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 45 of 66.
“Until then, the courts would never question the exercise of the discretionary powers by the Executive. They would not substitute their judgment for the judgment of the Executive. In other words, they applied what is commonly known as the "subjective test". I have distributed to Members of the House extracts from cases of Lee Mau Seng and Karam Singh. These are cases which firmly established these principles of the subjective test and are cases which are important precedents that have guided the courts ever since and its extracts, I hope, will be helpful to Members to understand the issues. If I may briefly, Sir, refer to page 1 of the extracts, the underlined part, the Chief Justice in the Lee Mau Seng case said, if I may quote: '... the power to issue a detention order has been made [that means in the Act] to depend upon the existence of a state of mind in the President acting in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet which is a purely subjective condition so as to exclude a judicial enquiry into the sufficiency of the grounds to justify the detention.' And on page 3, an extract from Karam Singh's case, towards the end of that extract: 'Whether or not the facts on which the order of detention is to be based are sufficient or relevant, is a matter to be decided solely by the Executive. In making their decision, they have complete discretion and it is not for a court of law to question the sufficiency or relevance of these allegations of fact.' And it is not just the Malaysian court or the Singapore court, I have also included an extract from one of the Law Lords, Lord Diplock in a case commonly referred to as "the GCHQ case". Last extract: 'National security is the responsibility of the executive government, what action is needed to protect its interest is, ...”
“Sir, the amendment is intended to remove any doubt that a Chief Justice who has reached the age of 65 can be re-appointed to continue in that office beyond the age of 65. As I said last week, Article 94(3) of the Constitution expressly allows judges who have reached the age of 65 to be re-appointed. We have several judges in this category and the current Chief Justice is one of them, having been re-appointed on 28th September 1982 upon reaching the age of 65. Mr Jeyaretnam, in his appeal to the Privy Council (PC) on the question of disbarment, questioned the legality of the Chief Justice's re-appointment. As I said last week, there is no merit in the argument. The point was not pursued in the appeal nor was it addressed in the judgment of the Privy Council. But since the point has been raised, we think it is necessary to put the matter beyond any doubt; and that is the intention of clause 2. Review of decisions of the Executive under the ISA Sir, let me now turn to the main purpose of these Bills, namely, the question of reviewing discretionary powers of the Executive under the ISA. These Bills are necessary because the Court of Appeal in its recent judgment of December 1988 departed from long standing principles of law governing such judicial review. What were these established principles of law? "The Subjective Test" First, let me explain to the House what are these established principles of law and what is the subjective test. In Singapore, ever since we had our first Emergency legislation way back in 1948, the Executive alone has been responsible for decisions on national security, including arrests and detentions. This was the case right up to and until the Court of Appeal judgment in December 1988.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill is closely related to the other Bill which is next on our Order Paper, the Internal Security (Amendment) Bill. Main purposes of the two Bills Sir, the main purpose of both Bills is to restore the law on judicial review, its review by our courts, of discretionary powers of the Executive under the Internal Security Act (ISA), to restore it to what it was before the recent Court of Appeal judgment on 8th December 1988. In effect, it is to restore and reaffirm that the subjective test should apply. Another purpose, which is spelt out in the Internal Security (Amendment) Bill, is to abolish appeals to the Privy Council in cases involving review of ISA cases, interpretation of the ISA or interpretation of provisions in the Consti- tution dealing with emergency powers or subversion, namely, the provisions in Part XII of the Constitution. Sir, may I suggest, of course, with your permission, that the debate on these two broad purposes take place during the debate on this Bill because the points and arguments and issues are inter-related and I think it will make for a more coherent debate and avoid repetition and overlapping of points, although of course Members should not be precluded from raising questions or expressing their views on the other Bill. Clause 2: Position of the Chief Justice First, let me deal with clause 2 of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill which has really nothing to do with the Internal Security Act. That, Sir, concerns the constitutional position relating to the Chief Justice. This was covered last week in this House when I answered the question from Dr Lee Siew-Choh.”
“Sir, I would describe the level of cooperation as excellent. All the countries in Asean region as well as other countries further away realize that, to combat drugs and drug trafficking, there has to be cooperation and, in particular, exchange of information on patterns of trafficking as well as exchange of intelligence on specific syndicates and their movements. In particular, I would like to say that there is excellent cooperation between the Cawangan Anti-Dadah of Malaysia and the Central Narcotics Bureau in Singapore. It is this close cooperation and exchange of information which has allowed and enabled the countries to keep the incidents of drug trafficking to manageable proportions. UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS 4. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Minister for Labour if he will supply the latest unemployment statistics and the percentage breakdown by age groups.”
