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 47 of 66.
“Let me answer the points raised by the Member for Boon Teck and the Member for Toa Payoh and my colleague, the Minister of State, will answer the points raised by the Member for Radin Mas. Regarding the concern expressed by the Members for Boon Teck and Toa Payoh about staffing levels in the NPP, I find it interesting that they are both from constituencies which were involved in the first phase of establishment of NPPs when we were, I would say, trying things out before we settled on the optimum manning levels, procedures and work system for NPP. It is true that staffing levels have been reduced not only because of the recent study by the consultants but, even before the manpower consultants were brought in, the Police themselves had made a study and concluded that each NPP could be staffed by 20 junior officers. This was later re-examined and endorsed by the consultants. In addition to the complement of 20 junior officers, there will be six national servicemen to supplement the regulars for purposes of crowd control and patrolling duties. I want to dispel any confusion or any notion that all the NPPs had, say, 30, 35 or 40 staff complement and suddenly everything has been reduced. This is not so. I have looked at the figures. As of now there are about 62 NPPs which have been established in a period since 1983 in five different phases. Of the 62 NPPs, only 13 had an initial staffing of more than 24. Whilst the majority of the NPP started right from the beginning with a complement of 20 or less, it was those in the first phase, Kim Keat, Toa Payoh, Boon Teck, Kuo Chuan, Khe Bong, Aljunied, which had a staffing of 28, 30, 34. Those were the early years.”
“Sir, since I note the Member for Toa Payoh also has a question concerning work permit marriage restrictions, perhaps a fuller answer can be given to the Member for Chua Chu Kang when the Member for Toa Payoh raises it later on.”
“That is not true, Sir. Except in one category, work permit marriage restriction cases where the person has contravened and is denied entry. In all other cases, wives are allowed to come to Singapore, are allowed to stay. The only question is whether they will be allowed indefinite stay or premanent residence. The United Kingdom may not even allow entry unless all these qualifications are met.”
“This is to cite the practice in the United Kingdom and I am reading from a 1987 booklet entitled "Immigration into Britain - Notes on the Regulations and Procedures". The section is entitled "Spouses". It is interesting that in the United Kingdom, marriage does not confer automatic entry, leave alone permanent residence. They have very stiff entry requirements in the first place. I quote: 'A man or woman may be admitted as a spouse of a person already settled in the United Kingdom. But to qualify for admission, the spouse must be 16 or over. An entry clearance officer will only grant entry clearance if he is satisfied that the marriage was not entered into primarily to obtain admission into the United Kingdom, that each of the parties has the intention of living permanently with the other as his or her spouse, that the parties to the marriage have met, that there will be adequate accommodation for the couple and their dependants without recourse to public funds in premises of their own or which they occupy themselves.' And the couple will be able to maintain themselves and their dependants adequately without recourse to public funds. This is for entry clearance itself. And what is meant by entry clearance? "An entry clearance is a visa, entry certificate or letter of consent issued to a passenger prior to travel to the United Kingdom." If you have one of these, you will not be refused permission to enter the United Kingdom unless there has been material change of circumstances. In other words, if you do not have any of these, you will not be allowed entry.”
“Or in other words, they must not be a burden to the State. Sir, now I turn to the specific questions posed by the Member. The first question he posed was with regard to those who were permanent residents and who had stayed here before separation and were caught by separation. I would like to give him the assurance that we have been quite liberal in this category. In other words, persons who were here and were permanent residents before immigration controls were established. Where such persons can satisfy us that they were resident and working in Singapore before separation and have continued to stay in Singapore and working in Singapore and have not lost their permanent residence, the immigration authorities will consider the case favourably and grant permanent residence. But we must be satisfied of the facts in each case. In other words, we must be satisfied that they indeed were here at the prescribed time and that they have continued to stay in Singapore and that they have not lost their permanent residence. Secondly, the Member raised the question of wives of citizens. I have explained this on several occasions in the past. And for many years now, I think it has been made quite clear that marriage per se does not mean that there will be automatic right to indefinite stay or automatic permanent residence. The main approach taken here is whether the Singapore sponsor would be able to provide for the wife and children. That is the broadest consideration taken in approaching these cases. We have looked at the experiences of other countries and the practices of other countries. And in most countries, marriage does not automatically confer permanent residence on the wives. If I may give an example, Sir.”
“And by the pool of potential permanent residents, I refer to those who applied for permanent residence (more than 14,000 last year); those who are on employment pass (more than 18,000); those who are on student pass (more than 37,000); those who are on social visit pass and keep on extending, (more than 150,000); and those who are on long-term social visit pass (more than 30,000). All these categories constitute potential permanent residents and it adds up to more than a quarter million, 254,172. In addition to the figures that I have given, consider also the fact that the number of overstayers who were detected last year was 37,127. And those who were arrested for illegal overstaying, 3,532. The total of overstayers arrested and detected, 40,659. Last year, between 600 and 700 persons convicted for illegal overstaying were in jail. I cite these figures just to give some idea of the overall nature of the potential and the fact that there are many people who really want to sink their roots here. If we could, we should let all of them in. But we cannot. And that is why the immigration policy must be based on what is in our national interest. This is translated into two questions, whether they have talents, whether they have skills, which would make them an asset for us in Singapore. That is one of the main considerations. But even if they did not, there is the other half of the coin where we take into account the considerations mentioned by the Member for Chua Chu Kang. So we consider other cases as well on grounds of connections with citizens, aged parents, wives and children. But here too, we have to be cautious and we have to ask ourselves whether they will be able to be cared for financially by their sponsors.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to reply to the points raised by the Member for Chua Chu Kang. First, may I say a few words about the general approach on immigration policy because the Member appealed for me to be compassionate. It is not that I have less compassion than other Members or less compassion than the Member for Chua Chu Kang. If you were to ask any Minister of any country who is in charge of immigration, whether a developed country or a developing country, I think he would give the answer that his country's immigration policy has to have a balance of both the search for talented and skilled persons as well as conferment of immigration benefits, entry and permanent residence, on the basis of connections with citizens and humanitarian or compassionate considerations for aged parents, children, wives and so on. So too for us. We have to be guided first by our overall national interests. And more so than other countries because of the limited size of our country, limited resources, our dense population. We also have to take into account that permanent residence brings with it certain consequences, privileges, concessions and benefits, in the area of housing, medical care, education, privileges which are paid for by the other citizens. So we have to have this uppermost in our minds. The ideal, of course, would be to let everyone in. That would be the most liberal and perhaps the most compassionate. But because of the considerations I have spelt out, we cannot. We have therefore to adopt a cautious, selective, even if it means a strict immigration policy. Sir, as it is today, the size of what I would call our pool of potential applicants for permanent residence is quite large.”
