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 40 of 66.
“1, Col. 15) When the President's Address was debated, not a single Member of Parliament objected to this political vision. They all supported it, including the opposition MPs. Note that the President used the words "non-government MPs" advisedly, and not "opposition MPs". We can increase the number of non-government MPs, including opposition MPs, in a number of ways. The simplest is to increase the number of Non-Constituency MPs. A more radical way is to change the rules and have proportional representation. But I do not recommend this. It will quickly lead to politicking on racial and even religious grounds, and weakened social structures. We could also have a second round election for opposition MPs if opposition parties fail to secure a minimum number of seats in a general election. This could be an alternative to the NCMP scheme. We could also have an Upper House, with all the Senators elected, or some Senators elected and some appointed, or all Senators appointed. All these methods will either alter radically the present electoral processes or change drastically the basic structure of our legislature which consists of a single Chamber. They should not be embarked upon without the most compelling reasons. Our present system is basically sound and there is no need to consider such radical changes. However, we can improve the present system simply by Parliament itself, ie, we, the elected representatives, nominating a number of politically non-partisan Singaporeans who can contribute to good government as MPs. Parliament can consider itself as an 'electoral college' vested with the powers to nominate a number of politically non-partisan Singaporeans to help it in its work.”
“CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL Order for Second Reading read. The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The aim of this Bill is to further strengthen our political system by offering Singaporeans more opportunities for political participation and to evolve a more consensual style of government where alternative views are heard and constructive dissent accommodated. It is part of a broader vision which we in the PAP Government painted in 1984, and which led to the introduction of Non-Constituency MPs, and the establishment of GRCs and Town Councils. It should therefore be seen in this wider context. The Government's programme to achieve this was spelt out by the President when he opened the Seventh Parliament on 9th January 1989. On "Building Consensus", he said, (and I quote from Hansard, Vol. 52, No. 1, Col. 14): 'The Government will systematically create more opportunities for Singaporeans to participate actively in shaping their own future.' On "Encouraging Participation" and "Accommodating Dissent", the President said: 'Singaporeans have shown that while they value good government, they also increasingly want alternative views to be expressed and dissenting voices to be heard. The Government will listen to alternative views and dissenting voices, and accommodate them where they are constructive. The first step towards this accommodation was the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament scheme.... Such non-government MPs can question Government policies and argue for alternative courses of action. The Government will review the NCMP scheme and increase the number of non-government MPs to achieve this.' (Hansard, Vol. 52, No.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a short statement to make. Members will recall that at our last sitting on 6th October, during the debate on the Minister for Education's statement on teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools, several Members asked me when the Government intended to implement the ground rules on religion and politics which was set out in the Address by the President. I replied that the Government has decided to introduce legislation to give effect to these ground rules and that I expected the Bill to be ready for introduction at today's sitting of Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has considered the matter further and has decided to publish a White Paper first before tabling the proposed legislation. The White Paper will set out proposals for the legislation to maintain religious tolerance and harmony, including the separation of religion and politics. It will spell out the problems which we face in our multi-racial and multi-religious society, the reasons why we need legislation and it will also outline the main features of the proposed legislation. I expect the White Paper to be published within the next two weeks. Following its publication, the Government intends to introduce a Bill in this House intituled "Religions (Maintenance of Harmony) Bill". That Bill will be referred to a Select Committee so that the details of its provisions can be carefully scrutinised and views of all interested parties can be received. BILL INTRODUCED INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL "to amend the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", 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, the Member should read the Internal Security Act. It is a law designed to deal with any threat, any problem, which is prejudicial to the security of Singapore. And from the few examples that I recited, it must be clear to Members that the types of security threats which have arisen and which can arise are innumerable. For that reason, as I said, it will be unwise to abolish the ISA. As for the legislation on religion and politics which has not been tabled yet in this House, let me say that even if we have separate legislation on religion and politics, there will still be a need for the ISA. I would suggest that the Member await for the Bill on religion and politics, then he can make his point at the appropriate time. SPLIT BETWEEN KUALA LUMPUR STOCK EXCHANGE AND STOCK EXCHANGE OF SINGAPORE (Impact and implications) 8. Dr Wang Kai Yuen asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether, in the spirit of Asean solidarity, the Malaysian Government informed the Singapore Government of its decision to sever the linkage between the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange and the Stock Exchange of Singapore prior to the Malaysian Finance Minister's announcement in the Malaysian Parliament; (b) what will be the short-term and long-term impact of the split on the Stock Exchange of Singapore; and (c) what are the implications for the investors in the Stock Exchange of Singapore.”
“Sir, in my reply, I thought I have outlined that the problem posed by the communists and the CPM is not the only security threat which we have in Singapore. And even if it completely disappears, there are other threats to our security which I have outlined and I do not want to repeat them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the conditions which are imposed on any detainee upon his release are guided solely on security considerations and with a view to ensuring that they do not return to the subversive activities for which they were in the very first place detained. When the assessment of the Internal Security Department is that the conditions need no longer apply, they will be removed.”
