be ever vigilant. We must unite as a nation to fight this menace. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Boon Heng) in the Chair] 5.12 pm In Singapore, heroin abuse is still a major problem. The level of drug addiction in Singapore is reverting to the 1970s and is indeed a cause of concern. It is thus timely that this Bill is now introduced. Sir, on the personal level, drug addiction is regarded as a social-medical problem, ie, the drug addict is a sick person but his illness is contributed by social factors. We recognize that many non-medical factors contribute to the problem, such as the person's ability to deal with what would otherwise be considered as normal stress of daily living, peer pressure, economic and educational status and the home environment. Thus any drug control programme that hopes to be successful must look at the drug problem in its totality, starting from education, prevention, enforcement and going on to rehabilitation. Sir, I am glad to note that this Bill has the elements that make for a successful drug control programme. Firstly, it has increased enforcement powers. The first step must be to control the availability of these drugs. The Bill now extends the death penalty for trafficking, manufacturing, importing and exporting, to include cocaine, opium or cannabis above a specified quantum.”
“Clause 7 introduces a new section to formally vest the Director of Prisons with the general charge and administration of the DRCs. As for DRC Review Committees, there are currently four DRC Review Committees. The Act provides for a maximum of six members. The amendment in clause 8 is to bring about flexibility to appoint more members to serve on the Committees. Then I wish to deal with corporal punishment in DRCs. Clause 9 amends section 43 to provide for the administration of corporal punishment for serious breaches of discipline in the DRCs. Sir, the Superintendents of the DRCs at present do not have adequate powers to deal with serious breaches of discipline. In fact, they do not even have the powers which those who are in charge of young juveniles in the reformative training centres have over offenders in the RTC who commit disciplinary offences. Some DRC inmates, especially the hard-core inmates, are extremely difficult to control. Some of them are vicious and knowing that the Superintendents are powerless, do not hesitate to assault fellow inmates or even the staff of the DRCs. Others smuggle drugs into the DRCs or other contraband. Without adequate powers, it is difficult for the Prisons staff to control problematic inmates and to maintain discipline. To conclude, Sir, these amendments to the Act are necessary to deal with the drug threat, to provide for more effective treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts and to gear ourselves to face the growing threat of new forms of drugs that may spread to this region. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Speaker, Sir, drug abuse as mentioned by the Minister is a world-wide problem. It is threatening whole societies and destabilising whole nations.”
“Because a supervisee with a further drug charge may try to abscond whilst on supervision, so that if he is caught after the period of supervision this provision is not enforceable. When caught, he will escape the punishment because the test is "conviction" during the period of supervision, and not "commission of the offence". The proposed amendment will therefore plug this loophole and also provide for enhanced penalty for repeat offenders who are not under supervision. Then I come to the question of urine testing. Clauses 3 and 4 amend sections 22 and 31 with regard to the testing of urine samples. Drug suspects are now required to provide two urine samples. One to be tested by the Department of Scientific Services and the other to be stored in what is known as the Urine Bank for a second test upon application by the addict. The suspected addict is detained in a DRC if the first specimen is tested positive for controlled drugs. He can then apply for a second sample to be tested. If the second test is negative, he will be released from the DRC. But by then he might have been detained for as long as six or seven weeks. With the availability now of more advanced urine testing equipment, it is now practicable to analyse the second urine sample immediately if the first sample is tested positive. Both samples will be tested by different chemists with the necessary safeguards. With this amendment to the Act, a drug addict will be admitted to the DRC only after both urine tests show the presence of drugs. The Urine Bank can then cease operation. If I may turn to the other amendments on the administration of DRCs. The Prisons Department has been running the DRCs since 1977 when Operation Ferret was launched.”