“So I agree with his sentiment and my Ministry will do its best to pass this message to other agencies. Sir, there is one other question riased by the Member for Jalan Kayu, and that, is it concerns hisproposal for seizure of assets. My general approach to this is that, in our war against the drugs, anything which can be a further effective weapon ought to be considered. The asset seizure law, in principle, is something that we should seriously look at and I will ask my officials to get in touch with other countries which have adopted such legislation - and we understand that the United Kingdom in 1986 enacted such legisation; Malaysia has a draft Bill which is going through its final stages in Parliament, I believe - and to study the provisions and see whether we can adopt similar provisions for Singapore. But I would not want to rush into this because there are some complex legal problems involving the question of evidence, the rights and interests of other parties and the effective management of seized assets. I am told in some countries which have this law, they have big problems when suddenly they have to manage large supermarkets and other kinds of assets. So we want not only to study the legal provisions but we also want to assess how other countries have implemented such legislation. Because, if we are to introduce such legislation, we must be convinced that it is workable and effective in its actual implementation. Subject to those considerations, I would like to assure him that we will study this very carefully.”
“But there are good legal safeguards which have to be observed by the persons administering the Act to ensure that there is no abuse and no forcible detention of a person merely because some members of the family want him to be dumped in a home. A third point raised by the Member for Jalan Kayu. I take his point which is that if we want to have drug addicts who have kicked the habit to re-integrate in society, then they must be encouraged to take up employment. Not only must he be encouraged to take up employment, but employers - and the point he made is both in the public sector and private sector - ought not to hold against them the fact that they were drug addicts before. With that sentiment and approach, I am in full agreement because otherwise we have a vicious cycle. The problem is that we cannot force employers. We can only encourage and educate them. I would go along with his view, that is, that the Ministry of Home Affairs liaise with other government agencies to convey this point that they should not be inhibited in giving a drug addict, who has clearly kicked the habit, a chance to have a job. Sir, I have instructed the Central Narcotics Bureau, whenever it receives queries from government agencies, to indicate to them their assessment - has he given up the habit, is he still a drug addict or, in CNB's view, he has clearly kicked the habit? And this will be some guidance for the government agency. Of course, there may be some agencies where the work may involve sensitive, security-related considerations and the persons in-charge of hiring may have to be more careful than with other types of work. And I can tell him that I know of some departments in my own Ministry which have hired ex-drug addicts.”
“This is a point which can be debated and it is a point which has to be given very serious consideration as to whether the limited resources we have in terms of counselling should be focussed on those who are in their teens, the very young, or should we also make them available to adults as well, knowing that the problem is a problem that acutely affects those who are under 20. We have also taken into account that inhalant abusers are different from drug addicts in that in drug addiction there is both psychological as well as physical dependence on the substance, whereas in the case of inhalant abuse, while there may be psychological dependence, you do not have the same physical dependence as in the case of drugs. One might argue that adults should also be subject to compulsory treatment and rehabilitation. On the other side of the coin, the question can be posed whether adult inhalant abusers are in any way different, say, from an adult alcoholic. An adult alcoholic is not carted off to any centre for compulsory treatment. But, as I say, this is a point which can be debated. Our purpose and objective in introducing the Intoxicating Substances Bill was to get to the root of an urgent problem and to contain the real problem of very young people being affected by inhalant abuse. If the figures show that the problem is as bad for adults, perhaps we should have a look at it again. But in the meantime, I would prefer the present approach where adults can submit themselves to voluntary treatment and make best use of the facilities in the Falkland Centre. But the emphasis is on the word "voluntary", ie, they must consent. There are good reasons for that because members of the family may want a person to be admitted.”
“If that is so, then I am familiar with the facts of the case. The point is that the person in question did not give his consent for voluntary treatment in the Falkland Centre. As the Member himself described, the scheme is that persons under 20 years of age can be admitted to the Centre even if they do not give consent. But persons who are adults will have to give consent; in other words, they are admitted for voluntary treatment. There are good reasons why we take that approach, which is unlike that of drugs. Members will recall that when I presented the Bill for adoption in this Chamber, I stressed that we had tailored that Bill deliberately taking into account one important factor - that the majority of inhalant abusers were in their teens and that the priority must be our attempts to get them off inhalant abuse. Because of that too, a less rigorous regime was adopted for treatment of inhalant abusers. Unlike drugs, where a first-time drug addict can be detained for treatment and rehabilitation in a DRC. For inhalant abusers, we have a different approach where a first-time abuser would be put under police supervision. In other words, he is put on notice and warning that he had better not repeat, otherwise he takes the risk of being admitted to Falkland Centre. It is only when a person is a repeater that he will be subject to treatment in a rehabilitation centre. I take the point by the Member for Kaki Bukit that non-voluntary detention and treatment at the Centre should also apply to persons above the age of 21.”
