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 41 of 66.
“Sir, in the initial years, most of those who were detained under this Act were secret society and other vicious criminal elements. But, as I have said, the number of detention orders in this category has come down. Instead, in recent years, the number of Detention Orders for drug traffickers has increased. In fact, from 1987 onwards drug traffickers constitute the majority of all criminal law detainees - 54% in 1987, 58% in 1988 and 59% as at March this year. But I make no apologies for this development. In my view, drug traffickers can be considered to be the most despicable of criminals, in a sense they are even worse than a murderer who kills a single person, because the drug trafficker, for monetary returns, undermines both body and soul of our young and really erodes the fabric of society. That is why many countries now consider drug trafficking as a threat to national security. It renders our young useless to themselves, to their families and to the country. True, we have very strict laws, including mandatory death penalty. But what should be done if we cannot prosecute them just because they succeed in intimidating witnesses? Are we to let them loose on the streets? And indeed that is the course of action which several other countries,especially in the West, are forced to do. But we in Singapore have decided that the interests of the majority of our people who are law-abiding must come first and the majority of the people must be protected and they, their families and their children must feel safe and secure, whether at home or in the streets or in workplaces and also visitors coming to Singapore should be free of harm and of criminal activities. Detention under this Act has therefore crippled big time drug traffickers and their syndicates and distributors.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Act came into effect on 21st October 1955, and its duration has been extended by Parliament on seven different occasions. The current life of this legislation will expire on 20th October this year, and the purpose of this Bill is to extend the Act for another five years. The Act provides for the maintenance of public safety, peace and good order and, in particular, for the detention and supervision of persons associated with secret society and criminal activities. Over the years, it has proved to be an effective weapon for the suppression of secret society activities, drug trafficking activities and other serious crimes in Singapore. Why do we need these preventive detention provisions? The reason is that some secret society elements and drug traffickers cannot be prosecuted in the courts in the normal way because potential witnesses fear reprisals and are unwilling to testify. Secret society members also refuse to give evidence in court against their fellow members. The number of secret society incidents fell from 416 in 1959 to 10 in 1988. Detention Orders issued against secret society elements fell from 158 in 1984 to 31 in 1987 and 73 in 1988. The Act is a strong deterrent to would-be secret society members and has brought secret society activities under control. The figures I have just given bear out this fact. But we must not let such favourable statistics lull us into any complacency. The trend can very easily reverse itself and gangsters and other criminal elements will resurface and mount their activities if they detect even a slight wavering of the Government's will. They can very quickly revert to their old and lawless ways to terrorize and victimize innocent people.”
“I will give that further consideration, Mr Speaker, Sir. But I think we are quite liberal in the case of women citizens who qualify under the guidelines for sponsorship. What we do is to allow the foreign spouse ample time to come to Singapore on renewable social visit pass to obtain an employment pass. I am sure the Member will agree that it is necessary that he gets some employment here. Otherwise, he may be caught by the strict immigration laws for illegally working here. LIBERALIZATION OF RULES FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE (Criteria for Singaporeans contracting marriage with foreigners) 6. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Minister for Labour if he will readily grant permission to those Singaporeans who meet the criteria under the new rules for permanent residence to contract marriage with foreigners.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought that was the substance of my reply. In any case, if that was missed, let me assure the Member that that is the principle on which we work.”
“The answer to that is yes, we cannot be very certain. But we hope, and we are confident, that a good number of them will come across because they know that if they do not accept the offer, this is not something that Singapore will hold out indefinitely or forever.”
“Yes, the answer to that, Sir, is yes; Singapore companies which are recruiting workers directly from Hong Kong are able to make block applications for such workers when applying for permanent residence. Similarly, Hong Kong companies in Hong Kong who wish to make block applications for permanent residence are also able to do so and these will be processed as such by EDB and Immigration.”
“If I may deal, Sir, with his first supplementary question. It was with regard to spouses married to Singaporeans who may not fulfil the educational requirements but whose husbands may well be able to afford. The general approach which we take is whether the sponsor will be able to maintain the wife and the family. So in the type of case that he described, if the wife does not meet the requirements but a Singaporean citizen sponsor can satisfy us, I can assure him that my Ministry will view such cases sympathetically. As to the second part of his question, the formation of enclaves, I must point out that we are not expecting thousands to descend on Singapore immediately. This is going to be a gradual process over a period of years. I think we will be lucky if we get several hundreds to come in the next year or so. But his point is taken. And if I may respond, there is a committee which is coordinating all aspects of integration. Obviously, matters of schooling, housing and other consequential matters when we launch an exercise like this have to be coordinated. In this coordination, the concern expressed by Dr Arthur Beng will be borne in mind. As for integration into society, as far as the Government is concerned, this is being looked into not only by Immigration but also by other agencies which are involved in placing the workers, their families, and housing, schools and so on. But I would say their integration, whether or not it is smooth and less painful, depends not only on the Government agencies but also depends on how Singaporeans receive these Hong Kong residents. Thirdly, his point about Singapore companies.”