“This approach of putting persons on compulsory supervision, in other words, they are warned as to what will happen if they breach the compulsory supervision, has been tried in the case of the inhalant abusers and we have had fairly good success. The proposed amendment to the Act will enable first-time drug abusers to be put on supervision to help them turn over a new leaf. They will be warned that if they are caught consuming drugs during the period of supervision, they will then be admitted to the DRCs. Next, the cases of repeat offenders. Clause 10 will impose a mandatory jail sentence for second or subsequent offence of drug possession. While a drug addict can be detained in a DRC for periods up to a maximum of three years, on the other hand, a person convicted of the offence of possession of drugs is usually sentenced to only a fine, even for a second or subsequent offence although the penalty in the Second Schedule of the MDA for a second or subsequent offender is imprisonment of two years or a fine of $4,000. To ensure that such repeat offenders know that they will be treated severely, it is necessary that the Act be amended to delete the option of a fine for a second or subsequent offence of drug possession. Then I come to the cases of those who repeat drug consumption whilst on supervision. Another amendment deals with drug offenders - clause 5 which amends section 33(3). I must explain that under the current law, a person who is convicted of a second or subsequent offence for drug consumption whilst under supervision order is liable to a term of imprisonment of not less than 3 years whilst under supervision. But it is the experience of CNB that this provision is circumvented.”
“With opium likely to become a cheaper alternative for the heroin addict, the increasing abuse of cannabis as a 'gateway' drug and the expected arrival of cocaine trafficking, we must extend the death penalty beyond cases of heroin and morphine. Extending the death penalty provision to also include opium, cannabis and cocaine, which incidentally is already provided for in the laws of Malaysia will deter local traffickers and international syndicates from using Singapore for the transshipment of such drugs to other countries. Next, the tightening of the presumption clause. Clause 2 amends section 17 of the Act to tighten the presumption clause on trafficking in drugs and includes cocaine in the presumption provision. At present, the presumption clause is not completely clear and the phrase "presumed to have had that controlled drug in his possession for the purpose of trafficking" is not exactly the same in meaning as "trafficking". Therefore, the clause has to be amended to achieve its intended purpose. The presumption will also cover cocaine in excess of 3 grammes. I now turn to Supervision Orders. Clause 6 of the Bill will provide for Supervision Orders for first-time drug abusers. Currently, Supervision Orders can only be issued to those who have already undergone treatment and rehabilitation and convicted addicts. All first-time drug abusers are admitted to DRC for compulsory rehabilitation. Although the existing approach has been effective, from the experience of the Central Narcotics Bureau, there are some first-timers for whom the stay in a DRC for six months or longer is considered not to be necessary and supervision alone, that is compulsory supervision, should suffice to help them overcome the craving for drugs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Sir, the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) was last amended in 1979. Since then, the global as well as regional drug situation has changed substantially and further amendments are necessary to our laws if we are to effectively control the menace of drug abuse and drug trafficking in Singapore. The global drug scene continues to deteriorate. More opium is being produced in the Golden Triangle. And this year's opium harvest is reported to be double that of previous years. Cocaine which is very widespread in the United States and Canada, is spreading to the European countries as well as Australia. And our assessment is that it is only a matter of time before it reaches our region. We also have the problem of marijuana or "cannabis", and the production of cannabis - a 'gateway' drug leading addicts to hard drugs - is also on the increase. It is therefore in this global context that we must prepare ourselves to deal with the ever increasing threat of drugs. Whilst we have succeeded in breaking up the large scale syndicates, there are still traffickers who for monetary gains will risk arrest and detention and even hanging. Some of the proposed amendments in this Bill are to facilitate enforcement and rehabilitation while others are meant to enable a more effective administration of our Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs). If I may now turn to the individual main amendments. First, clause 10 of the Bill amends the Second Schedule of the Act to provide for the death penalty for trafficking, manufacturing, importing and exporting of opium, cannabis and cocaine beyond a specified quantum. Currently, Sir, the death penalty in the Act applies only to heroin and morphine.