“Secondly, we have installed an instant urine test (IUT) machine to detect drug addicts coming into Singapore. Some of the addicts are what I described as 'ant-traffickers', that is, they traffic in small quantities of drugs so as not to attract capital punishment. Confirmed addicts are admitted to the Drug Rehabilitation Centres for treatment. Malaysian addicts are refused entry. From March to December 1988, 164 Singaporeans were detected and 533 Malaysians were refused entry. A total of 26 traffickers were also detected at the Woodlands Checkpoint. We are also stringent in issuing passports to ex-drug offenders and persons who are believed to want to travel for purposes of consuming drugs in Malaysia. In 1988, a total of 1,065 Singaporeans were denied passports. Central Narcotics Bureau will purchase more instant urine test (IUT) machines for use in their island-wide operations to identify and ferret out drug addicts. Marine Police will also intensify their patrols around Singapore waters and Customs will intensify their checks at all entry points. Members will have read recently, a large consignment of heroin, some 23 kg, was seized by alert Customs officers at Clifford Pier. To tackle the increasing number of Malay addicts, the Malay Anti-Drug Abuse Task Force working with other Malay/Muslim organizations is currently planning a strategy to tackle this problem. It will work very closely with my Ministry and SANA. Finally, Sir, a 2-month anti-drug campaign will be launched later this year to create public awareness and educate parents on the dangers of drug abuse.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the drug problem in Singapore is under control but I must inform the House that we are very concerned because the overall drug supply in this region continues to deteriorate. The Golden Triangle region (the border area formed by Burma, Laos and Thailand) where opium is produced remains a big threat. This is because bumper harvests have been recorded since 1981 and more opium is expected from that region. Neighbouring countries, such as Malaysia, Thailand, Hong Kong, have also reported increased seizure of narcotic drugs in 1988. Correspondingly, Singapore has also detected increased inflow of heroin last year. Last year, the main drug of abuse was heroin, with 85% of addicts being on that drug. 5,451 drug addicts were arrested, of which 23% were identified as new addicts. We are also concerned with the increase in the proportion of Malay heroin addicts, especially the increase of new Malay heroin addicts. In 1983, they comprised some 40%, which increased to 69% in 1988. However, the incidence of school children and SAF military personnel abusing drugs is still very low. Most of the drugs enter Singapore through the Woodlands Checkpoint. It is being smuggled by both Malaysian and Singaporean 'ant-traffickers'. The number of Malaysian traffickers detected has also increased over the last two years. In 1986, 46 were detected; in 1987, 68; and last year, 85. To curb the inflow of drugs through the Woodlands Checkpoint, several measures have been taken. First, we have set up a Woodlands Task Force comprising officers from CNB, Customs, Police and Immigration to complement Customs' efforts in detecting the illegal smuggling of drugs. This Task Force uses narcotic detector dogs to help sniff out concealed drugs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment is for the reason that I have stated - that it is for the avoidance of any doubts. A doubt was raised. It was not ruled upon. We think that the amendment really is not necessary but to put the matter beyond any question, we are tabling the amendment. We have no doubts in our mind whatsoever that the Chief Justice's appointment since September 1982 is perfectly lawful and perfectly in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.”
“Sir, there is no reason. But my advice to him, without any disrespect that he is not a lawyer, and to avoid having a legal argument with a non-lawyer, I think it is best that I refer to him the various learned opinions of others.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we can of course go into a lengthy argument. And it is precisely what it is, a legal argument. We have no doubts but Mr Jeyaretnam raised it in his appeal to the Privy Council. The fact that it was not pursued in argument in the Privy Council and the fact that the Privy Council did not deal with it in its Judgment reflects, in my view, that the Privy Council did not consider there was any merit in his argument. The Queen's Counsel who represented the Law Society subsequently informed the Solicitor-General that in his view had it been heard in an argument in the Privy Council he was very confident that he would have been able to persuade the Privy Council that this argument is irrational. I have already informed the House that the Attorney-General has also advised that there is no merit in this argument. I have studied and taught Constitutional Law, and the Member can take it from me that there is no merit whatsoever in the argument.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would only implore the Member to read again, very carefully, what was it that the Prime Minister said in the Committee of Privileges. The Prime Minister always chooses his words very carefully. DISSOLUTION OF SIXTH PARLIAMENT 2. Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Prime Minister whether there was any compelling reason to dissolve the last Parliament and hold elections for a new Parliament on the 3 September 1988 if it was the intention that this Parliament should not assemble until some four months have elapsed after its election. The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament was dissolved on 17th August 1988 because I had decided to hold the General Elections on 3rd September 1988. How soon after that Parliament would meet had nothing to do with the date for the elections. The Constitution requires the new Parliament to meet no later than six months after the last sitting of the previous session. I therefore decided that Parliament should convene in January, after the Chamber was renovated.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of giving him a pardon does not arise. This is a matter for Cabinet to decide. I have transmitted the Attorney-General's advice to my colleagues in the Cabinet. But Cabinet has not decided, for the reason that Mr Jeyaretnam has not petitioned for a pardon. And until and unless he does so, there is nothing for the Government to decide.”
“They had no jurisdiction to decide those questions. This is very clear from the Attorney-General's advice.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we will be involved in an endless repetition of what I had very clearly stated in my main answer - that the Privy Council's ruling on disbarment is binding on the parties, ie, the Law Society and Mr Jeyaretnam. It has been implemented. But the comments on the convictions are not binding on the Government.”
“That question probably should be directed to the Privy Council.”
“Sir, I think the Member has not listened to what I have said in my answer. I am not saying that the Privy Council did not make any comments on the question of convictions but that the comments on convictions are not binding on the Singapore Government, that the Privy Council had no jurisdiction to decide those questions, that they themselves had admitted that this was the law when they had refused application for leave; that the Attorney-General had not been invited to present the prosecution's case and therefore very important questions of law had not been fully argued.”