“Those who had been previously rejected but are now eligible to apply for permanent residence will be so advised when they renew their social visit pass. Although our immigration guidelines are now more liberal, I must reiterate that marriage to a Singaporean or a Singaporean permanent resident still does not confer an automatic right of permanent residence for the foreign spouse. We can accept those as permanent residents who can integrate into our society and contribute to our society and unlikely to become a burden on the State. If I may sum up, Sir, Singapore's immigration policy aims to correct the population decline and to keep our nation young, vigorous and talented. Singapore is competing with developed countries for skilled workers, technicians and professionals. To grow, our economy requires more such people than we can produce ourselves. Shortage of talent means fewer foreign investors establishing businesses here, slower growth and fewer opportunities for Singaporeans. Singapore therefore welcomes foreign immigrants who can contribute to Singapore's economy and be integrated into our society.”
“Following the liberalization of the immigration policy, my Ministry has already reviewed the criteria for approving other immigration requests such as applications for permanent residence from Singaporeans married to foreigners. I wish to assure the House that we will further liberalize this policy for applicants with Singaporean ties, especially if they are wives and children of Singapore citizens or if they have strong roots or family ties in Singapore. Those who are married to Singaporeans or have strong family ties will be considered for permanent residence more favourably than applicants who have no roots here. For example, my Ministry will now grant permanent residence to the wife and children of a Singaporean who can show that he and his family will not be a burden on the State. Similarly, it will now be easier for the foreign husband of a Singaporean woman to qualify for employment pass and permanent residence. However, for those from Hong Kong who do not yet have links to Singapore, they must fulfil a certain educational level and earn at least $1,500 per month before they and their families can be considered for permanent residence. The requirements which we impose on those from Hong Kong are an indication of the minimum economic status that we are looking for. As for the third part of the Member's question, my Ministry will consider all applications and appeals pending on 10th July 1989, that is the date when the new policy was announced, under these liberalized guidelines. Indeed, Sir, in the two weeks following the announcement of the new policy, about 60% of appeals from MPs to my Ministry were approved, where previously about 20% to 30% were approved.”
“But we must not top up indiscriminately. Every immigrant should be an asset, not a liability. The objective is to strengthen our nation and not weaken it. If we only want numbers, we can easily get hundreds of thousands overnight. But surely that would be madness. Our immigration policy obviously must be selective. The higher the quality of the immigrants the better off all Singaporeans will be. We must also consider the multi-racial character of Singapore. The present racial composition in Singapore has worked well for us. We should not lightly change it. The statement of the Ministry of Home Affairs of 10th July did stress that this liberalization applies to immigrants from all sources, whatever their ethnic background, so long as they can be integrated into Singapore society without upsetting the present balance in its multi-racial character, a balance which the Government will maintain. If the numbers from Hong Kong are so large as to increase the percentage of the Chinese population, the Government will admit more Malay and Indian immigrants to restore the balance. As for immigration from Hong Kong, it is not in our interest to weaken the Hong Kong economy or drain it of its talent. That is why we are offering Hong Kong residents in principle approval for PR without requiring them to come down to Singapore. In fact, it is in Singapore's long term interest for Hong Kong to be assured and confident of its future. But if those in Hong Kong are going to leave Hong Kong anyway, it is better for them, in our view, to remain in this region than for them to cross the vast Pacific Ocean to North America or Australia, from where they may never return. If I may now turn to the specifics of Dr Arthur Beng's question.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Member's Question is related to the announcement of the Government on the liberalized immigration policy, let me preface my answer by reiterating the reasons for the liberalization of this policy. I think Singaporeans have been aware for some time of the problem of population decline. Despite the Government's efforts to increase fertility rates, this decline is likely to continue because too many women are not marrying and those who do marry are doing so later and having fewer children. Emigration of Singaporeans, especially the better qualified ones, to countries like the United States, Australia, Canada, further compounds the problem. The long-term consequences of population decline are quite grave. Over the next 20-30 years, the population will age dramatically. We now have a young, vigorous population. Today, only 8 out of every 100 Singaporeans are over the age of 60. But in just over 30 years, 22 out of every 100 will be over 60. The burden of such older people on working Singaporeans - what we call the dependency ratio - will become much heavier. Our economic vitality will be affected and there will also be fewer young men available to do National Service. Our security will be threatened. We must therefore top up our population. We should try to top up each cohort size to at least 50,000 by the time that cohort reaches working age. In the 1950s, our cohort size at birth was over 60,000. Our average is now well below 50,000. Last year, we had 52,000 but I think, as Members know, that was only because it was a dragon year and those 52,000 babies were produced by parents who were themselves born in the boom years of the fifties. The next dragon year in the Year 2000, I am told, will certainly see far fewer births than in 1988.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988, 773, 1046 and 892 Singapore citizens respectively have renounced their citizenship to take up citizenship of other foreign countries. The reason why I worded my answer as people who have renounced their citizenship to take up citizenship of other foreign countries is, first, we do not know the reasons for many of them who had renounced. Secondly, many who emigrate do not necessarily renounce their citizenship. LIBERALIZATION OF RULES FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE (Review of criteria for other immigration requests) 5. Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether, in view of the recent liberalization of rules for permanent residence, he will (i) review the criteria for approving other immigration requests, such as applications from foreigners married to Singaporeans to become permanent residents, and (ii) reconsider those applications and appeals which were pending on 10th July 1989.”