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member and also take note of his point. As I said, the matter will be reviewed. Obviously, it is not solely a legal consideration. The Ministry of Law will have to consult the Ministry of Finance and other agencies like the MAS, to suitable amendments to be made, consistent of course with the basic underlying purpose of the Trustees Act which is to ensure that the interests of the beneficiaries are never lost sight of. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Finally, Sir, I should acknowledge the contribution made towards this legislation by Mr Heng Chiang Meng, who is also Chairman of the Cheng San Town Council; it was he who first brought to Government's attention this difficulty which Town Councils had in investing their funds. This does not mean that there are no other aspects of the Trustees Act which require a relook; it is being reviewed to see whether other amendments are necessary. But as that review may take some time, I therefore commend this amendment to this House now. 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 is a very short and technical Bill to amend section 4(1) of the Trustees Act to enable a trustee to invest in negotiable certificates of deposits (NCDs) in Singapore currency where such NCDs are issued by banks in Singapore. An NCD is evidence of a deposit with a bank repayable on a fixed date. What distinguishes it from a bank deposit is that it is a fully negotiable document and can be resold before the maturity date. In this respect, it has an advantage over normal fixed deposit with a bank. As an investment, an NCD denominated in Singapore dollars carries less risk than equities which are quoted on the Stock Exchange since upon maturity the principal sum plus interest is payable. This amendment is needed because at present section 4 of the Trustees Act only empowers trustees to invest in immovable property and in Government and other fixed interest securities, whilst section 7 covers securities quoted on the Stock Exchange of Singapore. An NCD does not specifically fall within either section 4 or section 7, and unless the trust instrument expressly authorises the trustees to invest in NCDs, there is a doubt as to whether NCDs are authorised investments. This Bill will remove any doubt that the trustees can invest in Singapore dollar denominated NCDs in accordance with the provisions of the Trustees Act. The amendment will also benefit those statutory bodies, such as Town Councils, which are empowered to invest in trustee investments in accordance with the Trustees Act.”
“Whichever party is in charge of Singapore faces these same challenges and problems. It is in our national interest to get our people to rally around a common cause, to work together, because after all the discussion and arguments are fully aired in Parliament, we have to choose between alternative solutions and to make the solution we have decided upon work. We have to get our people behind it and to make it succeed. Hence this Bill to enable Parliament, through its special Select Committee, to bring in 6 nominated MPs. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.05 pm”
“Since the normal electoral process does not result in such views from being represented, we take steps to ensure that they are represented. We have already introduced the NCMP scheme to ensure that there will always be some Opposition Members in Parliament. The Nominated MP scheme is an extension of the NCMP scheme. It broadens our political system and makes for a better Parliament. We have to evolve a system which meets the special needs of Singapore. The Westminster parliamentary system we have inherited is flexible enough to be the basic framework on which to gradually evolve a system suited to our own needs and arising from our own political experience. Our constitutional position has to evolve with our social, economic and political circumstances. It cannot be static, because a society is dynamic, not static. We must make changes to meet changing circumstances and expectations. For example, we introduced provisions for Non-Constituency MPs in 1984, and for Group Representation Constituencies in 1988. Such changes represent different facets of an evolving Constituton. They are constitutional improvements to meet our special circumstances. I intend to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. The mechanics of how the MPs are to be nominated and other technical details can be taken care of by the Select Committee. At this point, concentrate on the purpose of the Bill. The principle underlying this Bill is simple. First, to build consensus. Second, to encourage political participation and contribution, to get those who can contribute to good government to serve. And, third, to accommodate constructive dissent and alternative views. The challenges and problems which Singapore will face are formidable. The solutions open to us are not many.”