“Sir, first, the point raised by the Member for Clementi. I think he was away or abroad when certain information was made public by me. This concerns his request for progress on the implementation of the Intoxicating Substances Act and whether the situation has worsened or is under control or there has been some improvement. Recently, I did give some figures and, if I may avoid repeating all that I have said, the bottomline is we have seen in the few months subsequent to the implementation of the Act a reduction by at least a third of those detected and arrested for inhalant abuse. We have also seen the percentage of abusers arrested for below 20 years of age has come down. We hope that this trend will continue although it is too early to make a definitive assessment of the effects of the Act. Secondly, may I touch on the point raised by the Member for Kaki Bukit. I believe the case he is referring to was also the subject of a letter in the Straits Times, am I right?”
“Sir, I could not agree more with what the Membe r for Clementi has said. Indeed that is the approach of the Police - that while you do have the scholars, and there are scholarships given by PSC for local tertiary education as well as overseas scholarships for the Police Force, we must be concerned with the overall quality of the entire establishment which means that we not only try to get better recruits into the Police Force but, once they are recruited, then after they have joined the Police Force, the Police must have the ability to sift the better ones, the more enterprising, the more talented, and put them on a career path which will eventually over the years ensure that the leadership in the Police Force will be good and the same standards of policing and law enforcement which we have now are ensured for the coming decade.”
“Of course. PEOPLE'S ASSOCIATION (Staff shortage) 6. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for Community Development (a) whether the People's Association is continuously facing a general shortage of staff, particularly in the posts of Organising Secretary and Assistant Organising Secretary; and (b) whether the present unattractive salary scales and unpleasant working hours are the major reasons and, if so, what is being done to improve the salary structure and to provide better incentives for the PA staff.”
“Sir, it is not the practice of the Police to give details of marked and unmarked police cars.”
“The feedback from those who are in charge of these rehabilitative schemes is that these courses are indeed effective. It gives them certain qualifications which facilitate their entry and settling down to normal life after release from prison. As for new directions for rehabilitative schemes, Members will recall that when we had the Second and Third Readings of the SCORE Act, I did refer to the fact that with these amendments, SCORE would be in a position to work out new schemes for rehabilitation, both of prisoners as well as those in the drug rehabilitation centres. These are presently being studied and I hope to be able to give more details at a later date. POLICE PATROL CARS (Particulars) 5. Mr Yeo Choo Kok asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many normal police patrol cars there are to date; (b) whether the number is enough for police to carry out their duties speedily and efficiently; and (c) why all these patrol cars are not air-conditioned while all the highway patrol cars are. Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, the Police have a total of 164 patrol cars which respond to calls for assistance. This number of patrol cars is considered adequate for the Police to carry out their duties both speedily and efficiently. The number of patrol cars available to attend to urgent cases will also be increased as non-urgent cases will now be assigned to NPP officers in constituencies where there are NPPs. As for air-conditioning, approval was obtained in November 1987 for the patrol cars in the Land Divisions to be air-conditioned. The old cars, when condemned, will be replaced with air-conditioned cars.”
“Sir, the total number of preventable crimes for Jalan Kayu and nation-wide on a monthly basis from July 1987 to February 1988 is shown in the Table (Cols. 955 - 956) which has been distributed to Members. Preventable crimes refer to robbery, housebreaking, snatch theft, motor-vehicle theft and outraging of modesty. Table - CRIME STATISTICS FOR THE PERIOD JUL 87 TO FEB 88 (Cols. 955 - 956) Generally, for the period July 1987 to February 1988, only two categories of preventable crimes in Jalan Kayu are higher than the national average. The figures for the other three categories are lower. For example, there was an average of 1.8 robberies per month in each constituency. In Jalan Kayu, the average number of robberies per month was only one. In the case of snatch thefts, the average number of such offences in Jalan Kayu each month was half the national monthly average of 1.2. STERILIZATION (Removal of incentives) 5. Dr Koh Lam Son asked the Acting Minister for Health whether there were significant reductions in the requests for both male and female sterilization in 1986 and 1987 and whether he will consider removing some of the incentives for sterilization to discourage it.”
“Sir, it is not our practice to disclose details of security measures taken at the airport. However, I want to thank the Member for Changi for raising this question and I would like to assure him that the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore have considered the matter and steps have already been taken to prevent non-bona fide passengers from going into the security control area in the airport as well as to prevent them from boarding an aircraft other than that which they were booked to travel, and those who breach the security of the airport will be prosecuted. FACTORIES (MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS) REGULATIONS (Particulars) 4. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong asked the Minister for Labour if he will indicate (i) the total number of designated factory doctors registered under the Factories Act from 1985 up to the latest available date, (ii) for what diseases factory workers are compulsorily checked under the Act, (iii) the number of factory workers checked per year from 1985 to 1987 and (iv) any new diseases that will come under the Act.”
“None that I am aware of. NON-BONA FIDE PASSENGERS' ACCESS TO AIRPORT SECURITY CONTROL AREA 3. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for Home Affairs what stricter measures will be taken at the Changi Airport to ensure that passengers, who have had their valid travel documents duly processed for departure by airlines or their appointed ground handling agent at check-in counters in the non-restricted area of the Airport, are in fact the same passengers authorised to gain entry into the Airport's security-controlled area and subsequently allowed to board the aircraft on which they are booked to travel.”