“Sir, I would have thought the answer is quite clear what is misleading and what is false. 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. JUDGES' REMUNERATION (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“But if those two persons knowingly give false information, the effect is that it impedes and hinders CPIB's investigations and throws them off the track. So, far from causing any apprehensions, this protects those who give information in good faith or honestly, as the NCMP has described it, and the only persons who need to worry about this provision are persons who deliberately, wilfully and intentionally give false and misleading information. With that explanation, I hope the NCMP is clear in his mind and that he and other Members can support the Bill.”
“This gives me an opportunity to explain a bit further and I hope, after my explanation, the NCMP will be able to give unqualified support to the Bill. It is not right, Sir, to interpret this provision as discouraging the giving of information to the CPIB. The phrase used by the NCMP was we should not discourage knowledge or information or facts which are honestly given. I completely agree with him and I would like to inform him that from the viewpoint of law and interpretation, this is exactly the scope of this provision. I would like to draw his attention to a key ingredient in the very first line of the new section 26A which says, "Any person who knowingly - ". So the prosecution will have to prove in a court of law knowledge that that person knew that the information that he was supplying to the CPIB was false or misleading. And when a person is proved to have knowingly given false or misleading information, it cannot be said that he was honestly giving such information and it also cannot be said that he was giving such information in good faith. If I may put it the other way round, Sir, this section should not in any way cause apprehensions among people who give information in good faith. Apart from the fact that corruption offences are serious and persons who give information must be expected at the minimum to give information in good faith, let me also explain what happens if information which is false and misleading is deliberately given. It will throw the CPIB off track. Supposing we have CPIB investigating a case involving corruption by Mr A. Now, two other persons come to CPIB and knowingly giving false information that Mr A is innocent and that the corruption was done by Mr B. If the information is given in good faith, this section does not apply at all.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. If I may first deal with the point raised by Mr Zulkifli who asked in regard to the power which the amendment seeks to give to the CPIB to investigate additional categories of offences, whether there are adequate safeguards. The answer to that is yes. First, they cannot investigate under these provisions on their own. They must first be authorized by the Public Prosecutor. They cannot initiate it. Secondly, no new offence is created under the Act which they can investigate and any persons who are investigated will not be charged under the Act if they are being investigated for an offence other than under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Let me now turn to the points raised by the Non-Constituency MP. I thank him for the support of some of the provisions of the Bill. He asked why confine to spouse, sons and daughters. There are two reasons for this. This amendment is to bring it into line with the existing provision in the Act which uses the same phraseology. As to whether we can extend it to cover girlfriends and others, we can give consideration to it but I believe these time-honoured provisions in the law have a certain assumption in them. The assumption is that where you place the onus on a party to provide information about sons, daughters and spouse, it is reasonable to expect him to have such knowledge so as to comply with the provisions of the law. If we extend the categories, one can question whether that same assumption applies because you are really creating a legal obligation which carries with it sanctions and penalties. But the main point made by the NCMP related to the new provision which provides for the offence of knowingly giving false or misleading information.”
“This is to provide for exceptional situations where it may be necessary for the Public Prosecutor to authorize the CPIB to investigate any offence under any written law. Finally, clause 5 covers a loophole in the main Act, specifically section 20(1)(b). The amendment will empower the Public Prosecutor to require a suspected person to furnish a sworn statement of any money or other porperty sent out of Singapore by his spouse, sons or daughters. This amendment is to bring the provision into line with section 20(1)(a) of the main Act. Sir, I hope this Bill receives the support of Members. Question proposed.”
“But the penalty for that offence under the Penal Code is imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding $1,000 or both, a penalty hardly adequate to deter persons from deliberately giving false or misleading information to the CPIB. Such persons who commit these offences must be subject to greater penalties because their actions can not only detract the CPIB in its investigations but can cause a great deal of harm to others. The remaining amendments are more of a technical nature. Clause 2 empowers the Director, CPIB and his officers to release an arrested person on bail or bond. At present, all matters concerning bail or bond are referred by the CPIB to the Police who have powers under section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Code to release arrested persons on bail or bond. The powers conferred on the Director and his officers are similar to those in section 352 of the Code. At present, section 16 of the main Act confers on the Director and his investigating officers certain powers of investigation into seizable offences which are conferred on police officers by the Criminal Procedure Code. These powers are contained in sections 120, 121, 125 and 126 of the Code. Clause 3 seeks to amend section 16 to confer on the Director, CPIB and his officers all the powers of investigation of a police officer under the Code and not merely under those four sections. The amendment therefore, will give the CPIB wider powers of investigation, including the powere to sumon the production of documents. If I may move on. Clause 4 empowers the Public Prosecutor to authorize the Director, CPIB or any of his special investigators to exercise the powers of investigation conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with any offence under any written law.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this is essentially a technical Bill to update and tighten the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. These amendments are based on the recommendations of the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau in the light of the experience of the Bureau. The Act was enacted in 1960. However, in the 29 years since then, the monetary penalties for corruption offences under the Act have remained unaltered. Therefore, they need to be revised if they are to have a sufficient deterrent effect today. Clause 7 of the Bill enhances the maximum fines for these offences from $10,000 to a maximum of $100,000. In addition, fines will also be enhanced for offences of failing to comply with the notice of the Public Prosecutor to provide information, and for offences relating to the obstruction of duties of the Director or his officers. These fines are to be increased from a maximum of $2,000 to $10,000. Next, Sir, clause 6 of the Bill will create a new seizable offence of knowingly giving false or misleading information to the CPIB. The penalty for this new offence will be a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or both. This amendment is needed because persons who deliberately give false or misleading information to the CPIB can at present only be prosecuted for the general offence of giving false information to a public servant under the provisions of the Penal Code section 182.”
“Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Minister for Finance how much was received by the government for the transfer of its shareholding in the petrochemical plant to Shell.”
“QC'S ENGAGED IN APPEALS TO PRIVY COUNCIL 1984 - 1988 Costs S/ File Date of Amount Awarded Nature of No No Subject Payment Paid to AG Offence -- ---- ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- 1 2/82 Lim Kok Yew 31.1.84 $1,304.35 - Accomplice v PP of person using arm 2 6/82 Tjoea Chwee 25.7.84 $1,428.83 - Murder Tee v PP 3 3/83 Leo Hai Hock 25.7.84 $1,193.44 - Trafficking v PP of drug 4 1/83 Donald Chan 5.1.85 $1,182.42 - Murder Hock Chye v PP 5 5/82 Mariappan ) Murder A/L ) Kandasamy ) ) 3/82 Bong Kim ) 11.1.85 $3,951.88 Trafficking Loy and Anor) in drug ) 1/82 Murugaya ) Trafficking Rajendran ) in drug ) 3/80 Kalidass s/o) Murder S Narayana- ) samy v PP ) 6 1/84 Tan Ah Leng 12.6.85 $1,727.89 Trafficking v PP in drug 7 1/85 Ramu 19.2.86 $1,940.35 Murder Annadavascan & Anor v PP 8 5/85 Wong Hong Toy 6.6.86 $7,473.46 $4,784.9 Fraudulent & J B delivery Jeyaretnam of property v PP in cheques to prevent distribution and false declaration 9 3/85 Wong Foot 7.7.86 $1,998.53 Murder Ling v PP Costs S/ File Date of Amount Awarded Nature of No No Subject Payment Paid to AG Offence -- ---- ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- 10 2/85 Tay Cheng 5.11.86 $1,970.87 Murder Hoe v PP 11 3/87 J B Jeyaret- 19.1.88 $9,431.30 $4,216.00 Same as nam v PP No 8 12 3/86 Sim Min Teck 19.1.88 $2,633.40 Murder v PP 13 1/86 Ong Her Hock 22.1.88 $2,666.84 Murder v PP 14 2/86 Seet Thiam 16.3.88 $2,551.64 Murder Heng v PP 15 4/86 Tan Mui Choo 29.4.88 $5,580.13 Murder & Anor v PP 16 4/85 Sng Kian 29.4.88 $2,628.87 Murder Huat v PP 17 1/87 Sek Kim Wah 14.7.88 $2,868.96 Murder v PP PROCEEDS OF SALE OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED COMPANIES IN PETROCHEMICAL COMPLEX 2.”
“Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name on the Order Paper. *The motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 113), approves the reclamation by Government of the foreshore and seabed off Woodlands Checkpoint containing an area of about 8.3 hectares as shown coloured yellow on the plan marked "Land Office Reclamation Plan No. 2/89" which is deposited at the Land Office, Singapore. On 27th March 1989, I informed this House that Woodlands Checkpoint is being redeveloped to cater to the long-term traffic growth. A total land area of 18 hectares is required for the proposed redevelopment. Of the 18 hectares, 3 hec- tares is State land, about 6.7 hectares island acquired from the Malayan Railway Administration and the balance 8.3 hectares is foreshore and seabed which will have to be reclaimed. This area to be reclaimed is shown coloured yellow on the "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 2/89", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of Members. These reclamation works will be undertaken by the Housing and Development Board, as agent of the Government, at a total estimated cost of $34 million and are expected to be completed by mid-1991. 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 off Woodlands Checkpoint containing an area of about 8.3 hectares as shown coloured yellow on the plan marked "Land Office Reclamation Plan No. 2/89" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.”
“Phase I, involving approximately 25.6 hectares of the foreshore and seabed as shown coloured yellow on the plan, is estimated to cost $103 million. Two smaller areas (coloured yellow), although adjoining the Phase II area, are also included in Phase I to facilitate the construction of the proposed road. The reclamation is scheduled to commence in 1989 and will take about four years to complete. Phase II reclamation of approximately 8.4 hectares of foreshore and seabed as shown coloured pink on the Land Office Reclamation Plan No. 1/89 will be undertaken by the year 1991 and will take about two years to complete. 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 of the foreshore and seabed at Pulau Brani containing an area of approximately 34 hectares as shown coloured yellow and pink on the plan marked "Land Office Reclamation Plan No 1/89" which is deposited at the Land Office, Singapore. 2.45 pm RECLAMATION (WOODLANDS CHECKPOINT)”
“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 of the foreshore and seabed at Pulau Brani containing an area of approximately 34 hectares as shown coloured yellow and pink on the plan marked "Land Office Reclamation Plan No. 1/89" which is deposited at the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, at its sitting on 21 March 1972 this House approved the reclamation of approximately 46.94 hectares of the foreshore and seabed at Pulau Brani and Brani Shoal by the Port of Singapore Authority, as agent of the Government, for several redevelopment purposes. However, only 34.8 hectares at Pulau Brani were reclaimed. PSA did not proceed with the reclamation of the remaining 12.14 hectares as it was subsequently found not economical to reclaim the narrow strip at Brani Shoal. Sir, since 1980 PSA has achieved a 17% compound annual growth in container traffic. This growth is expected to continue, although at a slower average annual rate of 9% to 11% into the next decade. Singapore would require five main and five feeder container berths to handle the expected throughput of 9.26 million Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEUs) by the year 1999. To achieve this, PSA proposes to construct a new container terminal at Pulau Brani. Construction of this new terminal requires the reclamation of approximately 34 hectares of foreshore and seabed at Pulau Brani as shown coloured yellow and pink on the Land Office Reclamation Plan No. 1/89, a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of Members. The proposed reclamation will be carried out in two phases.”