“Each estate has its fair share of rental blocks, 3-room flats, 4-room, and so on, and Malays, Indians and Chinese. Whether it is Toa Payoh, Marine Parade or Yishun, the voter profile is about the same. Singapore is, therefore, like one big constituency, not 55 different constituencies, with election results affected more by national mood and Government policies than by local problems. With the first-past-the-post electoral system, a dominant party like the PAP will win decisively leaving very few seats to the opposition. To illustrate my point, let us look at the election results of the last two general elections, 1984 and 1988. In 1984, despite a sharp drop in national support for the PAP, a drop of 13%, the PAP lost only two seats. In 1988, though the support level went down by 1% from 1984, the PAP lost only one seat. In fact, it recovered one from the two opposition seats which it lost in 1984. I believe that what the people really want is, one, a strong, capable Government which can deliver what it promises -a high standard of living, a peaceful society, and a secure future - and, two, a sizable number of non-government MPs who can present alternative views from time to time on specific issues and policies. We have the first but we do not have the second. For many years, from 1966 to 1981, the people were happy with the total dominance of the PAP in Parliament. But they have shown in recent years that they want alternatives to the Government views to be aired, whilst wanting the PAP to continue as the Government. We must take cognizance of this. The PAP has no desire to shut out sensible, constructive criticism, or prevent alternative and dissenting views from being expressed in Parliament. Parliament is the supreme law-making body in Singapore.”
“The rationale is two-fold: (1) in a newly independent country, one cannot be certain that all the able people with relevant experience and abilities will contest elections; and (2) it was considered desirable that the Parliament always contain a clear majority of the ruling party, and to avoid a hung Parliament. I am not saying that these two reasons for Botswana are applicable to Singapore. These four Specially Elected MPs can vote in Parliament and can hold office in government. The other MPs in Botswana naturally did not welcome the addition of these four MPs. Hence the term "Specially Elected MPs", to reassure them that the four are not superior to them. The President was quite proud of his country's innovations. He told BG Lee that I could quote him. Now, look at Pakistan and Bangladesh. These are Muslim countries where traditionally women do not stand for election. So their Parliaments elect a number of women MPs to represent the women. In other words, Parliament functions like an electoral college and elects the required number of women MPs to represent the women in Pakistan or Bangladesh. Singapore's Special Circumstance Our special circumstance is the similarity of our constituencies and the dominance of the PAP. Although Singapore is divided into 55 constituencies comprising 13 GRCs and 42 single-member constituencies, each constituency is electorally similar to another. With the possible exception of Tanglin, there are no distinctly conservative or liberal wards because each constituency's demographic, economic and social profile is typical of the national profile. We have spread out, as a matter of public policy, Singaporeans of different social and racial backgrounds over all the public housing estate.”
“For the next election, if we decide to increase the number of NCMPs to six, ie, from three to six, there will be at least 12 non-government MPs. This is 15% of the number of Government MPs, a good balance. Such a Parliament will be more broad-based than the present Parliament. Nominated MPs in other countries We will not be the first to have Nominated MPs in Parliament. At least 20 other countries have them in their House of Representatives. Fourteen of these countries belong to the Commonwealth. For Members' information, I shall ask the Clerk of Parliament to circulate a list (Cols. 773 - 780) of these 20 countries. [Copies of list circulated to hon. Members.] Each of them has some special circumstances. list - SOME COUNTRIES WITH APPOINTED MPs IN LOWER HOUSES (Cols. 773 - 780) Let us take the case of Botswana. Botswana is a member of the Commonwealth. The President of Botswana, Dr Q K J Masire, was in Singapore recently to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Governments meeting in Kuala Lumpur. He told the Minister for Trade and Industry who escorted him that Botswana has a system of "Specially Elected MPs", almost identical to the Nominated MPs scheme we have in mind. Botswana has a multi-party parliamentary system. The country is divided into 34 single-member constituencies, but the Parliament has 40 members, including 4 Specially Elected Members of Parliament. After general elections, when Parliament meets, the first order of the 34 MPs is to elect the 4 additional Specially Elected MPs. This system, introduced by the Botswanians themselves, has been in existence since their independence in 1966.”
