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 46 of 66.
“But finally a decision was taken to arrest because Vincent Cheng was going off to the Philippines to meet with some of his Filipino communist contacts. That is not at the drop of a hat. In the case of Francis Seow, we have explained in a press statement the basis for their arrest. I read from paragraph 30 of the press statement: 'Any citizen who allows himself to be used by representatives of a foreign power or who collaborates or colludes with them in plans to interfere in Singapore's internal affairs is subverting the independence, integrity and sovereignty of the Republic and must be dealt with.' Is this a new concoction, a new definition of subversion? It is not. I would like to bring to Members' attention that this has been a consistent position taken by the Government. In 1958, before the PAP took office, before they were elected to power, the Prime Minister outlined what would be the PAP's position on preventive detention then under the Emergency Regulations; what would be the position of the PAP on Emergency laws and preventive detention if it came to power. I will read one excerpt. He said: 'Let it also be made known that our definition of the word "subversion" is probably different from the British definition. In our definition, subversion is any political activity designed to further the aims and interests, not of our own people, but of foreign powers. And by foreign powers, we mean not just Russia and China but also America and Formosa and the Western bloc.' Sir, this was in 1958. It was repeated by the Prime Minister in 1959 after the PAP came to power. This has been a consistent position and must continue to be a consistent position if we want to safeguard the independence and sovereignty of our Republic.”
“Now, if we take the logic of the Member for Potong Pasir to its ultimate conclusion, that is, any statutory declaration made by a person in detention must be rejected, then it means really that no statement can be considered unless one is free, out of custody and voluntarily chooses to make a statement in public. Why on earth would anyone, whether Mr Francis Seow or anyone else, want to come out to the whole world and proclaim publicly his contacts and his meetings with different officials, how he cultivated foreign diplomats, and how other foreign diplomats, cultivated him, and his attempts to obtain asylum? Why should anybody say this? For that matter, no one, whether under ISA, the Penal Code or any other criminal law, can be interrogated or investigated in custody because, according to the Member for Potong Pasir, you cannot do that. You must let them come out and proclaim their guilt outside custody and not under investigation. This is so patently absurd that no law enforcement agency anywhere in the world will be able to deal with either subversion or criminal elements. Then, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, he says that we are using the ISA at the drop of a hat. At the drop of a hat? Members will recall last year how the First Deputy Prime Minister outlined the various steps taken before the decision was made to arrest those involved in the Marxist conspiracy. Members will recall that he told this House that careful deliberations preceded the decision, that some of them had been monitored for months; in the case of Vincent Cheng, for years. And he also told the House the various options that had been open to us as to whether we should wait or nip it in the bud.”
“If you make a statutory declaration, which is false, it is a criminal offence. As the Minister for Trade and Industry pointed out, even the United States government, which has probably a major interest in protesting if they felt that the facts alleged in the statutory declaration are false, never disputed the facts as recited either by Mr Patrick Seong or by Mr Francis Seow. Therefore, it is surprising that the Member for Potong Pasir takes the view that he rejects the statutory declarations. I would also like to bring the Member's attention to the contents of Mr Francis Seow's statutory declaration. Just look at it - 124 paragraphs. If you read it, if you examine it closely, this is not the work of a deranged mind or of a person from whom it has been extracted because his fingernails have been pulled out. It is a very craftily crafted document - where he attempts to incriminate himself as little as possible while talking about as many other people as possible. As we ourselves pointed out in the press statement, Mr Francis Seow has presented his case in the best possible light; he has admitted the minimum of anything incriminating to himself and makes himself out to be public-spirited, and so on. Is this the kind of a statutory declaration that you want to force through pressure or torture? Look at some of the things he has said. He even refers, in paragraph 5, to certain personal problems of Mr Hendrickson which we did not know of. Why should he say so? That is something to be left to Mr Francis Seow to explain. But anyone reading this 124-paragraph document cannot come to the conclusion that this is a document extracted under duress or force. It is a very craftily drafted document by a person with considerable legal experience.”
“I find it surprising because, first of all, none of them, either Mr Francis Seow or Mr Patrick Seong through their lawyers or Mr Patrick Seong who is now released, has allegedthat what they have said in their statutory declarations is false or that they were extracted under force. It may be worthwhile for me, Sir, to mention what are the procedures under which the statutory declarations are administered. As I mentioned at the press conference, the Registrar of Supreme Court has confirmed that the respective Commissioners for Oaths told him that each declarant was left alone with the respective Commissioner for Oaths. In other words, no police officer, no ISD officer was present when the Commissioner for Oaths administered the statutory declaration. And secondly, the standard procedures for statutory declarations were followed. What are these procedures? First, the declarant's identity is confirmed. Second, the Commissioner for Oaths asks the declarant whether he or she has read the statutory declaration and, if not, to read it. Third, the Commissioner for Oaths asks the declarant whether he or she understands the contents of the statutory declaration. Fourth, the declarant is asked by the Commissioner whether the statutory declaration is true and correct. Only then does the Commissioner for Oaths ask the declarant to sign and he witnesses it. Both Mr Patrick Seong and Mr Francis Seow are lawyers. In the case of Mr Francis Seow, an experienced lawyer and a former Solicitor-General. They know the implications of a statutory declaration. Why would they want to make any false statement in the statutory declaration when they know that it will render them to criminal prosecution, which is what the law is?”
“And that is why I strongly support the terms of the Original Motion. Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, his motion also goes on to urge that the Government's action and the Government's condemnation of foreign human rights groups be also rejected by this House. Last week, in an answer to an oral question, I explained why is it that these various foreign groups are taking such a strident stand against us? I pointed out that many of them, or most of them, are the same groups which condemned us last year. They have axes to grind; they have vested interests. I also pointed out that while they purport to be human rights groups, groups like Amnesty International and Asiawatch, they themselves ignored an important fundamental right, that is, not to prejudge until you have the facts. They wanted to send fact-finding teams here to find facts. But before they arrived, they condemned us - these organizations which claim to be human rights organizations. If we listen to these foreign rights groups and if we do what they want us to do - repeal preventive detention, whether under ISA or under Criminal Law (Temporary) Provisions Act - if we succumb to their pressures, then the question which the Member for Potong Pasir has to answer is: who will come to Singapore's rescue when we fall into troubled waters, when we have instability, when we have subversion which is rampant, and when we have lawlessness? It is not going to be the human rights groups. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Potong Pasir, while on the subject of Mr Hendrickson's activities, also made the point that he rejects the statutory declarations made by Mr Francis Seow and others. Why? Because he says they were made while they were in detention. I find this surprising.”