“Sir, the law officers are now drafting the legislation and I expect to introduce the Bill during the course of this year, hopefully within the next few months. CONSUMER PRICE INDEX 22. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the current consumer price index accurately reflects the cost of living of the working class.”
“Finally, the Government will also introduce amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act to ensure that the law continues to be effective to combat the problem. The amendments will include extending the death penalty for trafficking offences involving opium, cannabis and cocaine.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member will recall that in January this year, in answer to his question, I informed the House of the local and regional drug scene and the measures which we would take to contain the problem. In March, during the debate in the Committee of Supply, I had occasion to give further details. Since then, the drug situation in this region has continued to deteriorate. The Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau has informed me that more opium is expected to be produced this year in the Golden Triangle area. Therefore, more heroin is likely to be available in this region. The drug abuse problem in Singapore has risen, from 4,730 arrested drug offenders in 1987 to 6,062 in 1988. However, in the first quarter of 1989, the numbers have come down slightly to 1,274. Heroin abuse continues to be the serious and main drug of abuse. The trend of new Malay heroin addicts detected also continues to be high. In the first quarter of this year, 310 new heroin addicts were detected, of which 62% were Malays. Apart from the measures which I had previously mentioned in this House, new measures that are being taken to curb the problem of drug abuse include the following: 1) We will install additional instant urine testing (IUT) machines at every police headquarters station to identify and ferret out drug addicts; 2) My Ministry, Central Narcotics Bureau, SANA will cooperate with the Malay Task Force to finalize strategies to tackle the problem of Malay drug addicts; 3) We will assist SANA this year to launch their anti-drug abuse campaign in September/November which is important in constantly reminding the public, espe- cially parents, of the dangers of drug abuse.”
“Sir, it must be obvious from my answer that it depended on the security assessment by the Internal Security Department. ARREST OF ILLEGAL INDIAN FOREIGN WORKERS (Effects of, on relationship with India) The following question stood in the name of Mr Chiam See Tong --- 11. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the relationship between Singapore and India has deteriorated as a result of the recent arrest, conviction and sentence of certain Indian foreign workers and, if so, whether the situation will escalate for the worse.”
“Sir, the Member is repeating claims of others that Teo Soh Lung is in continued detention because she pressed on with her habeas corpus case whilst the other three, Wong Souk Yee, Kevin De Souza and Chng Suan Tze, were released because they dropped their habaes corpus cases. This is totally untrue. In the first case, the three of them withdrew their cases on 3rd March. But the Advisory Board had submitted its report recommending their early release before they withdrew their cases. In other words, the Government's decision was based on the Advisory Board's recommendation which had recommended theirearly release before they withdrew their cases. Secondly, let me also point out the fallacy of that view because Vincent Cheng who never brought any habeas corpus proceedings is still in detention. Thirdly, Patrick Seong was released in May 1988 even though his case was still before the courts.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the statement with me but she was arrested in May 1987 and released on certain conditions and a press statement was issued. Her present detention order is the result of her rearrest in 1988.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Government has explained on many occasions, a decision on whether a detainee should be released earlier than the expiry of the detention order or be in continued detention depends on the assessment of the Internal Security Department on whether the detainee has responded positively to rehabilitation and whether he is likely to reinvolve himself in subversive activities and pose a security threat upon release. ISD's current assessment is that Teo Soh Lung is not suitable for early release. In considering whether to release a detainee, the Government also takes into consideration reports of the Advisory Board constituted under the Internal Security Act. Teo, together with three other detainees, namely, Chng Suan Tze, Kevin De Souza and Wong Souk Yee, had made representations to the Advisory Board on 20th January 1989. While the Board recommended that consideration can be given for the early release of Chng Suan Tze, Kevin De Souza and Wong Souk Yee, it made no recommendation for Teo's early release. Chng Suan Tze, Kevin De Souza and Wong Souk Yee were thus released on 11th March 1989.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is obvious that the Member has not listened to my answer. SECRET SOCIETY ACTIVITIES INVOLVING STUDENTS (Particulars) 9. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there was an increase in the number of secret society and criminal activities involving students in the years 1986, 1987 and 1988.”
“Sir, let me explain. The Attorney-General has advised that when defamation is committed against the Government as a whole or against any Minister in his capacity as a Minister of the Government or against the Prime Minister in his capacity as Prime Minister or as head of the Government, it is perfectly legal and in order for the Attorney-General to act on their behalf.”