“For example, the women candidates, who despite the PAP's best efforts are relatively few, may by chance all be defeated, leaving this an all male House. The Opposition parties do not set out to field candidates to complement the PAP candidates. People who stand as Opposition candidates usually feel strongly that the PAP government is bad for Singapore, and should be thrown out of power. This in itself limits the range of people likely to be elected to Parliament as Opposition MPs. There will be an intermediate range of opinions, people who may disagree with the PAP on certain issues, and therefore do not wish to stand as a PAP candidate, but who despite this do not believe that throwing out the PAP is necessarily the best solution. There will also be people who for legitimate reasons are not able to stand for election as MPs, but who can make valuable contributions in public policy debates. They should not be shut out of the political process, as to a certain extent they are now. Neither the PAP nor Opposition MPs (nor NCMPs who are also partisan) can adequately represent the views of these people. Not necessarily from lack of ability, but because they hold a different set of convictions. Nominated MPs can make our political process more representative and policy debate more thorough by reflecting such strands of opinion. With Nominated MPs, Parliament will have three distinct groups of MPs to represent all interests: (1) the ruling party representing the large middle-ground; (2) the Opposition, whether directly elected or NCMPs, representing the anti-establishment voters; and (3) Nominated MPs who are independent of political parties and speaking for those who feel that their interests are not adequately represented by the ruling or Opposition parties.”
“They should not belong to any political party. Then they can give voice in Parliament to the views of the protest-voters, those who are unhappy with the Government over certain policies but want the PAP to form the Government. Many such voters do not identify themselves with the Opposition even though they do not think that PAP MPs can speak out convincingly enough on their behalf. They can now turn to the Nominated MPs. Nominated MPs can fulfil a constructive role which the Opposition is not providing. Indeed, they will say things which no Opposition Member will. The reason is simple. The objective or aim of the Opposition MPs has been not to help find the right solution or settle correct policies, but to embarrass the Government and trip it up in order to discredit the Government so that they can win office for themselves. Nominated MPs, unlike Opposition MPs, can concentrate on the substance of the debate rather than form and rhetoric. They do not have to play to the gallery. They can be constructive while dissenting, thus contributing to good government. The New Parliament In Singapore, the Parliament should represent the views of the people. At the same time, individual MPs should speak their convictions, as PAP MPs do, rather than echo what they hear others saying outside the House, seeking popularity by following the crowd. The PAP sets out to represent the mainstream of political opinion in Singapore, and to field as representative a range of candidates as possible during General Elections - unionists, professionals, academics, grassroots leaders, different races, sexes, and so on. Still PAP MPs are unlikely to succeed completely in representing every legitimate viewpoint. Furthermore, not all its candidates may get elected.”
“For example, many foreign companies, in particular multi-national companies, do not allow their staff to take part in elections because they want to retain a neutral position in their host country. Oil companies practise this policy. For the same reason, some local companies do not allow their staff to stand for elections. The Straits Times, for example, does not allow their journalists to do so. I hope that these companies will allow their staff to become Nominated MPs because such MPs will not be politically partisan. Then we can have a group of Singaporeans hitherto not available, who can make a significant contribution from their wider experience, expertise and insights into our economic and social problems. Women are another category of Singaporeans who can contribute to public service but who are under-represented in Parliament. There are only four of them. Most women who can contribute are immersed in their careers and with families to look after. Few women will want to handle three full-time jobs - elections and a constituency, plus a career, and family. They may be willing to become a Nomi- nated MP if they do not have to look after a constituency. And that way, we can have more women in Parliament. Nominated MPs Note that Nominated MPs are not Opposition MPs. Those who want Opposition MPs to represent them can still vote for them. The Nominated MPs proposal does not take away their freedom to vote for the candidate they want, whether PAP or Opposition. Nominated MPs are not Government MPs either. They should and will be people who will vote as they think right. The PAP, with 80 out of 81 seats in Parliament, does not need six more pro-government MPs to strengthen it. The Nominated MPs are politically non-partisan.”