“Jeyaretnam's role and asked him to recruit more professionals to pave the way for opposition. And only after this, Francis Seow began to take politics seriously. So there is nothing wrong with having more opposition. But it is for the people of Singapore to decide. It is grossly improper for a foreign diplomat accredited to the Singapore Government to instigate Singaporeans, whether lawyers or not, to do this. Supposing we take the approach of the Member for Potong Pasir - that there is nothing wrong, it would not harm Singapore. What are the consequences? Surely, the consequences are serious. This time, we condone it, overlook it because, as the Member for Potong Pasir says, "It's harmless. It's not going to hurt us." So such instigations and such interference by "Hank" Hendrickson on this occasion, the next occasion by officials of another country, Country A; another occasion, country B. What will happen? Before we know it, in this House, seated at different places, there will be different Members who have been put in place not because of their own volition but because of the instigation, cultivation and encouragement by various different countries. This was brought up very clearly by the Minister for Trade and Industry. Sir, the question, therefore, is whether we take position of principle and a stand as to whether we approve, whether we condone such interference, or we make it clear to everyone outside Singapore that such interference is improper, impermissible by any standards of diplomatic conduct, and we will not tolerate it from whichever country such officials come from. The Member for Potong Pasir takes the view that this is not serious, not harmful. We take the view that this is very serious.”
“Are we going to allow them to resume these activities for the implication of maintaining that what they did was aboveboard, legitimate and not harmful, must mean that they must be allowed to resume those activities and we are not going to allow all these activities to be resumed. That must be made very clear. Second, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, he wants the House to reject the action of the Government in protesting over the inter- ference in our internal affairs by Mr Hank Hendrickson and the other United States officials. Other Ministers as well as my colleagues in this House have pointed out exactly what aspects of their actions were improper. The Member for Potong Pasir admits that the United States' diplomats were encouraging more opposition in this House. But he says that what Hank Hendrickson did was not a serious thing and "will not hurt us in any way", to use his words. And he asked what is wrong with having more Opposition. There is nothing wrong to answer his question. There is nothing wrong in having more Opposition in this House. But what is wrong is for foreign diplomats or foreign officials to instigate Singaporeans, to give them advice and agitate them to take on the Government. That is what is wrong. That is gross interference in our internal affairs, and we may do well to recall what is it that Patrick Seong was told by Hank Hendrickson. He was told in Lambertson's presence that lawyers should contest the general elections, that lawyers would vote against the PAP because of the Law Society's experience in the Select Committee hearings on the Legal Profession Act, that they were a disgruntled lot, were articulate and enjoyed professional status. And when he met Francis Seow, "Hank" Hendrickson emphasized the need for Francis Seow to take over Mr J.B.”
“This is why I thought I would like to say a few words about the contents of his amendment to the Original Motion. It is made up of different parts. The first part calls for a rejection of the recent action of the Government against (a) alleged subversive activities of Marxists, (b) the United States government, although it is he who is saying it is the government, we have said it is diplomats and some officials of the US government, and (c) rejects the actions we have taken against foreign interest groups. First, as regards the recent action we have taken against those Marxist detainees, he is in fact saying that we are wrong in having re-arrested them and they should be released. But we have explained the reasons why they were re-arrested. It is not because they expressed a freedom of speech and issued a joint statement but because of the implications of what they have said in the joint statement. They, in fact, claimed in the joint statement that everything that they did last year and the years before for which they were arrested in the first place was completely legitimate, completely innocent, and completely aboveboard. The fact is, as we explained last year, that what they did was not harmless and that is why they were arrested. Surreptitious activities, clandestine action, misusing of church and para-church groups for political and subversive ends, infiltration of lawful organizations for different purposes, underground publications, secret communication codes and, on top of that pyramid, Vincent Cheng directing the whole network with links to Tan Wah Piow who, as has been elaborated by the Malaysian White Paper, has had links with the CPM which to-date he has not denied.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on some aspects of the amendment moved by the Member for Potong Pasir as well as on what he has said. Sir, in the past few years, my colleagues in this House, whether Backbenchers or Ministers as well as myself, have had the opportunity of working with the Member in various Committees, Select Committees as well as House Committees on different aspects and different subjects. In that process we have got to know him better. Although we have our differences with him, sometimes strong and intense disagreements, we know that he endeavours to play the role of a loyal, constructive and critical Opposition. Of course, constructive opposition does not mean that you have to disagree with the Government all the time. I am not saying he has done this. I realize that it is also not easy to be the lone Opposition Member in the House for there must be tremendous pressures on him to take a different position from the Government even where logic and commonsense dictate that there must be support and unity on certain occasions. And on occasions like today when we are debating a matter involving interference in our internal affairs by foreign diplomats, I would have thought that this is a subject which so directly and immediately strikes at the very base and roots of our independence, sovereignty and ability to make decisions for ourselves as to the course for our political development, that partisan political differences and the urge to score any political points will be set aside so that he will demonstrate to the world that whether we are in the Opposition or not, or whether we are with the Government, we tell the world that we Singaporeans will brook no interference from any quarter in our inter- nal affairs.”
“Sir, if the Member for Potong Pasir does not withdraw it, his statement stands on the record. He should substantiate it. If he is not able to do it, then he should withdraw it. He cannot let the statement based on hearsay stand on the record and choose to withdraw it another day.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member wants a full debate on the ISA, he can move a motion. It will be supported by one of my colleagues in this House, and we can have a full substantive motion where he can explain his position on the ISA and the Government will explain its position on the ISA.”