“Sir, this is a civil suit against Star Publications and its editor in respect of two libellous articles which appeared in the Sunday Star of 1st February 1987 and 22nd February 1987. These articles contained highly defamatory and scurrilous attacks on the whole Government, the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and senior civil servants. The Government as a whole has an interest in the legal redress sought on these defamatory articles published in a friendly neighbouring country. The Attorney-General advised that the action be instituted in the first instance by the Prime Minister claiming damages for libel and an injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing further similar libellous articles. The claims of other Cabinet Ministers and the senior civil servants are held in abeyance and can be pursued after the case brought by the Prime Minister has been concluded. The Prime Minister agreed. The Attorney-General, as instructing solicitor in these proceedings, briefed a lawyer in Kuala Lumpur to institute libel proceedings, and is holding a watching brief during the trial for the Government as a whole both the Cabinet Ministers and the senior civil servants whose honesty and integrity have been impugned.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my reply to Mr Chiam is very simple. What he said in February can be interpreted only to mean one thing, that he had favoured completely cutting off "the apron strings" immediately because he said it was high time. What we have done is, we have taken the approach which at least retains some appeals for the reasons given by many Members in this House. In other words, if he had come to this House completely cutting off appeals, he would have supported it. But because we have not gone the full length, he is opposing it. I want to know whether I am right in that. As to the Privy Council appeals, my statistics are there were six show-cause disciplinary proceedings during this period: 1988 one case allowed; 1985 two cases, both withdrawn, in other words, not decided by the Privy Council; 1984 two cases both allowed; 1981 one case dismissed. So really three allowed. That is the record I have. If he gives me further information I can check on this. 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.”
“I think Dr Lee during the tea break should discuss with both Mr Chiam and the other two lawyers here because whether there is one judgment in respect of which the other two judges agree is irrelevant or whether there are three separate judgments or whether there are two judgments and one judge agrees with the other is also irrelevant. The point is, were the three judges unanimous or not regardless of how many judgments they wrote. That is the test.”
“He asked whether the appeals listed in the statistics are there many which involve disciplinary cases. I do not have all the breakdown but the civil cases listed for that period include 6 show-cause discipli- nary proceedings of which only two were allowed, according to my records. Sir, I believe I have answered most of the comments. If I have missed out any, I shall be grateful if Members point it out.”
“Then can I ask him why is it we have provided that in death penalty and life imprisonment, there can still be appeals to Privy Council? Dr Lee made the curious observation that this Bill has been sprung as a surprise because Mr Jeyaretnam has announced at the press conferenece that he is going to bring legal action against the Government but he forgot to mention that Mr Jeyaretnam gave his press conference after this Bill was introduced and he does not explain why, although the Privy Council judgment was issued last year, Mr Jeyaretnam has not done anything between then and now. Mr Chiam's remarks really come as a surprise. I think he should decide what his stand is. Sir, this is what he said on 17th February, and I quote: 'I would like to go on record that I think it is high time that Singapore, after over 20 years of our judicial system in Singapore, should grow up and not be tied to the apron strings of the Privy Council.' I think sometimes, Sir, he speaks from the heart. I think that was the occasion. And sometimes when he has the script, he speaks to the gallery. So I feel tempted to ask: will the real Mr Chiam, please put up his hand? Both Mr Chiam and Dr Lee asked, will the Government give advance notice whether it is going to consent? Obviously we cannot. It must depend on the transaction, it must depend on the case. Sometimes the Government may be the plaintiff, the Government may be the prosecutor and sometimes maybe the defendant. It depends on the individual case. His comments on a permanent Court of Appeal. This was thoroughly discussed in response to comments made by the Chairman of the GPC during the Committee of Supply debate and I think my views on that are known.”
“So you may have the Civil Law Act making English law applicable on a variety of subjects but it does not follow that you must have appeals to the Privy Council because of that. I should also point out that there is no difficulty for judges in Singapore deciding what is the applicable English law on any particular point. It may also require us to note that under the Civil Law Act although it provides that the commercial law of England applies here, it is also provided that this is subject to modifications and adaptations due to local circumstances in Singapore. And indeedthe applicability of English law is also subject to whetherthere are local statutes on the matter, and indeed in many areas, corporate law, banking law, we have our own legislation. Now may I come to the points raised by Dr Lee Siew-Choh. I need not answer all his questions as Mr Shanmugam has dealt with his other points. One point raised by both Dr Lee Siew-Choh and Mr Chiam is that there have been very few dissenting opinions. I recognize that, but at the same time, as I have pointed out in the last sitting on the Committee of Supply debate on the Judicature, we are going to have provisions for more judges and I pointed out that this year there will be provision for some 17-19 judges and a total number of 22-23 courts will be available by 1990. So the number of judges will increase and we cannot expect that there will never be dissenting judgments in the future. And we cannot assume that there will always be unanimous opinions in criminal matters involving death penalty and life imprisonment. Indeed, we can foresee that if a judge feels very strongly that he disagrees with his two brother judges, then he can record his dissent. Sir, Dr Lee Siew-Choh says we do not value life and liberty.”