“Sir, if the court action and the fines that are imposed are the only measure for assessing the effectiveness of the response to the problem, the Member may be warranted in coming to that conclusion. But, as I pointed out in my answer, the solution involves a multi-pronged approach which requires the cooperation of others in addition to the Police, including the owners of the shop establishments, crime prevention committees, and so on. I would suggest that we have to review the totality of the measures before we conclude whether the solution lies in further deterrent fines and other penalties.”
“The situation is being monitored closely and a review will be made to assess whether these measures are adequate or whether more deterrent measures, including amendment of the legislation, would be necessary to deal with the problem.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1987, there were 35 complaints against touts to the Police and the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board. Of these, only 11 were complaints from tourists and the others were mainly from rival shops. The Police have taken concerted action to control touting activities. Operations are regularly conducted to identify the touts who are then called up and warned. Court action has also been taken against touts found attempting to sell imitation goods. In 1987, two such touts were convicted and fined $800 each. Another six cases are pending in court. In 1987, the Police conducted 69 raids on shops which engaged touts to sell imitation goods. Owners of 12 establishments were convicted in Court with fines ranging from $1,000 to $7,500. The Police will continue to watch them closely, and immediate action will be taken against them for any offence committed. To tackle the problem, the Police have also worked closely with other agencies such as the Singapore Tourist Promotion Board, Singapore Hotel Association, Consumers' Association of Singapore, as well as the Singapore Retail Merchants Association, to work out measures to discourage touting. These include the STPB's Associate Membership Scheme implemented in 1986 whereby shops employing touts will not be accepted as members. Management councils and crime prevention committees of shopping centres affected by touting have been advised by the Police to draw up a code of good trading practices for their members to follow. For these errant shops, peer group pressure must be put on them to stop engaging touts.”
“In order not to prolong this debate, Mr Speaker, Sir, Members will recall that at a sitting not long ago the question of Immigration policy, in particular the question of permanent residence for foreign spouses, whether or not they are holders of work permits, has been raised and the policy has been fully explained in this House. If any Member feels that the policy has not been fully explained, the proper course is for the Member to direct the question to the Ministry of Home Affairs, and I can assure Members that the full answer will be given if they consider that the full answer has not been given before.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Traffic Police detected a total of 323 cases of forged driving licences over the last five years. However, with the introduction of a new procedure to verify the driving licence of a person who is unable to provide his driving licence on the spot, the number of forgeries has significantly declined to only 25 in 1987. The Traffic Police therefore consider this not to be a serious problem as there are some 750,000 qualified driving licences issued in Singapore. I would also like to inform the Member that the feasibility of introducing a new tamper-proof driving licence is also being looked into now. FOREIGN WORKERS IN SMALL ENTERPRISES (Particulars) 8. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon asked the Minister for Labour (a) how many local small enterprises applied for work permits to employ foreign workers in 1987; (b) how many were rejected; (c) what is the percentage rejected; and (d) why some small restaurants, confectioneries and motor workshops are not granted work permits to employ foreign workers while restaurants within hotels are granted them.”
“I would like to round up by saying that the Report of the Commissioners speaks for itself because it deals with each and every point that the Member has raised and detailed reasoning is given for every one of the conclusions and reasons. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House accepts the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on investigations concerning the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan contained in Paper Cmd. 18 of 1987. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes past Three o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.”
“And the Commissioners referred to it, in page 43 of the Report, when they said: 'Mr Chiam made the following points: (c) the Commissioners had not blocked him in his attempts to get evidence.' Yet today he comes and says that the Commissioners blocked him every inch of the way. The truth is that the Commissioners were highly accommodating of his various requests. As to the duty to give evidence and that they had misinterpreted the term "lead in evidence", I do not want to belabour the point. But to add to what the Prime Minister said, that in drafting the terms of reference we had consulted him, I would like to add that the Instrument of Appointment used the words of the Member, "to lead in evidence". And in a rather acrobatic way this morning, he said now these are not his words. Being contained in the Instrument, they are now the President's words. I think he cast a slur on all lawyers by saying that this is a trick of the lawyers. Mr Deputy Speaker, we knew that he is going to try this ploy. So not only did the words appear in the Instrument but they are the only words that are in inverted commas, suggesting that these are words used by him, words which we have not found in any reputable Law library, three words "lead in evidence". Sir, he said he was denied facilities. I went over that point this morning. The Commissioners gave him the facilities after waiving the Rule of Evidence but he waited till the last minute. He was given the opportunity to cross-examine the wit- nesses but he did not take up this opportunity. Finally, Sir, I am tempted to go over all the other points that he mentioned, but to do so I would have to repeat the points which I mentioned this morning, such as the question of the Prime Minister's promise, and so on.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I sum up very briefly. The Member started off by saying that he would ask the House to reject the Report on the following grounds. First, the Commissioners were biased. Second, they were wrong in the interpretation of "lead in evidence", that they had denied him facilities and files, and so on. As to the first point, Sir, the allegation of bias has been dealt with by the Prime Minister who had asked him categorically to state if he was alleging that the Commissioners' findings were prejudiced and perverse or whether he was rejecting the Report in toto or he had objections only on those parts which were critical of his performance. We have heard him just now not accepting the offer and he also said that he might be able to point out certain parts which are objectionable. I take that to mean that he does not reject the Report in toto. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have gone through the transcript and I should point out that there is no reference during the entire course of the proceedings of any instance when the Member had alleged in the proceedings that any one of the Commissioners or all the Commissioners were biased against him. He has also said, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Commissioners had blocked him every inch of the way. I think the Members heard him say that - that the Commissioners had blocked him every inch of the way. I have gone through the transcript of proceedings, and the Commissioners specifically asked him: 'Q Are you now implying you do not have the evidence because we have blocked you? A I am not saying that. Q Then what are you saying. A I am not saying that...”