“After nearly one year's experience, the feedback is that the two of them, ie, the two Opposition MPs, do not adequately express significant alternative views held outside this Chamber. Indeed, we have encouraged the PAP MPs to play the role of a constructive Opposition to ventilate alternative and even contrary solutions to our problems. They have done this well, but no matter how vigorously they speak on an issue, the point is that they are Government MPs. Moreover, on important issues like this one, they are not allowed to vote against the Government unless the Whip is lifted. And we do not intend to do so, except in matters of conscience, because of the system of collective responsibility. PAP MPs often vote on issues, but this is done in closed-door party meetings. Once a vote is taken and the decision made, they are expected to abide by the majority decision. Therefore, some members of the public have felt that non-government viewpoints have not been adequately aired and pressed. This is a misconception which it is in our interest to remove. We are not afraid of dissent. In fact, we welcome alternative solutions to our problems, and want to be seen doing so. If we add six Nominated MPs to the two Opposition MPs, there will be eight non-government MPs. This is a sizable presence. It is 10% of the number of Government MPs. Even if more Opposition MPs are returned at the next General Election, it is still to Singapore's interest and advantage to have six Nominated MPs. Although the PAP has done its best to persuade the best to serve the country, there are always Singaporeans who can contribute but who are not able, or prepared, to take part in elections and look after a constituency.”
“The term for each Nominated MP is two years unless before then Parliament is dissolved or he resigns or his seat becomes vacant in accordance with Article 46 of the Constitution. A Nominated MP can be re-appointed after the expiry of his term. He can also stand for any election to Parliament. But if he is elected, his seat will become vacant, ie, he cannot be a Nominated Member and an elected Member at the same time. This will also apply to a Non-Constituency Member. If the seat of a Nominated MP becomes vacant, on the expiry of his term, it will be filled as soon as practicable. If the seat becomes vacant for other reasons, it may be filled at the discretion of the Special Select Committee. A Nominated MP will have the same voting rights in Parliament as a Non-Constituency Member, ie, he can vote on all Bills and motions, except money and Constitutional Bills, and motions of no confidence in the Government. He is, however, free to participate in the debate on such Bills and motions. Sir, let me add here that it is not the intention of Government that Nominated MPs should be eligible to become Ministers or other office holders. The principle that office holders must come from the ranks of elected MPs will remain. If the provisions of the Bill are not specific on this point, suitable amendments can be made. Why the Bill is introduced now It is timely to introduce the Bill now and have some Nominated MPs in this House before the middle of next year. As I have said on another occasion, I intend to let this Parliament run its full term, ie, until end 1993. This means that, unless we do something, there will be only two Opposition MPs for the next four years.”
“Parliament does not have to, but it is a special privilege it can extend to those Singaporeans who can contribute, but who for good reasons, have no desire to go into politics or to look after a constituency, to enter Parliament. These MPs appointed by Parliament can be people who have distinguished themselves or have special knowledge and practical experience in the professions, commerce, industry, cultural activities, social service, or people from an under-represented group of the population, eg, women. Bill The Bill before the House seeks to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore to provide for the appointment of a maximum number of six Nominated Members of Parliament. The appointment will be made by the President on the nomination of a Special Select Committee appointed by Parliament. The Special Select Committee, in preparing the list of nominees to be appointed by the President, will invite the general public to submit the names of suitable persons. The procedure for doing so is spelt out in the proposed Fourth Schedule to the Constitution on the "Appointment of Nominated Members of Parliament" (clause 5 of the Bill). Persons to be Nominated Members must have the same qualifications as those who stand for election to Parliament and are subject to the same disqualifications. The Bill requires Nominated Members to be appointed within six months after the first meeting of Parliament following a general election. For the purposes of the present Parliament , such appointments will be made as soon as practicable after this Bill takes effect as law. All six Nominated MPs need not be appointed at the same time. Their appointments can be staggered.”