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 48 of 66.
“The issue is still that of preventive detention. Law makers who oppose the ISA because they are against preventive detention per se must logically also oppose preventive detention for criminals. It is also detention without trial. The Member for Potong Pasir will come back to this House when next we have protests on that kind of preventive detention and say, "Look, our image is affected. Release all the criminal law detainees." Is he a legislator from another country? Or is he a Member of Parliament of Singapore? So whether it is the Internal Security Act or the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act or the Misuse of Drugs Act, we have had to devise our own solutions for our circumstances. That is how we have managed to contain our law and order problems. And we are not apologetic for having preventive detention or having the Internal Security Act. It is not this Government which introduced it out of thin air. It was introduced by the British. The British introduced preventive detention because they knew that there was no other way that the problems of Communist subversion, and racial and religious extremism can be contained. And we did not do away with preventive detention because the problems still exist and continue. Our task, therefore, when faced with criticisms, whether it be from the United States or elsewhere, is to explain to them, get them to understand that not all coun- tries are alike, not all problems in all countries are the same and that there must be differences in meeting different problems. Finally, we must ask ourselves what is the consequence if we did not take the approach of having as our criterion the overriding national interest of Singapore, the future of Singaporeans, our stability and vulnerability.”
“The Member for Potong Pasir has seen recent examples, in the past year or so, when the slightest incident or event in Singapore sparks off large numbers of protests on matters which do not affect any other country. We must also distinguish critics who have already taken a pre-determined position. Amnesty International takes a pre-determined position - opposing preventive detention. So if we take the approach of the Member for Potong Pasir - we are worried about image and therefore refrain from taking action necessary. Amnesty International also opposes the death penalty. Whenever a drug trafficker is executed, I get letters from Amnesty International. Following the logic of the Member for Potong Pasir, if we take care of this problem of the ISA arrests, what should we do when Amnesty International and legislators the world over who disagree with the death penalty protest? Should we then get rid of the death penalty for drug traffickers? Then, since preventive detention per se is opposed, what do we do when legislators the world over oppose our criminal law detention which has helped to make our streets safe and secure from gangsters, rapists and other big-time criminals?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the question from the Member for Potong Pasir is whether we have received the letter from the Congressmen and the answer is yes, and a reply will be prepared. But the reply will be based on the points which have already been covered in the first Congressional letter's reply because that was the comprehensive statement of the Singapore Government's position and many of the signatories to the letter he refers to also included the same signatories to the first Congressional letter. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I said, in the ultimate analysis, what is at issue is we are different. We are not the United States. Our problems which affect our vulnerability and stability are different from the United States and therefore when critics, based on their perspectives, their experience and their cultures and traditions, pass views and judgments on our solutions, far from attempting to conclude that we are wrong, we should attempt to explain to them as best as we can why is it that we are different, our problems are special, our circumstances unique and therefore we must be allowed to devise solutions for our security problems. Because if we are not allowed to do that and when Singapore goes down the drain, I think none of us has any doubts that few of these foreign critics will be able to come to our help, and it may be too late even if they want to do so. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the point about the foreign criticisms is this. We must be able to distinguish the type of criticisms. At the last sitting, I mentioned to the House that whether the critic is well inten- tioned or not is important. There are organizations which have mischievous intent, which derive pleasure from seeing Singapore in difficulties.”
“If we adopt that criterion, Sir, it will please foreign critics. It will please others elsewhere who want to poke noses into our affairs. But it will not solve our problems and if we take that approach, ie, the approach of the Member for Potong Pasir, it will be abdicating our responsibility to decide our own affairs without interference from outside quarters. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in view of the time, I would not get into the other areas he touched on concerning the release of the detainees, the grounds for the detention, because these were fully covered in the previous debate on 29th July.”