“Third, when insinuations of cover-ups are made by anyone, the Government has no hesitation in having a full public inquiry. This was clearly stated by the Prime Minister when he said in March: 'The Government is ready to have a public inquiry into any matter of public interest so that there can be no question of any cover-up.' Finally, Sir, the Commission of Inquiry, as Members will know from its terms, was not asked to make any finding about the overall integrity of our system. But the Commissioners were nevertheless moved to make the following observations on page 54: 'Mr Chiam could not have been ignorant of the fact that Singapore has an enviable reputation for the honesty and integrity of its public institutions. This reputation is a hard-earned national asset which should be protected and preserved.' Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is precisely because it is a hard-earned national asset that we are prepared to go to any length to bare all the facts when that reputation is unjustly attacked. Sir, this is the strength of the Government. Question proposed. 12.29 pm”
“The Commissioners said that if the CPIB had been reluctant to investigate further because Mr Teh was a Minister, they could have terminated the proceedings. Instead, they investigated fearlessly and impartially as a result of which a second allegation against Mr Teh came to light. The Commissoners said the CPIB "lost no time in investigating him thoroughly". They accorded top priority to his case. No one should have cause to believe that the CPIB had been tardy or reluctant. The fact that Mr Teh was a senior Minister, in their conclusion, made no difference to the manner in which the investigations were conducted, ie, impartially and fearlessly. Sir, what we have is a situation where the Member had no evidence but sought to cast doubts on the effectiveness of the CPIB and insinuated that there was a cover-up. One of the most important points which emerges from this whole episode, Prime Minister's statement to the House in January, 1987, the debate on the Member's request for a Commission of Inquiry and the Commission's report and its findings is that the integrity of our system to deal with corruption and to punish corruption is intact. Consider first the position taken by Government. The Director, CPIB, testified that when he first informed the Prime Minister of the alleged involvement of Mr Teh, the Prime Minister authorized discreet investigations and told the Director that if Mr Teh accepted bribes, he had to go to jail. Six days later, Prime Minister approved open investigations. In other words, the CPIB received the fullest backing of the Prime Minister, even though the person investigated was a full Cabinet Minister. Secondly, CPIB's investigations were found by the Commissioners to be thorough, fearless and impartial.”
“Thus the Commission concluded: (a) either he did not know what to question the witnesses or he did not have any reason to disbelieve their testimony; (b) they could not allow Mr Chiam to rummage through all the files of the relevant Ministries of the Government to look for unspecified wrongdoings; and (c) at no time during the whole of the Inquiry was Mr Chiam able to tell the Commissioners what was it that he wanted to establish from or see in the CPIB files. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me now turn to other aspects of the report. First, let me refer to the Commission's findings on the first term of reference, whether the CPIB did all that was necessary to uncover acts of corruption, whether it had been thorough, whether there was any attempt to overlook, conceal or cover-up. This was an important term of reference in view of the insinuations and innuendoes by the Member. What were the Commissioners' findings? They found that: (1) the CPIB did all that was necessary to uncover all the acts of corruption; (2) the CPIB was thorough in their investigations before concluding that there was no involvement by any other Minister, Parliamentary Secretary, or Government officer in these acts of corruption or other criminal wrongdoing; and (3) there has been no attempt to overlook, to conceal or to cover-up any information. What were some of the factors that led the Commissioners to arrive at the findings? They are all set out in Chapter 9 of the report, and I will only highlight the following. First, the two acts of corruption of Teh Cheang Wan, in their view, might never have been uncovered but for CPIB's commitment in investigation. Although initial investigations were unpromising, the CPIB perservered and finally succeeded in uncovering the identity of the suspect.”
“First, the Commissioners said that "because of the confidential and sensitive nature of information and evidence on corruption and its propensity to tarnish the reputations of innocent persons", the Commission had no justification to accede to his request "unless Mr Chiam could show that the CPIB files were relevant to his terms of reference". They also said that: 'Corruption is by its nature difficult to detect. The detection of corruption, more often than not, depends on the willingness of informants and complainants to report corrupt acts to the CPIB. Further, allegations of corruption, whether they turn out to be true or otherwise, when investigated by the CPIB, tend to have an immediate adverse effect on the name and reputation of the person complained against, if made public. Also, investigations on corrupt acts cannot be done openly without destroying their efficacy. All information obtained or developed in the course of investigation by the CPIB is highly sensitive and therefore should be accorded a high degree of confidentiality.' Sir, while having repeatedly insisted that he must see CPIB files, what is surprising and even remarkable is that when he was offered the opportunity to cross-examine the Director of CPIB, Mr Evan Yeo, and the other CPIB officer, he threw away the opportunity. One CPIB officer had testified on oath. That was "the best evidence of what they had been told by witnesses and what they had seen in the files and documents." As the Commission said, "if he believed or even suspected that there was somethingin the CPIB files which could assist him, ... he could put the proper questions" to them.”