“This inter-relatedness endures because both countries face common security problems - communism and communalism. Although the threat posed by the communists has receded, the problems posed by the communalists have not. Any instability and turmoil in Malaysia will affect Singapore and vice versa. The hon. Member for Potong Pasir could not have forgotten May 13, 1969, when racial riots in Kuala Lumpur spilled over to Singapore. Therefore, Sir, the announcement of CPM's cessation of hostilities does not render the ISA unnecessary. It is still needed to effectively deal with internal security problems.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be most unwise to abolish the Internal Security Act just becase the CPM has reportedly agreed to terminate hostilities. First, if the CPM in fact terminates hostilities, it still remains to be seen whether this necessarily means the end of all forms of communist subversion. Secondly, the problems posed by the CPM are not our only security threat. There are also other security threats such as communalism, religious extremism, inter- national terrorism, espionage and subversion from sources other than the communists. For instance, in the early 1970s, we detained chauvinists who attempted to whip up communal feelings on gut issues of race, language and culture. In 1979, five persons were detained under the ISA for attempting to establish an Islamic State by armed means, if necessary. In 1985, two Singaporeans were detained for facilitating the supply of arms to a terrorist group in Sri Lanka. More recently, in April 1987, we detained four persons who were spreading rumours of impending racial clashes and making active preparations for racial disturbances. And in 1987, the Marxist arrests also highlighted the security problems posed by the exploitation and manipulation of religious organisations and religious publications. Thirdly, Sir, we can abolish the ISA only when the security situation in Malaysia has enabled them to abolish their ISA. The internal security of Singapore and Malaysia are closely interlinked. Mr Lee Kuan Yew stated this way back in October 1958, more than 30 years ago, in the run-up to the May 1959 elections and before he became Prime Minister. He made this an election issue and the PAP won the elections. He reiterated this most recently in May last year before the September 1988 general elections.”
“The only information available is from the Good Conduct Certificates (GCC) which are required by some countries. From 1986 to 1988 (the only records available), 10,546 GCCs were issued. 2 The breakdown is as follows: GCCs issued from 1986 to 1988 by -------------------------------- (i) Sex --- Males 5054 Females 5492 (ii) Ethnic Group ------------ Malays 418 Chinese 8201 Indians 1439 Others 488 (iii) Age --- 50 years and above 1124 20 - 49 years 8913 Below 20 years 509 (iv) Work Background --------------- Professionals and 4067 technical workers Administrative, sales, service and production workers 6479 (v) Education --------- Secondary & above 3633 ) ) Records incomplete Below Secondary 1074 ) table - Phonecard Sales, Jan - Jul 89 (Cols.661 - 662)”
“Resolved, That this Parliament, noting the Report of the Commission on Parliament Staff as contained in Paper Misc. 7 of 1989, accepts the recommendations of the Commission as contained in paragraph 7 thereof and resolves in accordance with such recommendations. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Prof. S. Jayakumar.] Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Six Minutes past Five o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWER TO QUESTION EMIGRATION STATISTICS 1. Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the breakdown of emigrants from Singapore by educational level, work background, sex, age, race, etc. from 1979 to 1988.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name as it appears in the Order Paper. I am moving this motion at the request of the Leader of the House who is away. *The motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, noting the Report of the Commission on Parliament Staff as contained in Paper Misc. 7 of 1989, accepts the recommendations of the Commission as contained in paragraph 7 thereof and resolves in accordance with such recommendations. Sir, consequent to the revision of salaries in the public service announced earlier this year, a Commission consisting of yourself, Mr Speaker, the Minister for Finance, the Leader of the House, the Minister for Trade and Industry and Second Minister for Defence (Services) and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission was accordingly appointed to advise on the revised salaries of Parliament Staff. This Commission was established pursuant to Article 51(6) of the Constitution. This Commission has met and its Report, as Members know, is presented to Parliament as Paper Misc. 7 of 1989. In paragraph 7 of the Report the Commission recommended the revised salaries for Parliament staff to take effect from 1st April 1989. Sir, the House is asked to accept and approve these recommenda- tions. The Report speaks for itself. I hope all Members will support this motion. And in this regard, I am sure I speak on behalf of all Members, when I say that your staff, Sir, have always demonstrated not only high standards of competence but also have been very patient in assisting Members of the House with materials, locating information, furnishing data and assisting us in many other ways. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Members will know that recently, the details of the project to create a new downtown were announced by the Senior Minister of State for National Development and Home Affairs. For this project, the Ministry of National Development proposes to proceed with the reclamation of about 36.2 hectares of the foreshore and seabed off Marina South to allow for the gradual extension of our city core around the Marina Bay and about 1.80 hectares near the Merlion to accommodate a pedestrian mall as part of the waterfront promenade linking Tanjong Rhu to Marina South and the Singapore River. The Housing and Development Board will undertake the reclamation as agent of the Government. Works on the reclamation, estimated to cost $177.7 million, will commence in the third quarter of 1990 and will be completed in three years. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 113), approves the reclamation by Government of the foreshore and seabed at Telok Ayer Basin and Marina Bay containing an area of about 38 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 4/89" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. REPORT OF COMMISSION ON PARLIAMENT STAFF”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. *The motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 113), approves the reclamation by Government of the foreshore and seabed at Telok Ayer Basin and Marina Bay containing an area of about 38 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 4/89" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, on 23rd October 1981, this House approved the reclamation of about 21.7 hectares of the foreshore and seabed off the Town of Singapore to provide valuable land linking Marina South with the financial belt of Shenton Way and the Golden Shoe Area. However, that reclamation plan was not proceeded with mainly because the master plans drawn up by the two design consultants involved further reclamation and there was no immediate urgency then to adopt either of the plans. With the implementation of several major development projects in the Downtown core, for example, the Ocean Building extension, the Republic Plaza at Raffles Place, the Downtown core, particularly the prime commercial areas of Shenton Way and Raffles Place will eventually be fully built up. We, therefore, need to start planning for the expansion of the City. Besides, the various development projects, which include recreational and food developments, a golf driving range and Marina City Park will be fully completed in Marina South by the end of the year. Accessibility to these development projects and traffic circulation in the area will have to be improved.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a Hindu, not a Christian, therefore I am not frightened by Christian priests pronouncing an anathema or curse upon me instead of a benediction. But whatever our religion and however different our religions may be, it is a matter of grave concern that in Singapore any priest or religious leader, whatever his religious faith, should use his religious authority to work up feelings against Judges, Ministers and officials and to invoke the divine power of damnation upon secular authorities. Such activities in the name of religion will do great harm to our society which is established on a secular basis precisely because Singaporeans belong to varied and strongly-held religious faiths. The legislation which I expect to be introduced at the next sitting will be designed to deal with such mixing of religion with politics and also to deal with those who cause disharmony and ill-will between different religions. And when the Bill is introduced, it will be Government's intention to refer it to a Select Committee so that all individuals and groups who have an interest in the matter and views to express can make known their views.”
“If one religious group involves itself in political issues, others must follow suit to protect their own positions and one wants to outdo the other to retain its flock. Political parties will also look for religious groups to back them up. This will lead to collision with the Government and also between different religious groups. The outcome will surely be conflict and political instability . It is extremely important therefore that priests and other religious leaders or groups never mix religion with politics or mount political campaigns. The fact, however, is that there have been several religious leaders, Christians, Muslims and others, including some foreigners, doing precisely this. They do not hesitate to use their religious appointments or the premises of their institutions for mounting political agitation or making inflammatory or political speeches. Sir, the Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech in August 1987 described several instances, including an Indian Muslim foreign preacher who urged Muslims in Singapore to be more militant. He accused them of being complacent, of having failed to convert Chinese to Islam, with the result that the Chinese had taken over power in Singapore. He had also passed disparaging remarks about Christianity saying that it was a foolish religion. Let me give you a more recent example. A few months ago, in May this year, one Christian priest speaking to his congregation on the second anniversary of the arrest under the ISA asked for prayers for the detainees and went on to declare that the Minister for Home Affairs, Jayakumar, all Judges and ISD officers would face God's punishment for this matter.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I reply to the question posed by the Members for Cheng San GRC, Fengshan and Jalan Besar GRC who had asked in the intervention about the proposed ground-rules to ensure that there is no mixing of religion and politics. Sir, the Government's policy on this was clearly stated in the President's Address at the opening of Parliament this year when he said [Hansard, Vol 52, No. 1, col. 18]: 'Religious harmony is as important to us as racial harmony. Singapore is a secular state, and the supreme source of political authority is the Constitution.' Going down further he said: 'Religion must be kept rigorously separate from politics. Religious groups must not get themselves involved in the political process. Conversely, no group can be allowed to exploit religious issues or manipulate religious organizations, whether to excite disaffection or to win political support. It does not matter if the purpose of these actions is to achieve religious ideals or to promote secular objectives. In a multi-religious society, if one group violates this taboo, others will follow suit, and the outcome will be militancy and conflict.' The President said: 'We will spell out these ground-rules clearly and unequivocally. All political and religious groups must understand these ground-rules, and abide by them scrupulously. If we violate them, even with the best intentions, our political stability will be imperilled.' Sir, the Government has decided to introduce legislation to give effect to these ground-rules. I expect the Bill to be ready for introduction at the next sitting of Parliament. The Government takes a serious view of religious leaders who stray beyond the confines of religious activities or who exploit and manipulate religious organisations.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in the absence of the Leader of the House, may I say that I agree with the Member for Potong Pasir when he said that it is an important topic. And if he feels that he has not got ample opportunity today to express all that he wants to say, I think Members would certainly have no objections if in future he exercises his right to move a motion on this matter.”
“Not at all, Sir. We have asked The Times of London to publish the facts. Mr Jeyaretnam can sue and the High Commissioner will waive his immunity. I do not see what is the point raised by the Member. We are willing and ready in London to establish the facts before the British readers of The Times of London. But The Times of London has to carry those two paragraphs. CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION OF SINGAPORE (Effectiveness of) 10. Mr Chew Heng Ching asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) is still needed; and, if so, whether his Ministry has any plans to ensure that CASE continues to play an effective role in safeguarding consumer interests.”
“It is really not relevant, Sir, but we have publicly stated that The Times of London has refused to publish the full reply and they refused to publish the two key paragraphs. We have stated publicly that if and when The Times of London publishes the two paragraphs the High Commissioner will waive the immunity. That position stands even as of now.”