“In brief, Singapore is highly vulnerable to forces over which it has only limited controland it faces dilemmas that larger states can avoid or minimize.' Sir, in the previous debate, when the First Deputy Prime Minister pointed out that the Member for Potong Pasir was not against the ISA, he did not rebut the First Deputy Prime Minister. Congressmen have taken a position which is against preventive detention. I would expect him, as a loyal Singaporean, to speak as a Singaporean. Why does he not take umbrage over what all these foreign critics from Malaysia and elsewhere do which amounts to interference in our internal affairs? Why give more credence to criticisms abroad than the explanations given by the Government? If we take his approach and do what all the foreign critics would ask us to do, will it do any good for Singapore, our future, stability and security? Will it be a responsible act? Will it not encourage more interference from various quarters in our internal affairs? What happens the next time we have another security problem, another Silat group? Do we consult ALIRAN, INSAN, Amnesty International? Ask them first whether they object, whether they protest, and then only act? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the issue is one of preventive detention. That is how the criticism has been presented. In the ultimate analysis, the key issue is this: who decides the destiny of Singapore and Singaporeans? It must be Singaporeans and the elected Government. Surely the Member for Potong Pasir cannot seriously suggest that our security decisions on arrests and release must be made on criteria other than what is best for our national interest. Surely he cannot suggest that we adopt new criterion depending on whether it pleases or annoys others outside Singapore.”
“We have ourselves made public the first Congressional letter and our reply which was comprehensive. We consider them as belonging to the first group. They are well-intentioned and we treat them accordingly. Hence we give a comprehensive reply to that letter and all other letters that follow subsequently. We explain to them why we are different from the United States. Why is it that, because of past Communist and communalist problems, we have to resort to measures to suit our circumstances and why preventive detention, which was introduced by the British, has still relevance today because the problems have not disappeared. For those in the United States, preventive detention and the Internal Security Act is not acceptable because in the context of their norms, their legal traditions which have evolved over more than 200 years, their solutions are different. They are larger. They are more well established and for them a Marxist conspiracy, subversion, probably they can handle it without the existence of their nation being in jeopardy. But what about Singapore? Instead of just relying on the Minister's view, let me quote to the Member for Potong Pasir the views of the late Prof. Tilman who was quoted by the Prime Minister. But let me quote a different passage. He has studied and worked here for many years. He was an American scholar and this is what he said: 'Singapore more than most states needs international political and economic stability and predictability if it is to prosper or even survive. Larger nations may withdraw to within themselves in troubled times but a small densely populated island offers little refuge from a major storm. Disruptive or subversive actions can destroy Singapore's credibility as a safe haven...”
“As we had informed the House, in the decision-making process we had to consider the question: should we refrain from acting on a security measure because of the likelihood of protests and criticisms? Or do we, despite the anticipated protests, decide to move? The former alternative, of course, is a convenient and expedient option. It avoids more work. It lessens controversy. But we knew that this would not be right. If the decision, after weighing all the pros and cons, was that it was necessary on national security grounds, then we should move to protect our security and nip the conspiracy in the bud. To do otherwise would mean that we are taking chances with the lives of Singaporeans and the future of our stability and security. Now that we have acted against them and the anticipated protests have come, what should we do and what do we do? It depends, of course, on who is it who criticized us and what are his intentions. I have previously classified at least four groups of persons who would criticize us. First, those who are well-intentioned but do not know our situation. Because of the culture and traditions, they cannot understand preventive detention. Secondly, there are groups like Amnesty International which opposed preventive detention per se and therefore they condemn and only later ascertain the facts. Thirdly, the organizations which are related to the organizations which were involved here - Justice of Peace Commissions established elsewhere and they feel obliged to protest. Fourthly, groups and organizations which have vested interest and have an axe to grind and clearly mischievous. I spoke at length on this when I answered the question from the Member for Fengshan on a previous occasion about protests by groups in Malaysia. Congressmen have protested.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir can be viewed as raising two questions. One is a specific question as to what do we do with criticisms and protests that we have received on these arrests; and the other is a broader question as to who makes and takes decisions on the law, order and security issues of Singapore - we, the Singaporeans and the elected Government, or foreigners? The Member for Potong Pasir seems surprised that there are protests from various quarters. He should not be. We knew, before we took the decision to arrest those involved in the conspiracy, that there will be criticisms and that there will be protests from abroad. The First Deputy Prime Minister and I have said so in this House. We said that one of the factors which we took into account in the decision-making process was that there will be criticisms and protests both within and outside Singapore. We knew that. How did we know that? Because each time in the past whenever we used the ISA, there were criticisms and protests. But this time we knew that there would be more protests than on previous occasions because, first, those involved in this conspiracy had made use of church organizations and church publications, and that related and affiliated religious organizations abroad who did not have all the facts would be puzzled and were bound to write in and express righteous indignation. Secondly, because so many of them are graduates, professionals, having studied abroad, we knew that they had connections with their former universities, alumni, and this also would cause protests.”