“But he should not follow in the steps of Mr Jeyaretnam whose habit was to make smears, insinuations, allegations and, when challenged, instead of withdrawing, twisted and turned in evasions and equivocations. It did Mr Jeyaretnam no good. It will do the Member for Potong Pasir no good either. Sir, among the many excuses given by the Member for Potong Pasir for failing to keep his undertaking was his complaint that he had not been given access to all the CPIB files and that the Prime Minister had promised him access to CPIB files. In other words, the Prime Minister had not kept his promise. As the Commissioners pointed out in the report, the Prime Minister made no such promise. The Commissioners carefully examined exactly what the Prime Minister had said in this House on 4th March and they concluded, after careful analysis, that the Prime Minister made no such offer to make CPIB files available to Mr Chiam. Indeed, Sir, it would have been grossly improper for him to have access to CPIB files because they did not contain evidence of acts of corruption but only CPIB's investigations on corruption but only CPIB's investigations on the two acts of corruption against Mr Teh and other allegations of corruption by many persons which had been investigated and were not substantiated. It was right that the Commissioners rejected the request but they took pains to set out the reasons for the ruling. As these reasons are important, I would like to refer to some of them.”
“He asked for the Commission, he drafted this terms of reference, he said he would lead in evidence and bring people to bring evidence, and it was he who said that he was "on solid ground". "I have nothing to fear." And it was he who said that the CPIB is not thorough, there is a cover-up, there is more to be known, and if I may quote from the Commission's Report: '... he sowed the seeds of suspicion that the Government had not "come clean" regarding the CPIB's investigations ...'. Yet, Sir, he did not tell Parliament or the Commission the truth that he had no evidence. The point is that it was not really necessary for him to have made these suggestions of wrongdoing. He could have simply asked for a Commission of Inquiry on the ground that it was of public interest since the Minister had committed suicide and the trial for corruption was therefore not possible. He could have done that. There were other perfectly valid and legitimate reasons for asking for a Commission of Inquiry without making unfounded allegations. Or if on 4th March he believed at that time when we debated this matter that he had evidence of more acts of corruption, he could still have been been quite honest and open about it with the Commissioners when the hearings began. He could have told them that his anonymous or named informants had let him down and that he was mistaken or had been misled. He had the straight and honourable course of action open to him. It would have saved much time. But he continued to give the impression that he did have or could get the evidence and resorted to extraordinary ploys and excuses to wriggle out, caused delays until he was finally pinned down. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we would like to take the Member for Potong Pasir seriously.”
“' Even then he still tried to wriggle out by saying that the reason he had no evidence was that he had not been given the evidence to "lead in" and therefore he could not comply with the undertaking. The Commissioners dismissed this by saying that these were mere excuses and did not affect the truth and in their view the truth was he had no evidence. The Commissioners also found it relevant to state that the Member, in calling for this Inquiry without a shred of evidence, direct or hearsay, had exaggerated the magnitude of what he called the "Teh Cheang Wan affair" to an extent unjustified by the evidence. Sir, as to his failure to lead in evidence and his final admission after many months that he had no evidence, the Commissioners described his conduct as quite extraordinary and that he had displayed a singular lack of seriousness in carrying out his role at the Inquiry. He had led everyone on an extended wild goose chase and that his conduct on the whole had fallen short of the responsibility expected of a person who called for a public inquiry into a matter of public interest. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, recently in the Sunday Times of 3rd January, 1988, the Member is reported to have taken great offence over what the Commissioners have said in the report on him. He is reported to have said that he was surprised at the Commissioner's criticism of his conduct because the Commission was set up to look into the Teh Cheang Wan Affair, not to interrogate me. But the report turned out to be an attack on me." Sir, if the Commissioners criticized him, surely he had asked for it and deserved such criticism.”
“They said that any reasonable person would be justified in concluding from his conduct that either (a) he lacked a sense of responsibility in failing to inspect the files diligently, especially after having protested so strongly about being denied access to them; or (b) he did not really believe that they contained anything useful to his terms of reference. They said he failed to inspect them diligently. Then, Sir, the Member sought adjournment after adjournment and on each occasion he gave a different reason. His first request for an adjournment was on the ground that he needed time for getting up. On the second occasion, in August, it was on the ground that the Commission had wrongly labelled him as an accuser or an alleger. And on the third occasion, on the ground that there was a difference in meaning between "lead in evidence" and "leading evidence". Having caused delays for several months in these ways, not only did he not "lead in evidence" but he even warned the Commissioners that they had no power to terminate the proceedings so long as he had not "led in evidence." They had to wait for him, in other words, however many months or years he was going to take. The Commissioners' ruling, in my view, was a masterpiece of restraint and understatement when they said all this was against common sense. Sir, after this ruling, the truth finally came out when the Commissioners, in their words, "finally pinned him down" (these are not my words) and they finally pinned him down after 90 minutes of laborious questioning, at the end of which the Chairman pinned him down as follows: 'Do you or do you not have the evidence to lead now, whatever the reasons may be for your not having the evidence?' Mr Chiam's answer was: 'No, Sir.”
“They said: 'At no time during the entire duration of the Inquiry was he able to give the Commissioners the slightest indication of what he wanted from the files. Mr Chiam failed to give the Commissioners any sense of direction and purpose in his search for evidence.' They refused to allow him, in their words, "to go on a fishing expedition because he did not know what he was fishing for. He was merely groping in the dark hoping to find some wrongdoing but with no idea what the nature of the wrongdoing may be." Worse, according to the Commissioners, "He was not even able to say what his suspicions of wrongdoing were." They concluded that no reasonable Commission of Inquiry would have acceded to Mr Chiam's requests in these circumstances. It is pertinent, Sir, that the Commission felt that his demand to see all the files, including CPIB files, was tantamount to him wanting to act out the role of a super investigator; a super investigator to double check the investigations already done by the CPIB. What is significant, however, Sir, is having said this, the Commission decided to waive the rule of relevance and they bent over backwards to make available the various files and documents. They said that they did this to avoid giving the impression that they were obstructing him. Thus, all the MND files relating to paragraphs (a) and (c) of his term of reference were made available to him and all the monthly statements of the seven bank accounts of the Teh family had been made available to him. But when these files and documents were made available to him, what did he do? Did he proceed to inspect them carefully? He did not. Sir, he did not bother to inspect the files until the last minute. Nor did he give any reason for such conduct.”