“The main amendment in the Bill is the amendment to section 90 of the Act (clause 8). It provides that, subject to any rules made under the Act, the Registrar shall have the powers and jurisdiction of the court under the Act. The amendments in clauses 3, 5 and 9 are consequential upon the amendment to section 90 of the Act. Clauses 4 and 6 amend sections 18(7) and 33(1) of the Act, respectively, so that applications referred to in those sections need not be made and heard in open court. 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. CARRIAGE BY AIR BILL Order for Second Reading read. 11.24 am”
“I think the Member does have a point when he says that there may be some valid instances and situations where one can conceive of a person being allowed to opt out of membership or to have his membership kept in abeyance. This is something that I will have to reconsider and refer the matter to both the drafters as well as the Senate when it is constituted. It can be taken up subsequently and reviewed in the course of the actual operation of the Academy of Law. 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. BANKRUPTCY (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 11.20 am The Second Minister for Law (Prof. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill is being introduced at the request of the Judiciary. It seeks to amend the Bankruptcy Act to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Registrar of the Supreme Court in bankruptcy to enable him to hear bankruptcy proceedings in Chambers, subject to any rules made under the Act which reserves certain categories of matters for open court hearing before Judges. Currently, under the Bankruptcy Act, the jurisdiction of the Registrar is limited to the hearing and determination of unopposed or ex parte applications which are not required to be made in open court. Since the bulk of bankruptcy proceedings are required under the Bankruptcy Rules to be in open court, they fall to be heard and determined by Judges. The amendment in this Bill is necessary to alleviate the present workload of the Judges.”
“Sir, I thank the Member for his support of the Bill, and if I may touch on the comments that he has raised. First, his question on clause 5 as to why former Presidents of the Law Society are not automatically members. The reason is quite simple. The intention is to keep the size of the Senate manageable and small. For that reason there is a cut-off date, even for former Judges and former Deans of the Law Faculty. As far as the presidency of the Law Society is concerned, there are just so many of the former Presidents that the drafters thought it fit to include just the incumbent President. Secondly, Sir, I understand from the Attorney-General that the Law Society has no objections to this particular clause. So they are quite happy with this. Secondly, Sir, his question concerning the provision on immunity for suits. Here again, the draftsmen in incorporating the provisions have, in fact, borne in mind the practice and procedure in the United Kingdom and I understand that this is in keeping with the practice in the United Kingdom where Benchers of the Inns of Court are granted immunity from suits at the instance of students or members of the Inns. So we are just following the practice which pertains there. The final question is on automatic membership. For the Academy to start off on a proper footing, it is necessary that all advocates and solicitors - and here I should point out that it is advocates and solicitors whether or not they possess a practising certificate - are automatically members. If that were not so, then it will be self-defeating because it will not embrace all members of the profession.”
“Sir, the United States Government did not request the Singapore Government to release Francis Seow. The question is absurd. [Questions Nos. 7 and 8 taken. Later -]”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I for the record in relation to Question No. 2 state that I checked the speech given by the Prime Minister and found that the word "slip" was not used by the Prime Minister. It appears in the Question framed by the Member for Potong Pasir, and therefore the Member for Kampong Chai Chee, in view of this 'slip', might want to pursue the matter with the Member for Potong Pasir. OPPOSITION IN PARLIAMENT 3. Dr Tan Cheng Bock asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence whether the Government recognises the desire of Singaporeans to have an opposition in Parliament even though they want the People's Action Party in charge of the Government, and whether Town Councils will frustrate this desire as voters may be reluctant to vote in opposition Members of Parliament whose administrative skills may still be untested. The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not understand the question of the Member. Are we now quibbling on the terminology of the speech of the Prime Minister? Later -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, contrary to the belief which the Member seems to have, the President is not a prisoner of the Istana. Maj Fong Sip Chee (Kampong Chai Chee): Sir, if the President was not a prisoner of the Istana, would the Minister therefore like to withdraw the words that the Government has been using all this while - that the President slipped out of the Istana? The words were "slipped out".”
“Sir, that is unrelated to this question.”
“Sir, again I am answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. No action was taken against the security officers because there were no grounds to do so. The duty of the security officers who are assigned to protect the President ends each day when they are discharged by the President and he has the right to discharge them at any time. It is not the duty of the security officers, after being discharged, to trail the President to prevent him from going out alone. Sir, the security officers to the former President had never left him unprotected when they were on duty and therefore there was no neglect in the performance of their duties.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we must observe Standing Orders. Standing Orders clearly stipulate that hypothetical questions need not be answered in this House.”