“He referred to investor confidence and my reply to his comments on that is that it is precisely because of considerations like that that we have not completely abolished appeals to Privy Council and we have provided for a mechanism where investors and others who consider it important for them to have appeals to Privy Council to arrange their agreements and other documents in such a way that they can still retain appeal to the Privy Council. He raised a technical point as to whether there is a need to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. This is a matter which I would obviously have to take up with the Attorney-General and I assure him that it will be looked into. But the major substantive point which Mr Shanmugam raised was that because the Civil Law Act provides that in commercial law matters, English law shall be applicable in Singapore. Our approach should be to provide that there will be automatic appeals to the Privy Council in such matters. At first hand, this may seem an attractive idea but upon closer scrutiny I am not in favour of that approach because we must make a distinction between the applicable law on the one hand, and on the other hand, the dispute settlement procedure and the judicial process. The two are separate and should be kept separate. If I may just give a hypothetical example. Suppose we decided as a matter of law that our securities in stock market law had to be reformed and we concluded that the United States' law is the best in the world. If we legislated to provide that in that area he United States' law shall be applicable in Singapore, that is to say one thing but it does not follow that in that area of the law we must have appeals up to the United States Supreme Court. The two are different.”
“Whether this will happen or not, I am not sure. But I would assume that for local contracts, I do not see why they would want to insist that the choice of law would be United Kingdom. For international contracts, the present practice is, in fact, that the parties are already inserting provisions as to choice of law. The important thing to note is that the amendments proposed before the House do not circumscribe the existing practice. In other words, whatever is the practice of choice of law provisions, they are still free to continue with the practice. And if they want, they can agree that the matter can go up to the Privy Council. I think it may be necessary for me to make a distinction between provisions in contracts on choice of law and where the dispute is going to be heard. These are two different points and one does not follow from the other necessarily. In other words, if contracting parties decided that it will be United States law or New York law which shall govern the contract,it does not automatically follow that the courts in New York will have jurisdiction because whether the courts in New York will have jurisdiction would be dependent on many rules governing the jurisdiction in the United States' courts, whether the cause of action arose there and so on. Then I refer to the points raised by Mr Shanmugam. He has dealt with many of the points raised by Dr Lee Siew-Choh.”
“Because even as it is now, whether a case involving interesting or complicated or a novel point of law, whether it goes up to a higher Court of Appeal or to the Privy Council really is dependent on the parties. And the losing party whether he appeals or not is going to decide on a variety of factors, not only on the basis of the advice he gets on the probabilities of his success but on other factors, costs, tactical considerations and so on. But he is probably going to decide on the basis of what is in his own interest rather than whether he is going to contribute to a great development of law in a particular branch of law in Singapore for future litigants. May I now turn to points raised by the Chairman of the GPC, Dr Arthur Beng. His first point was what would happen to existing agreements. My answer to that is, first of all, we cannot assume that all those who entered into existing contracts had entered into those agreements on the assumption that Privy Council would be the final Court of Appeal. But in any case, the important point is that we are not stopping the parties to those existing agreements from still agreeing under this new Bill for the disputes to be resolved by appeals to the Privy Council. It is still open to them. We are not restricting them and they can subsequently still agree by supplementary agreement. Secondly, as to Privy Council judgments already given, whether they would be still binding on our courts, if I am not mistaken, the previous judgments will still be binding on our courts. The third point that he raised was this. Will businessmen be prompted or prodded into inserting provisions on choice of law? And they might make choice of law in the United Kingdom or other countries and resulting in more disputes being heard in the United Kingdom.”
“Clients come and ask for advice. "Should I sue? Should I institute action in the courts?" And if he institutes action in the courts and he loses, he comes and asks for advice, "Should I institute an appeal to the Court of Appeal?" Or if he is offered settlement for a lower sum, "Should I accept the settlement which is of a low value or should I appeal?" In all these cases, the lawyer really has no crystal ball. Neither the lawyer nor anyone can guarantee what the outcome of litigation will be. Litigation has its risks. And I cannot see any lawyer guaranteeing to his client, "Yes, you will win." If that is the case with the countless situations which lawyers are faced when clients come and ask for advice, I do not think this situation is very different. Nor is it different from cases, which are plentiful now, where existing contracts may have provisions for arbitration and a client asks for advice, well in advance of any dispute arising, whether he should consent to this particular provision. In all these cases, including the case presented by Mr Davinder Singh, I think the lawyer would have to advise to the best of his ability and the client would have to make up his own decision. The other point raised by Mr Davinder Singh was his observation that this approach in the Bill means that a development of the law is not in the hands of the court but of the parties in this sense, that if there is a complex or complicated question of law which might deserve a hearing and exposition of the law in Privy Council, it really is dependent now on both the parties, which means one party can prevent it from going out. That may be so. But I do not see how that is really a serious objection to the approach.”