“They either suggest that the CPIB had not been thorough in its investigations or that there was a cover-up.' Thirdly, Sir, the Member categorically undertook to lead evidence on his terms of reference, and he said on 4th March, 1987: '... not only I will lead in evidence but I have certainly people who are willing to assist me in that area.' This point about "lead in evidence" featured prominently in the proceedings of the Commission. We must therefore recall that at that sitting in March 1987 the Prime Minister repeatedly told the Member that he would have to lead evidence and produce them. In fact, reading the Hansard, one will see that the Prime Minister men- tioned this on nine different occasions, and there was good reason for the Prime Minister to stress this for, as he said: 'We have not seen the need for this inquiry. But we [ie, the Government] are not having this Commission of Inquiry in order that we will commission somebody to produce evidence of wrongdoing or possible wrongdoing when we have not found any.' Sir, the Prime Minister also warned him that it was no easy task to lead evidence. But the Member replied: 'Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to tell the Prime Minister I am on solid ground and I have nothing to fear.' Having recalled these three facts, let me now turn to what the Commission had to say of the performance of the Member who had asked for this inquiry, who had drafted these terms of reference, and who said that he would lead in evidence and bring evidence and bring people to bring evidence. First, as to his requests for files and witnesses, the Commissioners quite correctly rejected his requests because he failed to show the relevance of his requests to his terms of reference.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House accepts the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on investigations concerning the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan contained in Paper Cmd. 18 of 1987. Sir, at the outset I wish to recall three important facts. First, this Commission was established because the Member for Potong Pasir wanted it. On 4th March, 1987, he asked in this House if the Prime Minister would call a public inquiry to get to the bottom of the "Teh Cheang Wan Affair", and to make recommendations to prevent further corruption in high places. He then made statements which suggested that the CPIB had not been thorough in its investigations or that there was a cover-up. In the words of the Commissioners, he suggested that "there was more to be known or discovered than had been disclosed by the Prime Minister. He further gave the impression that he knew something else which the Government did not know in connection with Teh Cheang Wan." The second fact to be recalled is that the Member's terms of reference were accepted and incorporated in their entirety in the Instrument of Appointment of the Commission. The Government of course included an additional term on whether the CPIB had been thorough in its investigations and whether there had been any attempt to conceal, overlook, cover up any information concerning corruption or criminal wrongdoing. The Government did this because the Member had cast a doubt on the thoroughness and effectiveness of CPIB's investigations. The Member did not object to this term although he did try to disclaim that he had ever accused the Government of cover-up. But the Commissioners thought otherwise and this is what they said: 'The implications are clear.”
“Mr Heng Chiang Meng asked the Minister for Labour whether Singapore permanent residents need work permits if they are earning below $1,500/- per month and, if so, the rationale for this policy.”
“There is nothing unconstitutional about these conditions. They are imposed pursuant to the Internal Security Act. Article 14 of the Constitution which deals with freedom of speech, assembly and association, expressly authorizes Parliament, by law, to impose restrictions necessary in the interests of the security of Singapore or of public order. The three restrictive conditions do not prohibit them from taking part in constitutional political activities. In fact, they are free to stand for elections as independent candidates. They can even join a political party and take part in the activities of that party. But as the Member would know, and all Members would know, the whole objective of the Communist United Front is to penetrate and manipulate lawful organizations for its subversive acts. Therefore, he must obtain the approval of the Director of the ISD, and this requirement applies to all societies, not just political societies. And it is a necessary control so that the ISD can make its professional security assessment whether the person will pose a security threat or risk if allowed to join a society, or whether he will abuse it or will be made use of. Once he joins a political society, no further consent of the Director of the ISD is needed if he wants to stand for elections. Finally, Sir, under the Internal Security Act, the Government has the power to prohibit absolutely any released person from taking part in any political activities. We would not have hesitated to impose this condition for the recently released detainees if we felt it necessary to do so on security grounds. But we did not consider it necessary. WORK PERMITS FOR PERMANENT RESIDENTS (Policy) 9.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, although the Member for Potong Pasir is not here, I think it is right that the Member for Chong Boon has stood up to ask the Question so that it can be given an answer. Sir, in reply to the Question. It is not true that the released detainees have been deprived of their constitutional rights to participate in constitutional political activities. If the Member is convinced that a matter is unconstitutional, which is a question of law, he can easily have this tested in the Courts of law. He can offer himself to any of the detainees, as a public service, to be their constitutional law expert and to take their case up. If the Member was present here today, I would have asked him whether he can inform us which detainee has been so deprived and which specific provision of the Constitution has been transgressed. In fact, the Member ought to know that six ex-detainees had contested in elections previously. Mr Speaker, Sir, Members may wish to know what are the restrictive conditions. First, it is that he or she shall not travel beyond the limits of Singapore without the prior approval of the Director of the ISD. Secondly, he or she shall not, except with the written consent of the Director of the ISD, be a member of any society within the meaning of the Societies Act or in any way assist in the activities of any society. And third, he or she whall not associate with or take part in or in any way assist in the activities of any organization which, through its publications, statements or other activities, has shown itself to be used in propagating Marxism or Communism. Sir, these restrictive conditions are necessary to prevent the released person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the Republic's security.”