“8% of the total yearly allowances is roughly equivalent to one month's allowance which was the basis for fixing the quantum of earlier deposits. When the deposit was fixed at $500 in 1954, the monthly allowance of a Legislative Assemblyman was $500. The deposit was raised to $1,200 in 1973 and $1,500 in 1978 when the monthly allowance of a Member of Parliament in 1973 and 1978 was $1,136 and $1,483 respectively. With this amendment, the amount of the deposit will automatically change when the MP's allowance is varied. There will be no need for periodic reviews. The second amendment in this Bill provides for the Returning Officer to specify the amount of deposit at the appropriate time, which is when he gives notice of a writ of election. This will replace the existing provision in the Act which requires the Minister to notify in the Gazette any variation in the amount of the deposit. Both amendments are aimed at simplifying the procedure for determining the amount of deposit required of each election candidate. They are purely administrative. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“All I wish to say, Sir, is that it is clear that he has not read the statements. BILLS INTRODUCED PUBLIC SERVICE (MONTHLY VARIABLE COMPONENT AND NON-PENSIONABLE ANNUAL ALLOWANCE) BILL "to enable annual wage increases and the non-pensionable annual allowance payable to the public service to be varied", presented by the Minister for Education (Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam)(for the Minister for Finance); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. HOMES FOR THE AGED BILL "to provide for the control, licensing and inspection of Homes for the Aged and for purposes connected therewith", presented by the Minister for Community Development (Mr Wong Kan Seng); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 11.15 am The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill contains two amendments to section 28 of the Parliamentary Elections Act. They are to simplify the method and procedure for fixing the deposit to be made by a candidate for parliamentary elections. Under the Act, the Minister may vary the amount of the deposit provided that it does not exceed 10% of the total allowances paid to a Member of Parliament in each year. He can do so by a notification in the Gazette. The purpose of the first amendment in this Bill is to provide a formula for varying the amount of the election deposit. This formula specifies that the deposit will be equal to 8% of the total allowances payable to a Member of Parliament in the preceding calendar year, rounded to the nearest $500.”
“It is not that I have mentioned Mr Francis Seow. It is the Member who has mentioned Mr Francis Seow in his question. Sir, it will be repetitious of me to go over the grounds which we have traversed in five days of debate held only recently. I think if the Member had listened to the proceedings during those five days, and if he had read the press statements which were issued, both would have more than adequately answered his supplementary question.”
“Sir, there are currently six and not eight of the re-arrested detainees under detention. They are not like Francis Seow who is not connected with any Marxist subversion. When the Government announced the further detention of four of the re-arrested Marxist conspirators (Kenneth Tsang, Teo Soh Lung, Wong Souk Yee and Kevin De Souza), it stated clearly that they will be released even before the expiry of their Detention Orders when they have been rehabilitated and no longer pose any threat to the security of Singapore. As to when this will be, it is not possible to say so now. As for the other two persons, Chew Kheng Chuan and Chng Suan Tze, the Government will announce its decision when their current Detention Orders expire on 18th July 1988.”
“Since then, my Ministry has held many discussions with the Ministry of Labour and the CPF Board to work out the details. We are now in the final stages of formulating the Scheme. The CPF Board has also engaged the services of an actuarial consultant to undertake various studies and we expect to receive his report in about three months' time. We hope to implement the Scheme sometime next year. An announcement will be made when the details have been finalized.”
“Sir, successful Hong Kong professionals and entrepreneurs are eligible to apply for permanent residence in Singapore under the Eminent Entrepreneurs/Professionals Scheme. So far, 81 Hong Kong residents have been granted permanent residence under the Scheme. High calibre and trained people from abroad are essential to supplement our limited talent pool. Larger and more developed countries like Canada and Australia have also recognized the importance of infusion of foreign talents to help the development of their countries and they are actively recruiting from the same sources as us. The present inflow of qualified immigrants is still low and is not sufficient to counter our decline in population fertility and offset the number of talented Singaporeans who have emigrated. Given the small numbers involved, it is unlikely that Hong Kong or other foreign professionals and entrepreneurs can adversely affect the career prospects of Singaporeans with similar qualifications or business acumen. On the contrary, such foreign talents will bring with them the kind of skills, enterprise and drive which will provide additional impetus for our economic growth and, in fact, create economic opportunities for more Singaporeans. CATASTROPHIC ILLNESS INSURANCE SCHEME (Progress) 4. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Acting Minister for Health whether significant progress has been made on the introduction of insurance to cover catastrophic diseases and when this is likely to be implemented. The Acting Minister for Health (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, during the Budget Debate in March this year, I informed this House of some of the basic outlines of the proposed Catastrophic Illness Insurance Scheme, and that the Scheme would be underwritten and managed by the CPF Board.”
“Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee asked the Minister for Home Affairs how many Hong Kong residents with professional qualifications have applied for permanent entry status under the scheme recently announced by the Government and whether such influx will adversely affect the career prospects of Singaporeans with similar or equivalent professional qualifications.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Police and the Immigration Department work very closely together to prevent foreign criminals from entering Singapore. Blacklists are kept on known criminals. They are denied entry when detected at entry points. Convicted foreign criminals are also put on Prohibition of Entry Orders which permanently prevent them from re-entering Singapore. In fact, Sir, I have information that for 1987 more than 6,500 foreign criminals were refused entry in this way. Further, we have excellent cooperation with the Police of neighbouring countries resulting in exchange of intelligence and information. However, Sir, it is difficult to prevent entry by foreign criminal elements who are not on our records. We have many tourists and social visitors. In 1987 alone there were 14.7 million social visitors who came through the checkpoints, which gives a daily average of about 40,000 visitors. Foreign criminal elements also resort to various methods such as using forged travel documents. Our stringent checks at entry points, our strict laws and enforcement of these laws do help to deter foreign criminals. However, Sir, there can be no better deterrent than for foreign criminals to know that in Singapore we have an alert and efficient Police Force which also has the cooperation and support of the public. Indeed, in the armed robbery case which the Member is referring to, it was through information gathered and quick but thorough efforts of the investigators that led to the swift arrests of the suspects by the Police. HONG KONG PROFESSIONALS (Permanent residence) 3.”