“The ISA will be with us for so long as it is necessary to deal with security threats to our Republic. Mr Chiam See Tong: Does the Minister not realize that, in fact, the British enacted Emergency laws because there was a fighting war. But we do not have one here now. What is the justification for the ISA?”
“Of course. This has been our consistent position.”
“Sir, the question ultimately is: who is in-charge of Singapore, who governs Singapore and who takes decisions with regard to security matters concerning Singapore? Whether it is a group of lawyers from Pennsylvania, from Africa or elsewhere, the question is: do we decide our future? If we act as they want, if we abolish the ISA, if we do away with preventive detention, and we are therefore helpless to deal with security problems, whether it be subversion, whether it be terrorism, racial clashes, and Singapore then goes down the drain. Can I ask the Member for Potong Pasir: does he seriously expect all these groups - human rights groups, lawyers and legislators from other countries - to come down to rescue Singapore? Does he seriously believe that?”
“For it is Singaporeans who must live with the consequences of these actions, and it is Singaporeans who must decide in elections whether they want the PAP to continue to govern Singapore. Sir, if we allow overseas criticism to deter us from not doing something manifestly right and which is in our national interests, we will open ourselves to foreign pressure in our domestic politics, and this will pave the way to further external pressure and manipulation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I know that certain groups and individuals have from outside Singapore protested vociferously against the Government's action. They are mostly the same persons who protested last year when the original arrests were made. As I explained to the House on 31st August last year, many of them have vested interests and highly questionable motives. Human rights groups, such as Asiawatch or Amnesty International, want the Singapore Government to abandon completely the Internal Security Act and preventive detention. They have condemned our actions even before sending their so-called fact-finding teams. Coalitions like the Australian Committee of 100 include social action groups preaching liberation theology on the extreme radical wing of the Catholic Church and who consider Vincent Cheng and the Justice and Peace Commission kindred spirits in a world-wide struggle. There are more direct links between the overseas groups and those arrested under the ISA. Chew Kheng Chuan has been actively lobbying groups in the United States. Edgar D'Souza, the renegade priest who is in Melbourne, has been mobilizing Australian groups. Tan Wah Piow is working in Britain and his friend, Tsui Hon Kwong, is very active in Hong Kong. And Teo Soh Lung's friend, Lai Maylene, is the one feeding the New Zealand campaign. Sir, the Singapore Government cannot afford to allow campaigns by foreign human rights and other less honourable groups to intimidate us. What is our uppermost concern? Our concern is to fulfil our responsibilities to the people of Singapore for it is their support and their condemnation that matters.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Francis Seow was arrested on 6th May 1988 for investigations into foreign interference in the internal affairs of Singapore. Investigations are still in progress and he cannot be released by today. Meanwhile, the Government has been officially informed by letter dated 10th May 1988 that the firm of Teo, Lai and Lee have been appointed to represent Mr Patrick Seong and Miss Teo Soh Lung in place of Mr Francis Seow's firm. I also understand that they have applied to be represented by a Queen's Counsel, and furthermore I understand that the case is not going to be heard today.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir has two questions. I am prepared to answer them. Although he is not here, I do not want it to appear that he is deprived of an opportunity to ask whatever supplementary questions he might have wanted to ask. May I suggest, Sir, if you are agreeable, that we proceed with the other Questions and take up these two questions when he comes or, if he does not come, towards the end of Question time? Mr Speaker: All right. [Questions Nos. 6 to 10 taken. Later ---] Mr Chiam See Tong entered the Chamber.”
“But we have to take care of our situation because of our peculiar circumstances - our densely populated areas, our HDB highrise flats. We have to make sure that we put in place enough controls, enough deterrents, and enough penalties so that all the points raised by Members as to the horrendous consequences elsewhere will not arise here. So it is not a question of waiting either for a dragon year or waiting for other countries to take their action. We have to take our action ourselves. Finally, the point made by the Member for Radin Mas. The intention of that particular provision is to make it sure and make it clear that no one can try to evade these provisions under the cloak of a corporate veil. The precise implementation of this will have to be left to the Attorney-General because in any case a case must be made out to the courts and evidence established as to who is responsible and culpable, and this will be done. 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. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Thirty Minutes past Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PRICING OF LAND FOR HDB FLATS 1. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for National Development if he will state the market prices of land charged by the Housing and Development Board in pricing of its flats sold at (i) Yishun New Town, (ii) Zhenghua New Town, (iii) Hougang New Town, (iv) Potong Pasir, (v) Bedok New Town and (vi) Jalan Besar.”
“The phrase is, "be punished with caning with not more than 6 strokes." So there is a discretion for the court to decide whether it wants to impose the full penalty of six strokes or less than six strokes. The Member can correct me if he thinks he is still right. The second point that the Member made is that it is unfair because it does not distinguish one cracker from two crackers. We thought about this, Sir. But it is not easy to work that kind of a number into the provision. We are not talking about one cracker, a packet of crackers, what size of packing, what size of cracker, and the nature of the cracker, because you may have one single cracker brought in but it can be of the dangerous type. It can be a projectile. Then what happens if you say, "Well, if you bring in one cracker, it is all right." So we have a tour group that comes in with 40 people in the bus, each person brings in one. So they are all innocent? So I come back to first principles. We have had a ban for 16 years. Either we intend that it should be a ban or we do not. Our intention is that it stays as a ban. I have told Members of the concern and the consequences and of the advice given by the Director of Fire Service. It is naive to say, "Well, this year, it is all right. We can close an eye. It would not happen till many more years until the next dragon year." That is not so. If you just cross over the Causeway, you will find plentiful supplies there because the Malaysian government lifted their ban on crackers this year. Hence, plentiful of supplies were available. But the Member for Toa Payoh suggested that we should liaise with the other agencies. I am sure other countries are the best judge of what they want to do in their countries.”