“I do not see any requirement in any law or Standing Orders of Parliament that permission of this House must be obtained for what is an obvious course of action for any overseas mission to take when a foreign newspaper refuses to publish a full reply on various pretexts and where the offer and indemnity exposes the newspaper and shows to be hollow their excuse.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been advised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that it is within their budgetary allocation. And if it is not budgeted for, I am sure the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will seek supplementary provision from this House.”
“I thought we said so publicly, Sir, that we wanted to publish further advertisements in The Guardian and the Financial Times, but they decided that they would not publish those advertisements.”
“Sir, after the publication of the advertisements in The Guardian and the Financial Times, a further advertisement was taken out in the Daily Telegragh.”
“"Mr Levin cites two court cases which Mr Jeyaretnam had "duly lost" and "of course lost", implying that these actions should rightly have succeeded in law. Mr Jeyaretnam acted as his own counsel in both these cases. Did Mr Levin know that in these two cases: 1. In his slander action, he had failed to set out the actual words he complained of, a basic legal requirement in Singapore, as it is in England? 2. In the election petition on behalf of the Workers' Party, he had failed to serve the petition on the Returning Officer as required by law?" "The Malayan Law Journal reported both cases." The inclusion of these two paragraphs was important as they would have effectively rebutted Mr Levin's allegations against the Singapore Government and the judiciary in Singapore. When such serious allegations are published, it is important that the facts be made known to the readers. Furthermore, the Government was advised by the Attorney-General that there was nothing in the High Commissioner's reply which was defamatory. So as not to give The Times any excuse to refuse to publish the full letter, and I repeat, the full letter, the High Commissioner was authorized to offer the indemnity.”
“Thank you. First, if I may deal with the question asked by Mr Chiam See Tong. The answer is, Sir, that an amount of o7,000 was paid for the advertisement in The Guardian, o12,364 and 80 pence was paid to the Financial Times, while $3,969 was paid to The Straits Times. The Member may be interested to know that The Guardian has a daily circulation of 418,000 copies while the Financial Times has a circulation of 280,000. If I may turn to the question by the NCMP. The Minister for Foreign Affairs authorized the offer of indemnity to The Times by the High Commissioner in respect of any legal action arising from the publication of the High Commissioner's reply. He did so after consulting the Minister for Law and the Attorney-General. The letter by the High Commissioner was to reply to serious allegations against the Government about "the misuse of the law" in an article by Mr Bernard Levin published in The Times on 19th June 1989. The Times not only insisted on considerably editing the reply but also refused to publish two key paragraphs in the High Commissioner's letter on grounds of possible defamation. The paragraphs were, and I quote: "If Mr Jeyaretnam is a person of "scrupulous integrity - professionally, personally and politically", how is it that after July 1975, when the Workers' Party was ordered to pay costs after losing its slander action against a former PAP MP, its bank accounts never contained more than $500, even though between 1976 and 1980 the Party had collected $24,008 in donations and expended $45,196 in election and other expenses? Mr Jeyaretnam could not explain why this was not a deliberate scheme to defraud the creditors.”
“Mr Speaker, I wonder if I may have your permission to take both Question 8 and Question 9 together as they relate to the same subject matter and perhaps both the Members can thereafter ask any supplementary question.”
“Shall I repeat, Sir? The duties of our Police Monitors include accompanying the South West African Police (SWAPO) on their duties. ADVERTISEMENTS IN BRITISH NEWSPAPERS AND THE STRAITS TIMES (Cost) 8. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what was the cost incurred by the Government in placing advertisements in the two British newspapers, The Guardian and the Financial Times, and The Straits Times (Singapore) in relation to the letter written by Bernard Levin of The Times (London). SINGAPORE HIGH COMMISSIONER TO LONDON (Offer of indemnity to proprietors and publishers of The Times of London) 9. Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on whose authority the Singapore High Commissioner to London offered an indemnity to the proprietors and publishers of The Times newspaper in London to publish a matter relating to a citizen of Singapore.”
“If all is well, the men will be back home to Singapore and to their families in early April 1990. I may add, Sir, that last month we sent a team of senior officials from my Ministry and the Foreign Affairs Ministry, including a doctor, to visit our police contingent. They reported that our men were in good health and spirits.”
“Sir, the 21 Police officers in the Singapore Contingent of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) arrived in Namibia on 5th May. They have been deployed in groups of three to five men to serve as Police Monitors in the various districts of Namibia stretching from the Northern border near Angola to the Southern border near South Africa. The Leader of the Singapore Contingent, Superintendent Lee Kok Leong, was recently appointed the Chief Electoral and Refugee Officer in UNTAG Headquarters. He is responsible to the UNTAG Police Commissioner for supervising the forthcoming General Elections and also to oversee the return of Namibian refugees from neighbouring countries. The duties of our police monitors include accompanying the South West African Police (SWAPO) on their duties, inspecting refugee camps, checking of information received on SWAPO movements and other activities and guarding and escorting registration papers. Our contingent has been performing their duties fairly and impartially. They have been proven to be tough, disciplined, highly skilled in various policing duties and adaptable. The UNTAG Police Commissioner has commended our men highly for their professionalism, dedication and initiative. Elections there are due in mid-November. In anticipation of these elections, tension is mounting in Namibia. A heavy responsibility will lie on all the UNTAG Forces, including our Police Monitors, to ensure a fair and smooth elections. Sir, I am confident that the Singapore Contingent Leader, who is the Chief Electoral Officer, and his men will contribute in no small measure towards ensuring this. After the elections, UNTAG is expected to remain until 31st March 1990, to enable the newly elected Government sufficient time to consolidate.”