“Members will know that on Monday, 23rd May, First Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Trade and Industry and I gave a press conference where Asian Wall Street Journal's correspondent was present. You saw him on TV, John Berthelsen. He asked loaded questions, why Francis Seow is detained for attempting to practise democracy in Singapore. The following day, Asian Wall Street Journal ran an editorial which was a frontal attack on the Government, but without any reporting, without any mention of the press conference. No mention of the press conference at all. In fact, Asian Wall Street Journal did not report on the first press conference given by the three Ministers. Sir, this is clearly campaign journalism. Asian Wall Street Journal has made it abundantly clear that it has abandoned any pretense of neutrality of reporting on events and on the Francis Seow's question as well as on more general policies. They have unambiguously taken sides against the Government. They have now decided to black out our press conferences and our viewpoint, while carrying hostile editorials with the distortions that I have referred to. Sir, in the weeks and months ahead we can expect more of this from Asian Wall Street Journal as well as others. They have shown that they are not an offshore press reporting on Singapore for outsiders. They are openly campaigning against Singapore and we have to deal with them on that basis. Thank you, Sir.”
“Third editorial, Sir, of 24th May 1988. They say: 'In recent years we've seen one of the two opposition members ... forced to resign after investigation into the finances of his Workers' Party.' He was not forced to resign. So is this not an insidious repetition of a falsehood that Asian Wall Street Journal had sought to convey a misleading and untrue account of real political as well as legal events in Singapore? In all the articles, Francis Seow is described in glowing terms, "a prominent lawyer". Nowhere did they mention that he had been thrice disciplined. Nowhere did they say the Chief Justice described, in one case, his conduct as "deplorable conduct, dishonourable of him as a man and, dishonourable of his profession." In other words, Sir, they suppressed this information in the same way that they suppressed the fact that Mr Jeyaretnam was disqualified automatically because of a criminal conviction. We all know, Sir, that after Mr Francis Seow's statutory declaration was made public, it became known that Mr Devan Nair had written the article "Singapore's Closing Society". Did Asian Wall Street Journal inform the readers of this fact? The only way they did it, Sir, is that in the issue of 24th May, in an editorial they made a passing reference and said: 'Mr Nair might have worked on the article published on May 10th.' "Might have worked"? How can they brush this aside when Mr Francis Seow said, "Devan did the bulk of the work."? Sir, more significant is that there is a new twist, a new tactic, and stepping up of their campaign against Singapore. Previously they tried to give a semblance of reporting on the facts while commenting on the editorial. Now, they have decided to forgo reporting and openly campaign against us.”
“The first editorial, 10th May 1988, suggested that Mr Francis Seow's arrest had to do with the Asian Wall Street Journal's publication of Francis Seow's article, "Singapore's Closing Society", which we all know now was not written by him but was the handiwork of Mr Devan Nair. But just consider, Sir, how they link irrelevant matters with their editorial on Francis Seow's arrest. First, they referred to Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam as follows: 'The government is now poring over Mr Seow's financial affairs, asking how he's been paying his phone bills these past 10 years. Similar inquiries led to the expulsion from Parliament last December of Mr Joshua B. Jeyaretnam.' Note the word "expulsion", Sir. They did not mention anywhere in this editorial that Mr Jeyaretnam was not expelled by any decision of this House but he was disqualified by operation of law after a conviction of a criminal offence. They suppressed this information. Then they went on to talk about the GRC proposal, totally unrelated to Mr Francis Seow's arrest: 'A team-candidate proposal now under study would also seem likely to keep the opposition from finding its way into government office. But Singapore's 2.6 million citizens aren't likely to benefit quite so much as the politicians of Mr Lee's ruling party.' What has this got to do with the arrest? Then, Sir, second editorial, 17th May 1988. Without giving an explanation of the Government's case, they say: 'The main complaint [of the government's case] seems to be that Mr Seow had chatted with an American diplomat. An American diplomat was expelled for talking to such people.' This is a gross distortion of our case. Then, Asian Wall Street Journal irresponsibly spread the rumour that Mr Francis Seow had a heart attack, which was not true.”
“If one missed that, this is what one will read: 'In a surprise development, First Deputy Prime Minister confirmed that a number of ISD officers had been detained under the ISA. Then the legal profession was declared officially restricted [meaning that lawyers can practise only if they work for the government].' Somewhere else: '20,000 detainees are reportedly being held without trial.' This is mischievous because if one did not read the fine print, one would get the impression that the article is talking about the present-day situation. Well, for what is worth, I think Members should note that the question is raised: whether the Bangkok Post has a brief to present Singapore in a certain way. Last year, the Bangkok Post was attacked by another major Thai daily newspaper for having been taken over by foreign capitalists. Far Eastern Economic Review, let me give a quote of 19th May 1988: 'The Singapore Government has kept up its barrage of accusations of foreign manipulation of its local critics, again using as evidence sworn statements allegedly [allegedly] obtained from those critics while held in detention without trial. 'Then: '... the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) appears intent on ramming through controversial legislation on the GRC.' Sir, but the best example of such hysterical campaign, and which I will single out, is the Asian Wall Street Journal which, as every one knows, recently lost its legal case challenging the Government's action against the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act. Within a period of two weeks, 10th May to 24th May 1988, the Asian Wall Street Journal carried three editorials on Francis Seow's arrest; three editorials which are worth noting for they give examples of campaigned journalism against Singapore.”