“He has talked about community support. I have given a detailed account of all that was done which has been publicized in the Inhalant Abuse Coordinating Committee's report. He has obviously not read that. But if he sincerely believes that this is a community effort, which we agree with, then I would like to know whether he has ever spoken out at any function exhorting the youngsters to stay away from inhalants and such volatile substances. I have not heard him but if he has, I stand corrected. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. SINGAPORE CORPORATION OF REHABILITATIVE ENTERPRISES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.00 pm”
“Just a few examples, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to show that all that the Member for Potong Pasir wanted us to think about have been thought about. All that he wanted us to do has been done. In 1985 and 1986, I said that although the Inhalant Abuse Coordinating Committee recommended legislation, while we implemented all the other measures on prevention, education, counselling, we held back the legislation, for more than a year. I said that legislation should be a matter of last resort, and I explained in my speech why we had been slow and cautious in bringing about the legislation. But the Member for Potong Pasir tells us, "Do not legislate." He is not here but I wish he will answer the question on some other occasion or maybe to the press. The question is: how many more deaths does he want to take place? How many more of our young citizens does he want to see perished before we act? I have given an account of our study of other countries. They have thrown their hands up in despair. They are unable to tackle the problem. The Member for Potong Pasir does not give any concrete suggestion except to say that this is a community problem. Indeed it is, and that is why we have tried to involve the whole community in these campaigns and educational programmes. I have yet to see or hear the Member for Potong Pasir give one speech exhorting youngsters to stay away from inhalants and not to be inhalant abusers. I may be wrong but if he had done so, I will be interested to know. [The Member for Potong Pasir entered the Chamber]. He has missed everything else so I might just repeat the tail-end of my conclusion. The question is: how many more deaths does the Member for Potong Pasir want to see occur? How many more young citizens does he want to see perish before we legislate?”
“The fact of the matter is, Sir, that not only have I been in touch with other departments but other departments were actively participating in this effort to do something about this problem, including members of the Coordinating Committee involving representatives from my Ministry, Ministries of Education, Community Development, Health, the Singapore Armed Forces and SANA. So many different organizations have put their heads together to do something about this problem. Have campaigns and studies been done? Again, if he had read the report, which I am sure other Members have done, he would have noted that more than one study has been done and undertaken. Surveys have been carried out and the results are summarized in the report which has been widely publicized. What are the measures which have been tried out by the various agencies? SANA has held national anti-inhalant abuse campaigns and it is an on-going campaign. The Ministry of Education has held anti-inhalant abuse campaigns in schools which included handouts of materials on the dangers of inhalant abuse. The Ministry of Education has also been counselling and is involved in the aftercare of students by the Guidance and Social Work Unit. Special campaigns have been carried out for vocational institute trainees. The Ministry of Community Development has been counselling young inhalant abusers and in terms of activities, there are many activities for youngsters organized by PA, youth groups, RCs, community centres and so on. The Central Narcotics Board is involved with the informal supervision and counselling of inhalant abusers and their parents and this has been going on for some time. The Member for Potong Pasir must have also seen various TV slots.”