“The third observation I would like to make is that obviously where the Court of Appeal gives a decision, the losing party is unlikely to get the winner's consent. That is why we have taken the approach in the transitional provision that if the Court of Appeal's decision is given before the commencement of the operation of this Act, then appeals without consent can still proceed. But the point I want to underline is that the approach taken in our transitional provision is not unprecedented, as there are good models on which they are based. Another point is what I would call the argument of intolerable burden placed on lawyers. I have listened with interest to his exposition of this point. But first I think it is necessary to emphasize that the consent approach in this Bill is not giving consent if you lose. It is consent given in advance to a system. In other words, the parties agree before the matter is heard by the Court of Appeal that the consent to the dispute going to the Privy Council without knowing whether they are going to win in the Court of Appeal. I do not quite understand his point. I will disagree with his proposition that this places a special or impossible burden on lawyers. He has asked how will a lawyer advise a client who comes to the lawyer and says, "Should I consent in a particular case?" I would assume that if a client approaches a lawyer and asks for advice as to whether he should consent, I would expect that the lawyer would advise him to the best of his ability, outline the risks, advantages, disadvantages, pros and cons of the law. But the final decision is up to the client. And the client then will instruct the lawyer. I do not see how this situation is different from the countless other situations which a lawyer is faced everyday.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank Members who have spoken. It is clear that we have a spectrum of views. There are some like my colleagues, the Minister for National Development and Dr Ong Chit Chung, who would have favoured immediate cutting off of all appeals. There are others who felt that the provisions perhaps go too far. This shows that perhaps the approach taken in the Bill is a good balance. Let me now deal with the various points raised by Members. I will try to take them in the order of the speakers. First, Mr Davinder Singh made several interesting observations. First, he did not agree with the approach taken, with regard to the transitional provision, and would advocate an approach which would allow appeals for all proceedings which have been commenced, whether at High Court stage or Court of Appeal stage. In other words, all pending appeals should be caught by the transitional provision. My first comment is that this will mean that there will be a considerable delay in the practical operation of the new law. I think he himself pointed out that it takes many years for cases to be heard. Secondly, I wish to point out that the transitional provision which we have is not too different from the transitional provisions of some other countries. We have looked at the transitional provisions in Malaysia when they cut off appeals to the Privy Council and the transitional provisions in the Australian legislation when they abolished appeals to the Privy Council. The approach taken in our Bill is, in fact, similar to the approaches taken by Malaysia and Australia. In fact, we can say that our approach is wider.”
“Sir, it is important for me to interject at this stage. The Bill was introduced at the last sitting. When it was introduced, I was asked, Sir, by you when would the Second Reading take place. And I said at the next available sitting. Today is the next available sitting since the last sitting and the required period provided under the Standing Orders was complied with. The notice of introduction of the Bill was circulated to all Members and the matter appears on the Order Paper today. So I cannot see how Dr Lee or any other Member could not know that at the next sitting following the last, this Bill would be taken up.”
“On a point of order, Sir. Can I interrupt?”
“But these provisions will now be subject to these amendments before the House. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Out of 126 appeals heard during this period of 10 years, 105 were such cases. Thirdly, Members may also note from the statistics of appeals to the Privy Council for the past 11 years, that, of the 55 criminal cases, 54 involved the death penalty and one case life imprisonment. Members may also note that special leave was granted only in three cases out of 47 cases decided so far, and even in those few cases, appeals were dismissed. Now, the requirement that decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal is not unanimous. The reason for this is that we think it is fair that the accused is afforded the right to appeal where the Court of Criminal Appeal is not unanimous. It means that at least one member of the Court had a serious doubt about the decision. Since there is no unanimity, it is fair that he be allowed to appeal to the Privy Council. I may also refer Members to the transitional provision (clause 4) which ensures that any appeal to the Privy Council, or any application for leave or special leave to appeal, under the existing Act will not be affected in respect of any decision of the Court of Appeal or Court of Criminal Appeal given before the commencement of this Amendment. To explain, Sir, let me give an example. If these amendments, once approved by the House, were to come into force, shall we say, on lst May, a losing party can still appeal to the Privy Council against a decision of our Appellate Court if the decision is given before that date. Finally, Sir, the amendments leave intact most of the other requirements and conditions presently contained in the Judicial Committee Act, such as requiring the leave of the Appellate Court and the minimum quantum value of the matter in dispute in civil cases.”
“With this approach, banks, financial houses, shipping companies can now contract to retain the Privy Council as their final court of appeals. Of course, another advantage in this approach is that any party who does not wish to incur the additional costs of an appeal to the Privy Council cannot now be compelled to do so. I have distributed statistics (Cols. 127 - 130) (two pages) of cases heard by the Privy Council for the period 1978 to 1988. Members will note that for the past 11 years, the Privy Council heard only 45 appeals, of which the majority (25) were dismissed; 8 other cases are pending. statistics - APPEALS TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL, NO. OF CASES FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM 1979 TO 1988 (Cols. 127 - 130) If I may turn to criminal cases. The approach on criminal cases is that appeals to the Privy Council will lie in cases where the offence is punishable with the death penalty or life imprisonment. This is subject to the condition that such appeal will lie only if the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal is not unanimous. Again, I should point out here that whether an appeal will be allowed is not dependent on the actual sentence imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal, but the approach in the Amendment Bill is whether under the law the offence is punishable by death or punishable by life imprisonment. Why did we limit appeals only to offences punishable by death or life imprisonment? First, these are the offences where the accused is liable to receive the most severe penalties that can be imposed under our law. Secondly, if we look again at the statistics of cases (the second page) heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Singapore, most of these cases involve the death penalty or life imprisonment.”