“I quote: 'Now that the ex-detainees have been re-arrested, the ensuing hysterical campaign against the Singapore government by the foreign press, especially the off-shore press, [that is, Asiaweek, Far Eastern Economic Review, Asian Wall Street Journal] and other regional publications is likely to be part of this scheme.' Sir, the events proved us right. As we predicted, the foreign press has indeed unleashed a truly hysterical campaign. Let me give you a few examples. Bangkok Post, 11th May 1988, says: 'Government critics welcomed. Critics welcome a campaign by an Australian human rights group urging tourists and business travellers to avoid Singapore until political activists held without trial are freed.' But who are these critics whom they quote as supporting this boycott to hurt our economy? Only one - Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam. Before I go on to the Far Eastern Economic Review, Sir, I might mention that the Bangkok Post, unlike other papers in the region, has been avidly following recent developments in Singapore, particularly our case against Mr Hendrickson. But what is different is that the Bangkok Post reporting has shown very little interest in presenting a balanced picture, and they have gone out of their way to paint the ugliest picture of Singapore. In fact, it has been re-printing extremely negative articles about Singapore that have appeared in the Western media. Worse still, it has even published recently what purports to be a futuristic scenario entitled, "When nothing is left to bare". It is not emphasized in the headlines or anywhere else that this is a conjecture and one has to read very carefully at the date, "September 16, 1988".”
“Then you say, "Well, here I have made a report. I don't want any action to be taken." Consider also, Sir, that Tang Fong Har, one of the signatories who has fled, gave a BBC interview on 22nd April. She said many things, but not once did she speak about her own treatment. Here you have one of the signatories to the statement being given an opportunity on BBC to speak to millions of listeners, a golden opportunity to give a vivid account of how she was ill-treated, but she did not talk about the treatment. Instead, she talked about Chia Thye Poh and how she adored him. Sir, I have also pointed out that the signatories, the re-arrested detainees, made statutory declarations reaffirming the truth of what they had said and, except for Teo Soh Lung and two others, reiterating that they had not been assaulted. In other words, Sir, there was no fabrication. Once we concluded that they were out to make political propaganda and to launch a denigration campaign and not to pursue legal redress, we decided against the Commission of Inquiry for it would only mean political theatre for the one or two persons who still made allegations. As for that person, then the burden of proof is on that person to discharge in a proper forum, namely, in a court of law. Sir, I spent some time explaining this because of the points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir. Finally, Sir, Members have referred to the role of the foreign press. I would like to conclude by saying something on this. When the Government issued the press statement on 28th April and when we exposed the fact that the joint statement of certain ex-detainees was a political propaganda ploy to discredit the Government, we also predicted that there would be a massive campaign by the press.”
“This was clear from Patrick Seong's statutory declaration. Their intention was, first, to publish it when the Prime Minister was in Washington. What for? For maximum political embarrassment. Ng Bee Leng told us in the statutory declaration that the joint statement, first, was to discredit the Government in an election year and, second, to deter the Government from using the ISA. In other words, they were never really interested in a judicial or legal resolution of their grievances. Let us consider some of the salient points of their joint statement. First, it was very cunningly drafted, to have maximum emotional and political impact. Secondly, serious allegations were made but totally lacking in particulars or specifics. No specific facts - who was hit on the face, by whom? "Most of us were hit hard on the face." Who? "Some of us not less than 50 times." Again, who? No specifics. It was a collective accusation by nine persons about what happened to others where, in fact, each of them had been interrogated and questioned separately. Each can testify only about his or her own treatment and complain about such treatment. But none did. Instead, this collective accusation against an anonymous group of ISD officers. Thirdly, Sir, in making these very damning accusations, it is very strange that they themselves did not ask for an inquiry in the joint statement. But why not? In fact, they said, "We do not seek any official response." Sir, surely you would expect them to scream for some official response or follow-up action. Their position was, "Here, we are making these charges." That is all. Government need not do anything. Sir, we can liken it to a case of rape. You allege rape. You wait months after the event, months of silence, and then you make a report.”
“They were not just alleging ill-treatment but that they had been made to tell lies. They completely repudiated statements which they had made. In other words, they denied the case made against them by the Government last year which had been spelt out in great detail. In short, the joint statement said that the Government had fabricated the Marxist conspiracy, that the Government believed the ISD had concocted the whole thing and that the Government repeated a pack of lies to the people. These are very grave charges and we assume that they were serious in pursuing these charges of torture, ill-treatment which forced them to fabricate their statements. And if they persisted in their charges, there had to be a Commission of Inquiry to find out: was there a fabrication? What for? And by whom? We had to know. It was absurd because the Government does not arrest people on its whim and fancy. We do not fabricate things. This was why we have to have a Commission of Inquiry, we decided, and we were serious about it. The Attorney-General was asked immediately to frame the terms of reference. The Prime Minister, after his return to Singapore, consulted the Chief Justice on the afternoon of Monday, 25th April, as to which High Court Judge should head the Commission of Inquiry. The names for other Commissioners were also considered. But by Wednesday, 27th, or by 28th, the investigation reports on all of them had come in. They showed two things. First, that they were not acting as aggrieved parties seeking judicial or legal redress but were acting as political propagandists out to discredit the Government, to provoke agitation by outside groups, human rights groups, newspapers. In other words, the joint statement was a political propaganda ploy.”