“I would say this is part of the whole deterrent process, deterrent not only to the youngsters, but also deterrent to the parents, for the parents must exercise vigilance, supervision and control over their children. The Member mentioned that there should be greater vigilance at the Woodlands checkpoint. I wish to assure him that I will take his point. In fact, it is being done with the Woodlands Task Force that was formed recently. The Member for Potong Pasir felt that the penalties are manifestly excessive. He referred particularly to the penalties for those charged for trafficking. I think he made two points. The first point was that there is no discretion given. This is not quite correct. There is discretion given within which the courts can take into account the circumstances of the case. The penalty is "a term of not less than 6 months and not more than 2 years." In other words, there is a minimum of six months and not more than two years, and within this range the court can take into account factors so that they can determine whether to give a penalty of more than six months or up to two years. Similarly, caning with not more than six strokes. But it means the court has a discretion whether to impose a sentence with a maximum of six strokes or whether it will be just one stroke. So there is a discretion and it is not correct to say ---”
“As far as education is concerned, I must also say, and I think all Members have observed it, the press and the TV have played a very crucial role in the past few months in recapitulating for the public the horrors and the deaths and injuries which occurred in the 1970's. It is necessary to remind ourselves and I think the press and the TV have played an important role in bringing this to the attention of all Singaporeans. The Member for Toa Payoh felt that the penalties are inadequate. With particular reference to those who are importing and trafficking, he asked that we consider additional penalties such as forfeiture of the vehicles, eviction of HDB tenants from their homes, and such like penalties. I think we should first see if these enhanced penalties provided for in the Bill would meet our objective and, of course, if the situation next year is a repeat of this year, then we may have to reconsider the Bill. And we will take into account at that time the suggestions that he has made. The Member for Jurong took the view that perhaps it is too traumatic an experience to publicize the photographs of the people, especially younger persons who have been punished. There is a different view that can be taken, and that is, that it is part of the whole deterrent process. "You expect to commit a fire cracking offence and you want to get away with it." First of all, it is very difficult for the police to actually catch a person in the act of fire cracking. Calls come from an HDB estate, they turn up at the area, it is impossible to find anyone. So when they do get a person and apprehend the culprit, then we must send a signal to everyone concerned that you cannot fire crackers and sneak away without people knowing about it.”
“A person has been convicted for the first time. If he repeats it, surely he knows that he is asking for trouble. If the penalty for the repeat offender is not commensurate with the mischief behind it, then he cannot claim that he was ignorant because in the first place he had been previously convicted and sentenced by a court. So I think it is not too harsh to have this provision in the new section 5(2)(b) which provides a harsher penalty for those who are repeat offenders. I should also like to draw an analogy between this Bill and the Vandalism Act. The Vandalism Act provides for mandatory caning even for a first-time offender and the Vandalism Act can be said to be offences against property. There is mandatory caning if the writings on public property, for example, cannot be erased. But in the case of fireworks, it is not just an offence against property, it can have very serious consequences for the lives of individuals. As far as his point on education, a point which was made by the Member for Toa Payoh also, and to some extent echoed by the Member for Jurong, I take the point, and that is, apart from the new measures we should not cease to remind people of the prohibition of fire crackers as well as try to educate, especially the younger citizens. This is being done and will continue to be done. For instance, this year my Ministry did seek the cooperation of the Ministry of Education which, in turn, had advised the schools, the teachers and the principals, to inform the pupils of the consequences of cracker firing.”
“Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. Before replying to specific comments, may I just state a general point by way of preface, ie, we have banned fireworks 16 years ago. And either a ban is a ban or it is not. This year, there has been an unprecedented number of violations, nearly 4,000 for January and February. The Member for Potong Pasir is entitled to his conclusion that it is because of the dragon year. But I tend to share the explanations given by others that the real reason is that there is a plentiful supply outside Singapore and that is the view of the Police officers also. Secondly, Sir, another general point about the penalties. If you look at the Bill as a whole, there are four different types of penalties, in ascending order. First of all, we have penalties for the offence of possession, which is in the existing Dangerous Fireworks Act, and that has not been changed. Second, there is the penalty for those discharging or letting off fire crackers. The penalty on the fine has been changed. The penalty for imprisonment has not been changed. Third is the penalty for those who are repeat offenders, discharging or letting off fire crackers. Obviously, for repeat offenders, it must be more deterrent and punitive because he has already been charged and convicted in the first place for a previous offence. Finally, the most serious penalties are reserved for those who are importing, trafficking and distributing. Sir, may I now turn to the points raised by various Members. The Member for Buona Vista expressed the view that the penalty for repeat offenders is very harsh. But I would like him to look at it from another point of view. The Bill is to provide for deterrent penalties because we have a serious problem and the consequences are very dangerous.”
“Sir, can I just seek a clarification from the Member for Buona Vista? Which particular provision does the Member consider to be particularly harsh and which will have mental aberration on a juvenile? Dr Ang Kok Peng: This would be for the repeat offence which is provided under section 5(2).”