“The number of persons detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act as of 15 August 1989 is 1,228. The breakdown of the lengths of their detention as requested by the Member is as follows: (a) Secret Society & Criminal Activities ------------------------------------ 0 - 5 years : 403 6 - 10 years : 78 11 - 15 years : 7 (all of whom were placed on the Day Release Scheme) (b) Drug Traffickers ---------------- 0 - 5 years : 711 6 - 10 years : 29 REMITTANCE OF PROFITS BY FOREIGN INVESTORS 2. Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Minister for Finance what were the total amounts of profits, dividends, fees and other earnings remitted overseas by foreign investors and companies over the years 1979 to 1988.”
“I thank him for his clarification. The answer that I gave for the question which he says he did not pose applies equally to the clarification that he has given! Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. NATIONAL COMPUTER BOARD (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked for clarification whether chief executive officers, personnel managers, company secretaries will be liable, and under what situation. If they are proceeded with under this amendment, the same approach must follow. In other words, it must be proved that any one of them had actual knowledge. In other words, the same ingredients for the offence which are spelt out earlier will also apply and if the prosecution cannot prove, then of course the court will not convict. Suggestions were made both by Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Mr Heng Chiang Meng that some arrangements should be there for employers to clarify the status of potential workers with the Ministry of Labour and the Immigration Department. This is something which I will take up with the Immigration Department. But we must not forget that in a vast number of cases the potential employer would, in fact, have been the sponsor, applying for work permits on behalf of the workers he intends to employ. In cases where he gets them from a different source, where he does not have to be the sponsor for the work permit applicant, then there should be no problem in him ascertaining the status with the relevant department. Sir, I think I have answered most of the questions.”
“Nobody has been caned yet." But I think if a law achieves a result of, first of all, flushing out 12,000 people and repatriating them, if that result is achieved by law, even before one person is actually subjected to the infliction of the penalty, then I say that law is an effective law. Effective even before the penalty is carried out! That should be our approach to a law where it is difficult to catch someone: it must be an effective deterrent. That is the philosophy behind these amendments. Both Dr Lee Siew-Choh and Mr Chiam See Tong said, "Well, these employers after all are businessmen." They keep emphasizing the fact that they are businessmen. "Out for a quick profit", to use the words of Dr Lee Siew-Choh. I say, so what if they are businessmen? Yes, they are businessmen. But they have to comply with the law, surely. To make a plea for them when the majority of their colleagues who are businessmen are complying with the law, surely is to condone violation of the law which is very unfair for those who take pains to comply with the provisions of the law. One more point, if I may, to respond to Mr Chiam who has just come in. He said that the existing provision on traffickers already provides for mandatory caning because of the words "shall be liable". I have ascertained from the Attorney-General's Chambers that that is not so and that the courts in Singapore have interpreted the words "shall be liable" to not a necessarily mean mandatory caning. Hence, it is necessary to use a different form of words when mandatory punishments are envisaged. Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked whether we could consider this penalty for second time offenders. My answer to that will be similar. It is very difficult to catch first time offenders at the very outset.”
“This Bill that is before the House is aimed at the employer who is proved, in other words presumption does not apply, it must be proved in a court that he employed more than five illegal workers or overstayers at the same time and he did so not inadvertently or in ignorance, but it must be proved to the court that he knew that they were illegal overstayers or illegal immigrants. Will that really cause an exodus? I doubt it. If it causes an exodus of persons who would be thus such culprits, then I say good riddance because they are the ones who are likely to have caused and perpetuated the problem. Both Mr Philip Tan and Mr Loh Meng See, I think, advocate higher monetary penalties. But let us recognize what the problem is. As I have explained before in this House, it is very difficult to catch employers and prosecute them. In the very nature of enforcement it is very difficult. Mr Loh Meng See gave figures, several hundreds who were prosecuted this year. But that was not under the Immigration Act. The figures and the cases he refers to are those employers who employed persons who are here on valid social visit pass. In other words, they were validly here, they were not illegal immigrants or overstayers. The cases that he referred to are cases under the Regulation of Employment Act, which was referred to by my colleague, the Minister for Labour. So it is very difficult to catch employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants. That is why we introduced the presumption clause to facilitate prosecution in January. If that is so, then what should be the legislative approach? The legislative approach must therefore be to deter. It must be an effective deterrent. I believe this was touched on by Mr Heng Chiang Meng because Mr Chiam See Tong asked, "Is it a deterrent?”