“He can reply to me later, Sir. Either he refuses to give evidence on oath or affirmation, or after having been sworn or affirmed, refuses to answer any questions, the court in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper, which I think is very reasonable. We give evidence on oath or on affirmation. You refuse to do so. Then the court must draw such inferences. But it does not follow that the court must always hold it against him. The court will view it in totality of the case. Then he says Marxism is against private ownership of property. The PAP is also against this and therefore we are Marxists. But I thought if anybody knows anything about the PAP Government's policy it has been to encourage the ownership of private property and indeed, Sir, according to the figures I have, 90% of all housing in Singapore is privately-owned. [Mr Chiam See Tong interrupted.] If he wants to further this debate, he can file a Question. We can get more details from the Ministry of National Development. Then, Sir, he says there must be a public inquiry, a Commission of Inquiry. I think then I should mention here why did we in the first place decide to have a Commission of Inquiry and why did we decide not to have a Commission of Inquiry. When the First Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade and Industry and I and the Director of ISD met at the First Deputy Prime Minister's house on the evening of 18th April, two decisions were made. First, on the re-arrest of the eight detainees and the arrest of Patrick Seong. Second, that there should be a Commission of Inquiry. But why a Commission of Inquiry? It is because we were shocked and taken aback by the allegations in the joint statement.”
“In fact, of the 22 persons who were detained last year, 19 persons have made statutory declarations. So he can even speak to those who were not re-arrested. All made statutory declarations, except Vincent Cheng who is under detention still, Tang Fong Har who is away in London, and Chung Lai Mei. And Chung Lai Mei, because at that time there was a bereavement in the family and she was not approached. So it is not just the eight ex-detainees who were re-arrested, 19 of them. So he can make his pick and speak to anyone. Finally, Sir, in answer to the point made by the Member for Leng Kee, the Member for Potong Pasir stood up to say that it is not true that under our laws, if an arrested person is silent, it will be held against him. I think this is a gross distortion and over-simplification which it is necessary for me to set the record straight. What does our law say? What our law says, Sir, is that in court proceedings if the accused, after being called upon to give evidence, refuses to be sworn or affirmed, in other words, he refuses to give evidence on oath or affirmation ---”
“They are no threat at all. Is that so? The CPM today still remains committed to the violent overthrow of both the governments of Singapore and Malaysia. There are still armed communist guerillas active in the Malaysian jungles. As the press reported in Malaysia in July 1987, last year Malaysian security forces uncovered 24 communist food dumps and killed 165 guerillas in combat, and the Malaysian White Paper only this year stated that the CPM was exploiting different groups for their own purposes and the CPM underground still exists in Singapore. So we cannot say that there is no threat. As far as Patrick Seong's affidavit is concerned, he made much ado about the fact that two of the persons named by him as having attended the meeting to meet Hendrickson had denied. Let me mention here, Sir, for the benefit of Members of the House that the lady lawyer, Miss Baruch, who told Straits Times denied that she attended, subsequently informed the Chinese press that actually she was present but she went late. The other case, we have established that it was not Edwin D'Souza but Edward D'Souza. So Edwin D'Souza has denied but Edward D'Souza has not said a word. But the Member has cast doubts about the credibility of the statutory declarations because they were made in custody. Why did he not take up the offer to question Patrick Seong? Several Members have raised this and he has not answered. Patrick Seong has been released, question him and ask him, "Was it extracted out of him by duress or force?" But I should also mention that it is not just the ex-detainees who were arrested who have made statutory declarations. In fact, even those who were not re-arrested have made statutory declarations reaffirming the truth of what they said to ISD and on television.”
“To ensure that there will not be disorder, to ensure that there will be no traffic congestion, to ensure that no lawless elements can manipulate the situation. These are procedures which not only Opposition parties have to observe but all political parties, including Members of Parliament from the ruling party. And, in particular, we are strict on processions because they have a propensity to get out of hand. And the Member for Potong Pasir is probably very upset because he recently conducted a foot procession with banners, flags, without a police permit, and after advice from the Attorney-General the police had to give him a written warning. But as Members from the PAP also know, they have also not succeeded when they have applied for permission to have processions. So it is not just rules and regulations designed to curb Opposition political parties but they apply to all political activities. Then, Sir, he referred to Chia Thye Poh. He says he is harmless. He can be released. But does he know the man? We have explained in this House that 10 years after he was detained, as I said in Parliament, "While under detention, in prison, he carried out his pro-communist activities by subverting some of the prison warders and getting them to distribute to other detainees folded slips containing transcripts of radio broadcasts of the CPM." This is the person who is in detention 10 years after detention and some of the prison warders were later charged in court. We have said, Sir, that this is the kind of man. He can be released. All he has to do is to publicly renounce the use of force. He refuses to do that, but even if he refuses to do that, if any other country wants to take him, he will be released. Then the Member for Potong Pasir says we do not have to worry about the CPM.”