“Under this provision, anybody found with fireworks entering Singapore at any entry point will be charged for importation of fireworks. The Attorney-General has confirmed that the proposed amendment empowers prosecution of anyone entering Singapore found with fireworks in his possession. Sections 3A(4) and (5) provide for a presumption that any shopkeeper who has fireworks in his premises or in any vehicle connected with his business would be presumed to have them for sale, transport, delivery, or distribution which is an offence. The shopkeeper of course, however, can prove to the court that it was not for sale. Sir, the Bill also prescribes the penalty for an offence of discharging or letting off firecrackers. For first offenders the fine has been increased to not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000; or imprisonment, that is optional imprisonment, up to two years which is the present position; in other words that has not been changed. For repeat offenders, the penalty will be mandatory imprisonment of up to two years and caning of not more than six strokes. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“The Director of the Fire Service is greatly concerned about the potential for fires. Firecrackers let off from upper floors can cause fires in flats below. And if it is a packet that is let off with many firecrackers, they can enter several flats below, and multiple fires can occur. The problem is further compounded, Sir, by the more dangerous and new varieties of fireworks and firecrackers which are now available. We must stop this illegal discharge of fireworks completely. Otherwise the deaths, injuries, damage to property we saw in the early 70s will occur all over again. Quite clearly, Sir, the penalties under the existing law are inadequate to deter both those importing and trafficking in dangerous fireworks as well as those discharging them. The Bill therefore seeks to enhance the penalties to make them sufficiently deterrent. To put an immediate stop to this problem and to ensure it does not re-emerge, stiffer penalties are necessary. Ample warnings and notice have been given. The new penalties will only be applicable to those who choose to break the law. It is designed to protect the vast majority of law-abiding citizens from the harmful and dangerous consequences of the acts of a minority of irresponsible people. Let me now, Sir, highlight some of the provisions. The severest penalties are reserved for those who are importing, selling or distributing fireworks. Clause 2 of the Bill makes it an offence for any person to sell, transport, send, deliver, distribute or import any dangerous fireworks. It prescribes mandatory imprisonment and caning for such offence. Those convicted will be imprisoned for not less than six months but not more than two years and with caning of not more than six strokes.”
“In the first two months of this year 3,983 complaints were received by the Police on the discharge of firecrackers and fireworks. This was an unprecedented increase. For last year we saw only 721 complaints being received. Most of the complainants were very angry HDB residents. Despite the penalties imposed by the courts under the existing law and the wide publicity given to such cases, the number of offenders did not abate. Since January this year, 224 persons have been arrested for fireworks offences. 172 have been prosecuted and fines ranging from $2,000 to $5,000 and imprisonment for two cases for up to two months and one case for up to three months have been imposed. Sir, other countries have also experienced the devastating effects of cracker firing, with loss of property, lives and injuries. For example, the authorities in the United Kingdom are concerned over the number of accidents and fires caused by fireworks to celebrate Guy Fawke's Day. There have also been numerous reports of damage to property, injuries, deaths in a number of countries where fireworks have not been banned. In China, we read recently that an entire village was destroyed by a fire caused by firecrackers. Sir, of course, in Singapore we do not have villages as there are in China. It is also true that today we have not as many squatter areas and dilapidated buildings as in the early 70s. But it does not mean that fireworks no longer pose a danger. We all know that Singapore is a small country. We are densely populated. The majority of our people live in HDB high-rise flats. In fact, we are literally living on top of each other. The dangers of firecrackers to life, limb and property are, in fact, that much greater today.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the Bill seeks to introduce deterrent penalties for those convicted of selling or distributing dangerous fireworks as well as those discharging such fireworks. Sixteen years ago we banned fireworks. And for very good reasons because the discharging of firecrackers had caused loss of property, injury and even death. For example, on the 15th day of the Chinese New Year in 1970, firecrackers caused three major fires and six people died. During the Lunar New Year period that year, as many as 39 fires were caused by firecrackers; 68 people were injured and eight shops completely gutted. It was senseless that so many people should have been maimed and killed in this way. Thus on 30th March, 1970, exactly 18 years ago, Parliament enacted the Minor Offences Act to prohibit the firing of crackers unless permits were obtained from the Police. In 1971 and 1972, firecrackers were allowed at designated venues. However, the illegal firing of crackers continued, 26 people being injured in 1972. On the eve of the Lunar New Year the same year, two police officers were brutally attacked by a group of men firing crackers. On 2nd June 1972, Parliament enacted the Dangerous Fireworks Bill to prohibit the possession or discharge of firecrackers and other dangerous fireworks. The penalty was a maximum fine of $5,000 or imprisonment for a maximum term of two years or both. Since then each year, especially during the festive periods, the Police have been reminding the public that it is illegal to possess or let off firecrackers. Despite these reminders, there have been contraventions but, in the main, these were isolated and sporadic. This year, however, the disregard for the law took a serious turn.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let us get this Bill passed and if the Member for Potong Pasir has specific questions as to the implementation of the Bill, he can raise them later. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, That the Corruption (Confiscation of Benefits) Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Deputy Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. 2.45 pm BUILDING CONTROL BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Sir, a person may have absconded but he may have assets here. He may have land. He may have property. He may have bank accounts. He may have fixed deposits which are all subject to confiscation orders. The other question that he has raised is if all the assets are also not in Singapore, of course it is a far more complicated question, that can only be done by reciprocal arrangements with different countries. But that is a separate matter to be taken up. I forgot to refer to some of the other points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir concerning details of the Teh Cheang Wan matter. But these are not within the scope of today's discussion. If he feels that they are valid questions which must be pursued further, he can file a Question for Oral Answer.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I know which provision is he referring to?”
“The Member for Potong Pasir who supported the Bill expressed a doubt as to whether public opinion against corruption is strong enough and whether the Government should take steps to build up such opinion. He has missed my speech in the earlier part of the proceedings where I said that we are committed to making sure that prevention of corruption will always be based on eternal vigilance. He has referred to a quotation from the Prime Minister as to whether there is a need for further trip wires. This is more than a trip wire. This is a provision to add an additional mechanism or weapon in our arsenal to deal with those who are convicted of corruption offences. He has raised some specific technical points with regard to the provisions on bankruptcy. These, together with the other points raised by Members which go into the details of the Bill, I would take note of them so that the Select Committee can look into them further.”
“If I may now touch on some of the other points raised by Members. The Member for Chua Chu Kang asked whether, in making clause 3 applicable to corruption offences before the commencement of the Act, does this mean that it does not apply to corruption offences after the Act? Obviously it applies to offences after the commencement or coming into operation of this Bill, as must be very clear in reading clause 4 onwards. The reason why clause 3 is inserted is to make it clear that it can apply to corruption offences committed before the commencement of the Act. This clear provision has to be inserted because of interpretational rules which require it to be so stated. In other words, clause 3 is to take care of situations where investigations have begun or an offence has been committed before this Bill has come into force but where the court proceedings and the conviction take place after the Bill has come into force. I would also like to point out that another effect of clause 3 is a safeguard because in clause 3 it is provided that, with regard to corruption offences before the coming into operation of the Act, if the proceedings have been disposed of and sentence has been given, then that's that, and this reversal of burden of proof and confiscation order will not apply. The Member asked about the position of go-betweens. I would think that this is covered under the definition of "corruption offence" which refers not only to offences under the Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act but also to any conspiracy to commit, any attempt to commit and, this is a significant part, any abetment of such offence. But here too, Sir, there must be a court conviction before the consficatory mechanism can be invoked. Those are the main points, Sir.”