“It may be that we are the first country. But I would rather that we be the first country in the world to have this measure than to have indefinitely or permanently a situation where 17% of our jails comprise illegal overstayers and illegal immigrants if we can effectively avoid the problem of having large numbers of illegal immigrants and overstayers. Because if we do have them floating around in Singapore, then all the disadvantages and adverse effects which were spelt out by the Minister of State for Home Affairs in introducing the Bill in January, the Immigration (Amendment) Bill, could never be overcome. Mr Lim Boon Heng hit the nail on the head when he said that it really means that you have a situation where Singaporean wages and Singaporeans' ability to find jobs will be affected. It must be so. If you have illegal workers, they are much cheaper to employ and employers will resort to them. The ultimate result must be blocking of avenues for jobs for Singaporeans and depression of wages of Singaporeans. So whose interest do we want to protect? Whose interest do we want to promote? The Government must be on the side of Singaporean workers and the interest of Singaporean workers. If I may go to some of the points raised by Members, Sir. Mr Philip Tan raised the spectre of this amendment causing a huge exodus of investors and multi-nationals from Singapore. I think to put it mildly, he has exaggerated. What does this Bill do?”
“Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. I also want to thank my colleague, the Minister for Labour, for having dealt with the different ideas and suggestions concerning the review of work permit policy. I particularly want to thank the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill, and what is noteworthy, Sir, is that included amongst them are several who in January had reservations or objections to the Bill to cane illegal immigrants or overstayers. Even one MP who still has reservations was able to say, in retrospect, that it was correct, an effective measure which was introduced in January. Some of the Members who have spoken have, in fact, answered and dealt with the points of reservation or objections raised by others. First, let me say to those Members who have expressed discomfort or unhappiness over the caning as a measure per se. I as the Minister, and I am sure my colleagues in the Cabinet, also do not take any vicarious pleasure out of introducing a harsh measure, whether it is caning or death penalty for drug traffickers or even jailing. Any punishment is necessarily a harsh one from the point of view of the person who is sentenced to that penalty. But before we get engulfed by a swell of compassion and moralizing, what is really necessary to ask is, is there a problem? Can it be solved by other measures? Obviously if it can be solved by other measures, we would have done so. And obviously if other measures in our view are effective deterrents, we would not have brought this amendment before the House. In this regard, we must not forget the nature of the problem and the size of the problem. Mr Philip Tan in his eloquent speech said that we may be the first country in the world to have such a measure. I do not know.”
“Just as not all immigration offenders are subject to the penalty of caning, not all employers employing illegal workers will be caned. This latest amendment has been drafted carefully so that the caning applies only in the case of what I would describe as an aggravated offence. Thus, only employers who employ more than 5 illegal workers at the same time and who are proved to have had actual knowledge that these workers were illegal immigrants or overstayers, will be subject to caning. There are therefore adequate safeguards to ensure that not only no innocent employers will be caned, but also that only those who blatantly flout the law and are guilty of this aggravated offence will be caned. Sir, we must ensure that the problem of illegal immigrants and overstayers is effectively curtailed and does not resurface. A strong signal must go out to all sides - the potential foreign offender, the trafficker and the unscrupulous employer - that the penalties are severe and the law will be enforced strictly. Sir, finally, I have also taken note that quite a number of MPs have called for such enhanced penalty for the employers and I hope that the Bill will receive the support of Members. Question proposed.”
“It tells us that there is still a hardcore group of employers who will continue to recruit and employ such immigration offenders. Fines and jail terms are clearly not adequate deterrents for some of these more unscrupulous employers. Introducing caning for these employers should remove any incentive for this group to hire illegal immigrants and overstayers. It will effectively discourage more illegal immigrants from entering Singapore to seek work. Also, traffickers who are really mercenaries of human misery should also be dealt with severely, and that is also an objective of this amendment. It is for these reasons, Sir, that the Government has decided to amend the Immigration Act to provide for: (a) mandatory caning for employers who employ more than 5 illegal workers and who had actual knowledge that they were illegal immigrants or overstayers; and (b) mandatory caning for traffickers of prohibited immigrants where previously it was optional. Sir, these amendments will also remove the impression that by caning the illegal immigrants and overstayers but not their employers, the Government is treating the two guilty parties to the same offence inequitably. As for the traffickers of prohibited immigrants who are wilfully exploiting the situation, they too have to be dealt with severely. Members will know that the Act already provides for a rebuttable presumption against the employer, ie, if illegal immigrants or overstayers are found with tools or engaged in activity from which employment may be inferred, the occupier of the premises is presumed to have knowingly employed them, unless he can prove otherwise. However, this presumption will not apply for the purposes of this amendment before the House.