“As to the second supplementary question about calling him for questioning, Edgar D'Souza was not questioned about his links with the Marxist conspirators because he was not directly involved in the Marxist conspiracy as such and, in any case, the Government was aware of the nature and extent of his links with members of the Marxist group as a result of the ISD's investigations before the arrest of the Marxist conspirators and on the basis of the disclosures made by them. However, as I said, I would not rule out the possibility of the ISD wanting to question him to establish whether he is a cat's paw or an agent of any radical or subvervise group abroad. IMPORTED VEGETABLES (Government levy) 7. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Finance whether any Government tax or levy is imposed on imported vegetables.”
“As for the first supplementary question, Sir, the reason is simply that we wanted to give the Church time to discipline Edgar D'Souza and, if necessary, to expose his misdeeds. It is far more appropriate for the Church to do so. Unfortunately, more than five months have passed since he left Singapore and during this time, while abroad in Australia and in New Zealand, he not only engaged in the activities which I mentioned but more recently as two weeks ago, according to our High Commission in Australia, Edgar D'Souza has been purveying the line that there is a warrant of arrest for him, a move obviously designed to present himself as a persecuted priest. If the Government has been silent so far, it is because of deference to the Church. But as Members know, his conduct and indiscretions have become public knowledge and in a press interview in October this year, the girl's brother confirmed his complaint to the Church. It is therefore a matter of public interest and the Government has to disclose the facts for, as I have said, Edgar D'Souza has embarked on a campaign to malign the Singapore Government and to distort the facts about the arrest of the Marxist group. In carrying out this campaign and getting people to believe him, he has projected himself as a pious priest when in reality his conduct is, to say the least, questionable.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not know for certain if he has been granted permanent residence and, if so, on what grounds. However, since the Member has asked this question, I will request my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to check with the Australian government.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Edgar D'Souza will not be arrested because, on the basis of the information that we have so far, he was not directly involved in the Marxist conspiracy as such that the ISD may want to question him on some aspects of his activities is a possibility that I will not rule out.”
“The number of accidents at and around Yio Chu Kang Road/Jalan Kayu/Seletar Road junction between 1984 and 1986 according to severity of injuries is as follows:- Serious Slight Year Fatal injury injury 1984 - - 2 1985 - - 3 1986 - - 8 ORAL ANSWER TO QUESTION NOT REACHED BY 12.00 P.M. MRT FARES FOR SHORT TRIPS 1. Mr Leong Horn Kee asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether his Ministry will consider lower Mass Rapid Transit fares for special short 1 to 2 station trips between major town centres such as Ang Mo Kio and Bishan, and Toa Payoh and Bishan.”
“Sir, from January to September this year, a total of 8,979 heavy vehicles were issued summonses for various moving offences on the expressways. Of these, 97.2% were booked for speeding, 2.7% for careless driving and 0.14% for inconsiderate driving. For the same period, Sir, there were 55 accidents involving heavy vehicles on expressways. Of these, four were fatal, eight involved serious injuries and 43 involved slight injuries. The existing legislation against drivers of heavy vehicles committing traffic offences is adequate. Under the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Rules, 1974, the owner of a vehicle can be liable for prosecution for improper maintenance or use of the vehicle. Therefore, in a traffic accident involving heavy vehicles, both the driver and owner may be prosecuted, though for different offences. Finally, Sir, the Police is promoting the use of tachograph among major fleet owners. This device is installed in a vehicle which will record information relating to speed, distance travelled and the number of stops made during each journey. Last month the Traffic Police conducted a seminar for a number of major fleet owners on the subject of how to enhance the safety and performance of their fleet of vehicles. Among the subjects covered was the use of tachographs in vehicles. I am glad to say that the response from the participants was encouraging as most were in favour of the use of tachograph. 12.00 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Finger Pier Passenger Terminal was constructed by the Port of Singapore Autho- rity in 1975 to cater to the ferry traffic between Singapore and the neighbouring Indonesian islands. With the development of Pulau Batam and Tanjong Pinang as holiday spots for Singaporeans and others over the last two years, there are now more people travelling to Indonesia via the Finger Pier checkpoint. The PSA and Immigration Department are monitoring the traffic and the capability of the existing facilities to handle it. Improvements are being made to the terminal building and, if necessary, PSA will review the situation. PSA is also working on long-term plans for a new site to build bigger and better facilities. STOCKBROKING INDUSTRY (Financial state) 11. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Minister for Finance if he will give an assessment of the current financial state of the Singapore stockbroking industry.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the crimes most commonly committed in public housing estates are robbery, housebreaking, motor vehicle theft and vandalism. There were 5,672 such offences in 1986. The number up to September this year was 4,786. In Ang Mo Kio a total of 435 cases was reported for the period January to September this year. For the same period last year the total was 333 cases. The overall increase was attributed mainly to motor vehicle theft and vandalism. The Police are monitoring the crime levels. In the problem areas extensive patrols and ambushes are carried out. Where appropriate, special operations have also been mounted for some of these offences. The Police will step up their policing efforts through more Police presence and anti-crime operations. The public also can play a big part to help in this area. They can help by immediately reporting suspicious persons loitering around the vicinity. Indeed, such public cooperation and vigilance, in the opinion of the Police, contributed to a decline in housebreaking offences last year. FINGER PIER IMMIGRATION CHECKPOINT (Upgrading of facilities) 10. Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will look into the possibility of upgrading the facilities at the Finger Pier immigration checkpoint to provide faster clearance of tourists and others returning from tours to the Indonesian islands like Batam and Tanjong Pinang.”
“The Question having been proposed at Twenty-five minutes to Five o'clock pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes past Five o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS SPORTS COMPLEX IN SERANGOON NEW TOWN 1. Mr Goh Choon Kang asked the Minister for National Development whether a sports complex will be built in Braddell Heights.”