“Asiaweek has published an article which is ignorant of the legal issues and they have completely misread the words of the Bill. I am afraid the Sunday Times writer, Catherine Ong, has also committed the same errors. The Member for Chong Boon asked who influenced who. I do not know. Her points are similar. But she should have done her own homework and sought the help of a good practising lawyer who, after thorough research and study, can give her an explanation of what the Bill means and seeks to do because our journalists must learn to make their own investigations, do their own research and come to their own conclusions.”
“If the person has absconded, he can still be represented by counsel. In the case of a person who has died, his estate can be represented. The court will hear their arguments why a confiscation order should be made or should not be made. So it is absurd to say that the Bill is an affront to the rules of natural justice. Third allegation, Sir, that it is wrong to make a confiscation order against a person who has died or who has absconded. Let me make two points. First, it does not mean that where a person has died or absconded, the Government is going to rush in and arbitrarily confiscate all his assets. This is a total misreading of the Bill. The court first must be satisfied that, having regard to all the evidence, the evidence, if unrebutted, would have warranted a conviction. If their answer to the question is yes, then the court will still have to satisfy itself that the assets were indeed derived from corruption and then only can it make a confiscation order. My second point is, Sir, what is so wrong about this principle? If an armed robber were to enter your home, steals all the jewellery and cash and runs off, stealing your car as well and he happens to go across the Causeway to Malaysia or Thailand, and he dies through whatever cause, Does it mean that we are not entitled to recover the cash, jewellery and the car which he illegally obtained? Surely, it cannot be in the public interest that ill-gotten gains obtained by unlawful acts (in this case from corruption) may not be recovered by legal action for confiscation or attachment just because he has absconded or died. Indeed, it will be a very perverse notion of justice to say that he should be so immune or exempt. I hope I have clarified the position.”
“' Therefore, what this Bill seeks to do is really to reverse the burden of proof where a person has been convicted of a corruption offence to show that the assets in his possession which are disproportionate to his known sources of income are not derived from corruption. As these are matters which are specially within his knowledge, it will be difficult for anyone else to prove. It is not unfair or inequitable to reverse the burden of proof. He has the opportunity of showing that his assets which are disproportionate to his known sources of income are not ill-gotten and in any case the court has to be satisfied that the benefits have been derived from corruption. The Bill does not impose any additional punishment for the existing corruption offence. What it does is to provide an easier and speedier mechanism to deprive a person convicted of a corruption offence of benefits derived by him through corruption. Any claim, Sir, that this Bill violates constitutional provisions against retroactive penal legislation is totally unfounded. Secondly, Sir, the allegation that this violates the rules of natural justice. It is nonsense to say that the rules of natural justice are violated. Before the court makes a confiscation order it must be satisfied of two things. First, it must be satisfied that the benefits have been derived from corruption. Second, it must also be satisfied that the property or interest concerned was disproportionate to his known sources of income and cannot be explained satisfactorily. Only then can it make the confiscation order. In every application for confiscation order, the court will have to hear both sides. If the party is in Singapore, he can be represented by himself or his counsel.”
“All that this Bill does is to introduce new provisions for tracing and freezing the benefits of corruption and for confiscating those benefits. It is not retrospective. Its provisions cannot be used as the basis for claiming the $1 million which we are seeking to recover from the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan even after this Bill becomes law. We still have to claim it by way of civil action against the estate under the law before this Bill is passed. That is why the Attorney-General is suing the estate of the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan for recovery of sums derived from corruption, and he has done so under existing law. He is able to do that because, even under existing law, a person is not entitled to retain ill-gotten gains derived from corruption. So no new offence or punishment has been created retroactively. One should not just look at the Bill and see a phrase "whether before or after the commencement of this Act" and jump to the conclusion that some grave constitutional principle has been violated. Let me just mention, Sir, that in the United Kingdom the Drug Trafficking Offences Act, section 2 says: 'For the purposes of the Act, any payments or other rewards received by a person at any time, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, in connection with drug trafficking carried on by him, are his proceeds.' Another section says: 'When he is convicted, all the property and assets which have been held by him or have been transferred to him for the six years prior to the conviction, are deemed to be payments or reward in connection with drug trafficking.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Members who have spoken on the Bill, all of whom have supported, including the Member for Potong Pasir which, to my memory, is the first time that he has spoken in support of a Government Bill. I think his speech was on the whole constructive and we welcome it. Sir, I would like to start by referring Members to the articles which appeared in the Asiaweek dated April 1st (but it was released much earlier) entitled "Taking aim at corruption", and the other article in the Sunday Times of 27th March, "Corruption Bill conflicts with basic tenets of justice" by one Catherine Ong. Sir, the Asiaweek article made three allegations. First, that this Bill violates the constitutional provisions that prohibit creation of offences or enhancement of penalty retroactively. Secondly, it is alleged that the Bill violates rules of natural justice. Thirdly, that it is wrong to make a confiscation order against a person who has died or absconded. Let me assure Members of the House that I have had extensive discussions with both the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General on this question. The allegations are unfounded, Sir. Let me deal with each of the points. First, that the Bill violates the constitutional clause which prohibits retroactive creation of new offences or new penalties. Sir, nowhere does the Bill create any new offence, much less a retroactive offence. A careful reading of the Bill will show that the definition of "corruption offence" in this Bill refers to existing offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act or the Penal Code. The Bill does not in any way alter the penalties for those offences. The Bill also does not enhance the punishments for existing offences retroactively.”