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The reasons for this Bill have been explained in a Government press statement which was issued on the day the Bill was introduced. I can therefore be brief. Furthermore, the problem of illegal immigrants and overstayers has been fully debated in recent months. Members will recall that in January this year, this House amended the Immigration Act to provide for mandatory caning for illegal immigrants and for those who overstayed more than 90 days. Also, because of the inherent difficulty in prosecuting employers, we also introduced a presumption clause. That new law came into operation on 31st March 1989. But before it came into operation, the effectiveness of that law was already largely demonstrated when more than 10,000 overstayers and illegal immigrants surrendered and were repatriated. In spite of these enhanced penalties and the wide publicity given to them, two more amnesties were given to flush out another 2,000 immigration offenders who were also repatriated. Although we introduced these caning provisions for illegal immigrants and overstayers and introduced the presumption clause, we will still have some foreigners coming to work illegally so long as there are unscrupulous employers who are prepared to take the risk in employing them. And indeed, Sir, there are such unscrupulous employers. Consider, for instance, the following fact. When the final amnesty expired on 8th August 1989, there were as many as 393 illegal immigrants and overstayers who surrendered to their respective embassies for repatriation. They were from 10 different nationalities. This is despite the wide publicity given to the stiffer penalties and despite the earlier amnesties. What does this tell us?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thought both in the press statement as well as in my answer to the question posed by the Chairman of the GPC (Home Affairs) on 4th August, this point had been explained. This is due to the special circumstances in Hong Kong. And Hong Kong applicants are different from other applicants in that many of them may not immediately want to leave Hong Kong and what they need is a place of abode if, and only if, the need arises. Our scheme therefore meets the needs of those in Hong Kong who want this place of abode if the need arises. And as I stated in my reply of 4th August, Sir, we also do not want to weaken the Hong Kong economy or to drain off its talents. That is why we offer approval in principle without requiring them to immediately come to Singapore. They can register and not leave Hong Kong immediately. But before they actually become PRs here, they must have a job, business or profession which they will commence. For other applicants from other countries, the Controller of Immigration tells me that there is really no problem because most of them, in fact, want to and can come here immediately. For those who qualify, in fact, Immigration offers them enough time for them to be here on social visit pass and obtain a job. SINGAPORE SWEEP (Disposal of unclaimed prizes) 10. Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Minister for Finance what were the total sums of unclaimed prizes of the Singapore Sweep for the years 1979 to 1988; and how were they disposed of.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as stated in the Government's press statement of 10th July 1989, Hong Kong applicants who qualify for permanent residence are granted in-principle appro- val valid for five years. They will become permanent residents only when they arrive in Singapore to take up employment, set up businesses or to start the different professional or other practices. For those applicants who actually relocate their family members ahead of themselves, the whole family (including the applicant) will be granted permanent residence status once their wives and children have physically relocated to Singapore.”
“There can be no hard and fast rule here. We will have to ask the Traffic Police to make their judgment on this, especially from their observations and also by an analysis of the causes of accidents that occur. HONG KONG IMMIGRANTS (Rules for immigration) 9. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether, when a Hong Kong resident is given Singapore permanent residence, he must secure a job first before he is allowed to immigrate here.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the advice of the Police is that motorists should not use handphones while driving. This is because a driver's concentration on driving as well as his ability to control the vehicle and his observance of road safety will be affected. Therefore, when a motorist is on the road and wishes to make a call, or has an incoming call, such calls should be attended to by others in the vehicle. If he is alone and driving on a major road or expressway, he should turn off into a side road. If he is driving on a minor road, he should pull up at a safe spot before using the handphone. For the present, the Traffic Police hope to educate motorists on this as part of their overall road safety programme. Enforcement by regulation will be considered if this approach proves ineffective.”
“I do not want to be repetitious, Sir. He has missed my point. The point that he has to consider is, does he want 1,200 who are in detention to be released? Is he seriously suggesting that? Secondly, I have cited AIPO resolution to show that our legislation is a source of inspiration to others. As to others who have implemented, I believe India has preventive detention, I believe Malaysia has. And if he wants to ask how many other countires, he can file a question, I will give him further information. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. VISIT OF HIS EXCELLENCY MR MUNAWIR SJADZALI (Presence in Gallery)”
“Indeed, the ASEAN Inter- Parliamentary Organization (AIPO) of which this Parliament is a member and participates, has repeatedly adopted resolutions to this effect and if I may quote a typical AIPO resolution. This is the resolution of the ASEAN Inter Parliamentary Organization's General Assembly: 'Urges ASEAN Governments to incorporate in their legislation governing narcotic drug abuse, the following features: (1) Preventive Detention on those suspected to be involved in drug trafficking.' Are these ASEAN Parliamentarians uncivilized? Surely they know what they are talking about. Sir, let me now go to the points raised by Mr Shanmugam. I understand that from the purist legal approach, this surely must nag the conscience of any constitutional lawyer. So when he asked, and I think the NCMP asked, is "temporary provisions" a misnomer? In a sense yes. Maybe the Chairman of the GCP is right - change it! But would that be right? I do not think so. We need to have this law so long as the problem exists, so long as you want to be sure that it does not rear its ugly head and go back to the days of the 1950's. But why do we come to Parliament every five years? It will be far easier, is it not, since Government has the majority, to make an amendment so that we do not have to come back to Parliament every five years to justify. It will save the Minister for Home Affairs a lot of work. But I think that is wrong. This detention is a departure from the normal processes. We recognize that. And because it is, I think it is right that we come, explain to this House and get the House's approval and endorsement for its continuation for another five years.”