“I do not take particular pleasure in detaining my former students, but the decisions to detain them are made on considerations of national security, which have been fully explained in our press statements last year, and indeed the decision to release them last year earlier than the expiry of the one year detention order reflects that we had no intention to keep them longer than was necessary. Sir, the Member also says that, in relation to what the Prime Minister said about freedom for political opposition parties to conduct a wide variety of political activities, he has now this morning given the impression that the police are obstructing his intentions, that permits are not being given and that he has been told that he can have rallies only on May Day and National Day. This is not true, Sir. Rallies have been organized. Permits have been given. He has had in this year alone a public forum on GRC Bills, public forum on Powers of the Government, public forum on Excellence in Government Education, public forum on the next GE, May Day Rally, Labour Day Rally last year. And if I may also give other examples, Sir. The Workers Party - public rally to discuss the team voting system held in January 1988 at Queenstown Sports Centre, public rally to discuss plight of the unemployed, 15th March 1986, at the Toa Payoh Athletic Centre. These are large meetings in large stadiums. There is no restriction but it does not mean that because they have the freedom to conduct political activities that there are no rules or regulations to observe. Of course, there are rules and regulations and procedures to be observed laid down by the police. For what reasons?”
“And further, in all our contacts with the Church, with the Archbishop, the representatives of the Vatican, we have had two things uppermost in our minds. The first is to stress that these actions are not in any way directed against the church and the Archbishop himself said he was satisfied. And secondly, to ensure that the handful of trouble-makers do not succeed in converting this into a Church-State collision. So it was totally unwarranted for the Member to have said that the Prime Minister says that Catholics are Marxists. The Member says that the ISA is bad because, unlike cases where we have court convictions, in ISA cases there is no fixed sentence where the detainee knows that he will get out. If that is the logic of his argument, then he must know that we also have preventive detention where under similar procedures hardcore gangsters, secret society gangsters, gang rapists and other vicious criminals for whom it will be impossible to get a court conviction, are also detained under preventive detention, and for whom also there is no fixed custodial sentence as in a court conviction. If we take his logic to its conclusion, it must mean that we must release all of them too. Sir, he has also not observed that there are checks and safeguards under our Internal Security Act, that there is an Advisory Board headed by a Supreme Court Judge, and indeed last year this Advisory Board recommended that two of the detainees should be released early and their recommendations were accepted. He makes much play of the fact that we should have human feelings. It is not that we are devoid of human feelings. Four of the detainees were my own former students.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in speaking in support of the motion I would like to divide my remarks into two parts. First, by responding to some of the points made by the Member for Potong Pasir this morning and, secondly, to comment on the remarks made by several Members about the role of the foreign press in this whole affair. Sir, if I may touch on some of the points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir just now. I would suggest to him and to other Members of the House: let us leave it to Mr Hendrickson and other officials to speak for themselves. I think Americans need not need either the Member for Potong Pasir or anybody else to speak on their behalf. If indeed some Foreign Service rules of the United States prevent Mr Hendrickson from denying it, then their spokesman here, Mr Richard Gong, could in his statement have said that "Mr Hendrickson says that he has denied whatever was alleged by Mr Patrick Seong or Mr Francis Seow". But no such words appeared in any of their official pronouncements. Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir in his remarks this morning made a statement which I found very surprising because he is not prone to making wild allegations or mischievous statements. But this morning, referring to the Prime Minister's statement, he said that the Prime Minister is now saying that Catholics are Marxists. I think this is very dangerous and a very sweeping and mischievous statement. I hope the Member did not intend it to be so and I hope that he will withdraw it because neither the Prime Minister nor any other Minister in Government has ever said that. In fact, we have always made it a point to repeat that of the 22 persons who were arrested, only four were Catholics.”
“Because if that is the definition of "openness" and tolerance", the freedom to engage in subversive activities, landestine, surreptitious methods, infiltration of lawful organizations for subversive ends, then the Government will continue to clamp down on these activities. But as far as legitimate activities, as we have done before, there is no need for anyone to refrain from engaging in these activities.”
“Sir, the final point I want to make is about the limb of the amendment by the Member for Potong Pasir which is contained in the second paragraph. He "calls on the Government to be more open and tolerant and declare that under our democratic system, legitimate pressure groups do have a say in our domestic affairs." If by that he means that we should always try to be more open, more tolerant, no one can quarrel with it, whether you are in Singapore or in any other country. And if by legitimate pressure groups, he means that lawfully constituted societies should be allowed to operate without impediment, that also we cannot quarrel with it. It is like motherhood and other sacred cows, we do not quarrel with it. But given the context of his amendment, the clear implication is that the actions taken by the Government had been intolerant and had not been open. But that cannot be so. We reject that. It must be rejected because the facts fly in the face of what the Member for Potong Pasir asserts. In 1987 and 1988, the Member himself has organized political rallies and forums where he has criticized the Government. People have attended his rallies. There has been no impediment. He has had four rallies this year and this is only the end of May. Sir, it is a limb of the amendment which is unsupportable by the facts. And in so far as it gives the impression that we must allow pressure groups and societies to be engaged in subversive activities, then if that is what is meant by tolerance and by being open, we have to reject it.”