“These foreign workers are here for a fixed term of employment which may be renewed for further periods. Where we can, we will absorb the skilled workers but others will be here only for the duration of their valid work permits. In other words, Sir, the work permit holders are able to be here for periods of two, three or more years only because they were allowed to come here for purposes of work. Others would not have been able to stay here under normal immigration rules if not for the work permit, and a condition is attached to the work permit that before they marry they should seek the approval of the Ministry of Labour. If the condition is breached, they knew what the consequences were. In 1984, a full explanation was given that the limited one-year blacklisting plus restricted visits thereafter was not proving effective, and there were several thousand contravention cases. It was to make it more effective that the permanent ban was introduced.”
“Sir, the work permit marriage restriction policy has been implemented since July 1973 to discourage immigrant workers from settling here permanently through marriage to a citizen or permanent resident. Under this policy, work permit holders are required to obtain approval of the Commissioner for Employment before marrying a citizen or permanent resident. Initially, work permit holders who contravened the policy were barred from entry for a limited period of time. Various disincentives in the area of public housing and education were also applied to them. However, with the lapse of time, the limited ban and disincentives were found to be ineffective in achieving the objective of the policy. In 1984, the Government decided to impose a permanent ban on the entry of non-residents who contravened the marriage restriction policy. Members will recall that this decision was given wide publicity in the local media by the Ministry of Labour in 1984. Individual work permit holders are also warned separately through an endorsement in their work permits that contravention of the policy would result in expulsion and a permanent bar to re-entry. Work permit holders who contravened the policy after July 1984 therefore had been sufficiently warned of the consequences of their action. The warning was done by way of an endorsement in their work permits and also during the interviews with the officers of the Work Permit Department when they applied for permission to contract marriages with Singapore citizens or permanent residents. In other words, they knew the consequences when they proceeded to marry after the disapproval of the Commissioner for Employment. Sir, because of our manpower shortage, we will still have to rely on foreign sources of labour for some time.”
“Where necessary, applicants for these passports will be referred to CNB for interview and where the CNB and Immigration are not satisfied, the applicants may either be denied passports or may be only issued with single journey travel documents. Sir, our war on drugs is not over. As we solve one problem, new manifestations of the problem may surface. In 1977 we had to resort to a wide variety of novel and tough measures. So long as our war against drugs is not over, we must continue to be vigilant and come out with new innovative but effective measures to curb the problem, particularly when we are located so close to the Golden Triangle area and from which plentiful supplies emanate. If I may now turn to the point raised by the Member for Toa Payoh. I should mention that the Misuse of Drugs Act does contain adequate provisions for the confiscation of vehicles used for transportation of drugs and this covers not only cars but also ships and aircraft. The procedure is like this. The confiscation of such vehicles used for transportation of drugs needs a court order upon conviction. If there is no prosecution, the vehicle which has been seized will be deemed forfeited to the Government if within one month there is no claimant. I would like to inform him that we have invoked this provision. Since 1982, 47 vehicles have been seized, of which 24 have been forfeited and 23 cases are still pending. So he can rest assured that there is power and it has been used and, where necessary, we will continue to use them.”
“One had three straws of heroin concealed in his mouth and another had two straws hidden in his wallet. I am glad to say that the detection of 29 cases within this short period shows that it is successful. It also means that when non-Singaporeans are detected in this way, they are not allowed entry at all; they are turned away. And when there is greater publicity of this, it should serve as a deterrent. The other additional measure is the formation of the Woodlands Task Force which involves very close cooperation between the Police, the Customs and CNB which results in conducting secondary non-routine checks. This has also paid off, as you would have read in the newspaper recently. Another measure, if I may refer to it, concerns the point raised in recent dialogue sessions. A suggestion has been made for greater scrutiny of passport applications. This is a valid point because people, especially in the young age group, can easily cross the Causeway to obtain supplies. The point which was made in the dialogue sessions has been accepted in principle by the Central Narcotics Board and it will be implemented. The measures taken to implement it include the following: There will be very careful scrutiny of applications for passports by those particularly in the age group 20 to 30. An overwhelming majority of drug addicts fall in this age group. Those in this age group may be required to give further particulars to enable the authorities to be satisfied that they are applying for passports for bona fide purposes, and they may have to furnish additional documents when applying for passports. The Central Narcotics Bureau will establish offices next to each of the passports - issuing centres at South Bridge Road, Joo Chiat Complex and Outram Road.”
“Where previously there have been cases of indiscipline and some have tried to damage property, we will have to resolve this, if necessary, by even amending legislation to empower those in charge of the centres with powers to take action against cases of indiscipline. There is a defect in the law, in the sense that the Misuse of Drugs Act does not give adequate powers to the administrators of these centres to deal with cases of indiscipline. If I might now turn to the point raised by the Member for Pasir Panjang concerning the effectiveness of the various measures. I think all Members are familiar with the umbrella of measures which we have to fight drug trafficking, capital punishment, preventive detention where witnesses are fearful of reprisals, denial of passports to drug traffickers, detector dogs and so on. In addition to these, Members will also have read of additional measures taken recently to combat the problem of ant trafficking. One of these measures was the introduction of the instant urine testing at the Causeway to detect ant traffickers. The problem was that previously, when we did not have the equipment, it could not be done on the spot and persons had to be asked to wait for several days before the results of the urine testing was available. Now instant urine testing has been introduced officially since Monday, two days ago, and I am glad to report that it has proved effective. Over the past two days and up to 10 a.m. this morning, the instant urine testing mechanism and the screening at the Causeway has thrown up 12 positive cases. Prior to Monday, there was a period since 15th March when we tried it on an experimental basis, and from 15th March till Monday, 17 persons were detected.”