“Here, tourists and visitors readily applaud the fact that they feel safe and secure and our people feel safe and secure. The best testimony and the best reasons for the continuation of the Act are indeed the reasons given by the NCMP, ie, we have achieved a relative degree of security, peace and safety and we must continue with that. If you abolish this Act, what signals are you giving? A clear signal to the drug trafficker and to the secret society elements is that now the only option is for the Government to get a court prosecution and therefore reprisals of witnesses, intimidation of witnesses, buying of witnesses, will lead to no prosecution and you will have a proliferation of both secret society and drug trafficking activities. The NCMP said that preventive detention in this form is a negation of the rule of law, not to be found in any civilized society. Mr Speaker, Sir, I meet from time to time with visiting delegations of law enforcement officers in other parts of the world. When they hear about our preventive detention laws, they tell me privately that how much they wished they could have this law in their country but, alas, they wring their hands in despair and said that the political lobbyists and the human rights lobbyists are so powerful that they will never be able to get this legislation through. But countries in our region are also aware and, far from deploring our legislation as a despicable act of departure from the rule of law, our Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act has in fact been cited as a model and from time to time ASEAN drug enforcement experts have urged governments to adopt such preventive detention.”
“My response to that is, as Mr Loh Meng See has very vividly put it, if this is the pleasant state of affairs, it is precisely because the Government had the foresight and the political will to take tough measures such as the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. If secret society activities have come down, it is because fear has been struck yes, indeed fear has been struck but not in political opponents - but fear has been struck in the hearts of criminal elements, and I make no apologies for that. That is the way to govern. Other countries take an opposite course. They cannot prosecute in a court so their option is let them loose on the streets. When you do that, this is what you have. Two days ago on BBC - I think it is worthwhile reminding ourselves what happens in other countries - this is from BBC two nights ago and I quote from News Desk: 'Murder of a woman Judge in Columbia has prompted a nation-wide strike by Judges. They want the government to take stronger steps to deal with drug-related crime and to give them more protection. The 24-hour strike by Columbian Judges is not the first of its kind. In the last 10 years, dozens of judges investigating narcotic cases have been murdered by drug traffickers. The Judge who was killed, Judge Maria Elena Daiz, was investigating the massacre of plantation workers by a group suspected to be the largest cocaine ring. She refused to revoke the warrant. Shortly afterwards, she and two of her police escorts were shot dead by gunmen.' This is perhaps an extreme example. Colleagues in the House who have travelled to various countries will know that in many countries, including "civilized" countries which the NCMP mentioned, it is not safe to walk on the streets at night and in some places even during day time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken and if I may respond to some of the points. Dr Ho Tat Kin asked about the safeguards and whether we periodically review the safeguards and the answer to that is yes. We do it in two ways. Firstly, I personally meet with the Chairmen and members of the various Advisory Committees not only in criminal law but also Drug Review Committees and others who are associated with various aspects of law enforcement agency to obtain feedback and criticisms and they have given us suggestions from time to time. Secondly, we also appoint committees to look into how we can better administer the Act and, only recently in the past two to three years, we appointed a committee chaired by a former Permanent Secretary, other members being drawn from legal practitioners as well as Justices of the Peace who have also examined the workings of the criminal law system and they have interviewed many people and have given their suggestions. I would like also to say that we take the views of the Advisory Committees very seriously and when they give their views on any particular case and if they feel that the person should be released or instead of detention they should be converted to police supervision, these are fully deliberated in Cabinet and their views and recommendations seriously considered. The NCMP's criticism of the Bill and his call for its abolition is contradicted by his own speech. Throughout the speech he applauded the relative crime-free state in Singapore. Crime rate has gone down, secret society activities have been brought down. His conclusion is that we should therefore abolish it.”
“Sir, to briefly summarize the rationale for this Act, its provisions are only resorted to when the securing of a court conviction is well-nigh impossible because of the unwillingness on the part of the complainants and key witnesses to testify in court for fear of reprisals. The Act has substantially contributed to the maintenance of law and order in Singapore. It is still required as a weapon to suppress secret society and drug trafficking activities as there is no indication at the present stage that these criminal activities can be completely eliminated in the very near future. It is therefore necessary, Sir, to extend the Act for a further period of five years. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Criminal law detentions together with the death penalty are therefore indispensable weapons in our fight against drug traffickers. The Act also has provisions on the prevention of strikes and lockouts in essential services and it stipulates that no workman in the water, gas and electricity services can go on strike. Employees in other essential services must give ample notice before they can go on strike. These provisions continue to be necessary. There are adequate built-in safeguards in the Act to prevent it from being abused. There are also additional procedures which we on our own have introduced as safeguards to ensure that enforcement agencies do not resort to using the Act without the strongest justification. Any proposal by the Police or the Central Narcotics Bureau to detain under criminal law detention or to place him under compulsory police supervision must first be submitted to my Ministry where my senior officers as well as legal officers scrutinize the case which has been put before it is personally approved by the Permanent Secretary. Thereafter, it must be submitted to the Attorney-General who personally has to satisfy himself that this is indeed a proper course of action and that normal prosecution is not possible. Only when he gives his consent will the detention order or the police supervision order be issued by the Minister. Then all such cases are reviewed by Advisory Committees which comprise Justices of the Peace, senior lawyers and community leaders. All reports of the Advisory Committees must be submitted to Cabinet which will advise the President whether or not to confirm the orders. Cases where detention orders are confirmed are reviewed annually by a Review Committee.”