“The advantage of this is we try to identify those who will benefit from the rehabilitation system and try to release them earlier. In other words, they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and need not necessarily be subject to two years' or three years' stay in the DRC. It will be a great incentive for them to respond to rehabilitation. For the others who may not be as amenable, the repeaters, the hard core as well as the first timers who are not so responsive, they will be subjected to the five stage rehabilitation system. But even within this group we will try and identify those who are more responsive, and they will be given a two months intensive counselling - a special programme for the repeaters who are more responsive. This will include counselling, drug education, vocational skills, community service and so on. We will ask them to volunteer also at the end of the five-stage rehabilitation system to see who are those who desire to do something for themselves to kick the system. The others will follow the normal DRC programme, which could be two to three years. I agree with the Member for Tanah Merah that the DRC system should not be a soft escapism or outlet for escapism where addicts find it a venue to have a refresher course on supply of drugs and so on. Indeed, some of the detainees might have found it an outlet for a soft stay in a centre. But this will change. We will take a no-nonsense attitude and the new rehabilitation system will also mean that all the addicts will be put on notice that the DRC scheme will expect them to do quite a bit on their part to kick the habit.”
“The objective of the recommendations which are now being implemented is to make significant changes to the rehabilitation system on both the philosophy of rehabilitation as well as the regime of treatment of the addicts. As regards philosophy, hitherto the addicts have been by and large treated as patients and all of them are put through the same mass rehabilitation scheme, with little allowance for individual approach and not distinguishing those who are more amenable, more susceptible, to rehabilitation from those who may be less responsive. As regards the philosophy and attitude, the change is to treat addiction as a social and behaviourial problem. In other words, the addict must himself be responsible for his own actions and he must desire to change if the rehabilitation is to succeed. In other words, we will channel the limited resources or prioritise so that first timers and the repeaters who are amenable and responsive to treatment and who desire to kick the habit will get the greatest attention. For those who are not amenable and not as responsive, they will still be given rehabilitative counselling and other measures. But they may have to undergo a more vigorous and a more rigorous method of rehabilitation. With regard to the specific regime, we will now introduce what we would call an "exit counselling scheme" for the first timers and repeaters who are responsive and amenable. This will be what I would refer to as a sort of modified suspended sentence concept, a very short sharp shock treatment for the first two weeks. They will be given intensive counselling, drug education, drills, and physical training, and if they are assessed to be suitable, they will be released and will be put under close supervision for two years. What is the advantage of this?”
“Sir, first, can I take up the point made by the Member for Tanah Merah concerning the rehabilitation system and the relapse rate. As for the specific figures which he asked for, I am afraid I do not have them with me now but if he were to file a question for oral or written answer, I will be happy to supply him. But I can give him a broad picture. While we have contained the drug problem over the years and we have smashed the big-time drug trafficking, there are really two residual problems which we have now. First, ant trafficking, which has been widely publicised. These are People bringing in small amounts of drugs, not large quantities as to attract the very severe penalties, such as the death penalty. We have also brought the infection rate down. In 1977, out of three persons arrested, two were new addicts. Now, out of four arrested, one would be a new addict. The second problem is that of relapse rate. We have been fortunate in bringing down the number of first timers. For example, in 1980, about 42% of those arrested were first timers. We brought this down to less than 40% during the years 1981 to 1984. From 1985 to 1987 we brought it down to less than 30%. But as we bring down the number of first timers, the looming and cumulative problem is that of the hardcore addicts or the repeaters, and close to 75% are repeaters. This means that we have had to take a very hard look at our rehabilitation system and to make it even more effective. For this purpose, we established a working group last year comprising Home Affairs representatives, lecturers from the NUS, social workers, doctors, psychiatrists and others. They examine our DRCs and rehabilitation system and make several recommendations.”
“Whether it can be extended further to more constituencies will depend precisely on whether there will be residents forthcoming for this purpose.”
“This is a point which my Ministry has over the last year been considering and we have had discussions with the Police as well as the VSC (Volunteer Special Constabulary). Here, I ought to pay tribute to the work done by the Volunteer Special Constabulary because they comprise persons from all walks of life - professionals, doctors, lawyers, secretaries, to clerks - and they take time off to participate in performing police duties. I think they have done a marvellous job, and we have discussed with them and they are very enthusiastic in considering what other ways they can be of assistance. I am glad to say that to enhance the security, in addition to what they are doing, the VSC will be launching on a pilot basis a patrol scheme in two constituencies which precise venues will be decided soon. This experimental pilot scheme will be launched within the next few months. The idea is that it will enhance Police presence. It will augment the NPP role and hopefully to arouse greater interest in community-oriented policing and in the VSC itself. The Member for Boon Teck asked: if the residents in the constituency are interested in such volunteer work, what would be our response? I would say that if any Member tells me that there are residents in his constituency who would want to volunteer and join the VSC for the purposes of such constituency patrols, I am sure the VSC will welcome this with open arms. There are certain qualifications to be met and, of course, there must be the usual security screening to ensure that the wrong type of persons do not get into these patrols. Yes, the idea has been thought of. It will be introduced on a pilot basis.”
“As I said, the Police themselves made a detailed study and concluded that the optimum level can be 20 supplemented by six regular national servicemen. I also want to assure the Member for Boon Teck that it is not solely on the basis of the number of reports which are received. I have sat down with the Commissioner of Police and others who are involved in the implementation of NPP as well as with the consultants, and I am satisfied that their basis for computing the proper manning levels was arrivedby a fairly detailed examination of the workload of every officer in the NPP. It is a very detailed study of time management, workload, duties of the officers, including at the NPP as well as outside the NPP. I take his point that there is some usefulness of the Police officer standing in front of the NPP but this is debatable and I would leave it to the professional judgment of the Commissioner of Police. It is very unlikely that the non-law abiding persons are going to frequent the vicinity of the NPP. It is the law-abiding persons who are more likely going to be around the NPP area. If the Police in their professional judgment conclude that that person, who would otherwise be standing in front of the NPP, can be better utilized for other NPP duties such as patrolling, house visits, I think I would defer to their judgment. But the important point that should be stressed is that, in working out the proper manning levels, we have had the uppermost consideration that the NPP must be able to serve the residents and discharge the functions for which they were originally conceived of and introduced. Now let me turn to his other point of volunteers being brought in to help the NPP.”