“So it must be the substance referred to in the Schedule that would have to be established first before a person can be subjected to supervision order or treatment. He spoke on the nature of the supervision, namely, that the supervision must take into account the nature of the problem. I can say now that the supervision will be oriented towards helping and counselling the inhalant abuser. His other points are that of reinforcing the campaigns. This is an on-going process which will not cease. He has asked for some care to be taken in implementing the provisions and I would like to assure him, as I have said in my speech, that we are mindful of the fact that we do not want to treat the inhalant abusers as criminals and it is for this reason that we have taken the approach in this Bill as well as in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. Finally, may I reply to the Member for Potong Pasir but unfortunately he is not here. I must conclude from all the points that he has raised that he is totally unaware of all the previous statements and reports which my colleague, the Minister of State and I have given to this House and all the reports, including the reports by the Coordinating Committee which have been very well publicized and widely distributed. First, he said that we should not treat the inhalant abuser as a criminal. This is precisely the point that I made and this is precisely the reason why I sought the agreement of this House to the passage of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. Secondly, he asked whether any studies have been made, whether we have had campaigns, whether other departments had been contacted and whether I had been in touch with other departments.”
“As far as segregation is concerned, the point is taken and indeed those who are treated for inhalant abuses will indeed be separated and segregated from other categories, such as addicts or prisoners. Further factors will be taken into account such as the first-timers who are being treated and separated from the repeaters or chronic abusers. So I take his point on that. As far as coordination between the Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Narcotics Bureau and others is concerned, I would like to say that coordination between the various Government departments and other voluntary bodies like SANA has already been established. This coordination began many years ago when the different departments were brought together for the purposes of studying this problem and thereafter I am glad to say that coordination has continued. In fact, it would be not correct to perceive the law and the package of measures which have been recommended before as being entirely the work of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Credit must also go to the various other Ministries - Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Community Development and others who have studied the problem closely with the Ministry of Home Affairs and arrived at a set of recommendations, part of which is now being implemented through this law. The Member for Clementi who is the Chairman of the GPC for Home Affairs asked if the definition would result in temptations to err on the generous side. I would think not, and there is a good reason because the definition specifically links it with what is mentioned in the Schedule. If you look at the definition contained in the Bill, there is a direct reference to the definition and the Schedule.”
“Members will recall that in that report reference was made to the profile of inhalant abusers, and so perhaps I would not repeat all that was said in that report, but suffice it for me to say that, as in the case of drug addicts, so also in the case of inhalant abusers, family background, family support and the guidance given, particularly in the younger days, is instrumental. The Member for Fengshan asked whether we could inject or introduce some foul-smelling, noxious substance in these products. We had, in fact, considered this approach but there are rather practical difficulties, the most important of which is that most of these products are imported from abroad and it is not entirely within the means of exercising jurisdiction on the manufacturers in Singapore. Nevertheless, I would ask my officials to consider, if there are sufficient quantities being produced in Singapore, whether this is a practical measure. It may put off the glue-sniffers but it may also put off legitimate users. The Member for Bo Wen asked whether the necessary manpower will be made available for the effective implementation of this Bill. I would like to assure him that we are aware of the importance of additional manpower and the necessary requests have been made and we are confident that it will be forthcoming. He would also have noted that there is another Bill before the House to amend the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitation Enterprises Act which should also be relevant in the rehabilitative process because that will give SCORE powers to be involved in rehabilitation of inhalant abusers.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken and may I respond to the points that they have raised. The Member for Toa Payoh expressed concern over the adequacy of the fines. I understand him to feel that probably the quantum of the fines could have been more severe. This is a matter which we will be able to review after the Act has been put into operation. The fines which are contained in the provisions in our view and in the view of the Attorney-General Chambers would be proportionate and adequate for the mischief, but should it prove to be inadequate, then under subsequent review we can reconsider the matter. But I would first like to see how it works in practice. He has asked whether glue-sniffing, inhalant abuse, can be made notifiable, in the sense that infectious diseases are notifiable. My response is that we have already a system where the Ministry of Health has an arrangement in which doctors, both in private and in Government practice do give information and feedback to the Ministry of Health where it is collated and made available to the Central Narcotics Bureau. But this is an informal system and I think it should be allowed to work before we consider more mandatory and obligatory methods akin to the notifiable communicable diseases law. One of the Members mentioned that it is important that family background and socio-economic factors are also considered. We agree that this is important but the fact is that all this information was highlighted in the report on measures to curb inhalant abuse in Singapore, a report which was well publicised and distributed.”
“Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members for their comments. With regard to the points raised by the Member for Bo Wen, the answer to his first question is no. It is precisely to avoid them having the record of a court conviction that this amendment and the approach in the Intoxicating Substances Bill has been taken. Secondly, although it is really related to the other Bill that is coming up, if he will note, there is a very narrow definition of the term "intoxicating substances" in that Bill, which I think will meet his concern.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am really grateful that he brought it up because we could have easily left it to him to move an Adjournment motion. He speaks for 20 minutes. We speak for 10 minutes. He does not have the right of reply. If we had wanted to discuss this without any intervention by him, I would have made a lengthy Ministerial Statement on which he could not discuss but only ask questions. We knew he was interested in debating, so and we said, "Are you serious about this? Why don't you move a motion where you can speak and you can have a full hour to reply?" As it turned out, where under an Adjournment motion he can speak for only 20 minutes, he spoke for one full hour, as we recall it this morning and now I take it he can speak for another full hour. So where is the repression?”
“Sir, I would be grateful if he would kindly answer these questions. Could he not, as an example of how false the image of repressiveness is, cite the example to foreigners that although his motion had no notice, no seconder, yet we allowed it to be debated fully and fairly here? And how can he reconcile his impressions from foreigners with the growing number of tourists in Singapore and the growing number of investors in Singapore?”
“Is the Member giving way, Sir, before I speak?”
“That we have a strategy of nipping problems in the bud. There is no other way, Sir, to guarantee our security. (Applause) 4.10 pm”
“Prevent Singaporeans from going abroad? Isolate ourselves? It is not possible. What we have to do is to take note, be ever vigilant to guard against any such threats, especially when they are in the early and incipient stages. That is why, Sir, when there are threats to the security of Singapore, whether by Communists, racial or religious agitators, and when they are in their nascent, early, incipient stages, we can have two approaches to deal with the problem. One approach is what I would call the smoking gun or blood-stained parang approach. In other words, wait until something disastrous happens and then catch the person red-handed with the gun still smoking. The other is to wait for the person to kill a few, and then catch him red-handed with the blood-stained parang. That approach means: Do not take preventive action because there will be howls of protest from various groups. The First Deputy Prime Minister went over these grounds. Should we take that approach? We could have easily done so. But what would have been the consequences? We would have placated all these human rights and other groups. They would say, "Yes, your actions are now in accordance with the law." But Singapore would have gone down the drain, and where would they be? Would they come to rescue us? Sir, in the ultimate analysis, the security of Singapore cannot be ensured by the smoking gun and blood-stained parang approach. The Member for Potong Pasir said, almost as if in passing, there has been no case of a politician shot in Singapore. Equally so one can ask, there have been no riots, no violence. We have had decades of stability. But why is that so? It is because we have deliberately chosen a strategy of not waiting for the blood-stained parang or the smoking gun.”
“Let us take a developing country, not Sri Lanka because the Member for Potong Pasir says, "Sri Lankans are less intelligent than Singaporeans. They are wishy-washy." So they are of a lesser breed. I am going to take India, although he might come out with the same objections to that comparison. Let us take India, a developing country. What is happening there? Sikhs and Hindus fighting each other, killing each other. Hindus and Muslims killing each other. Gurkhas, Dar- jeeling, wanting a different state. It goes on and on. But India is still there. Life still goes on. It is a big country with millions of people. Those outnumbered in a clash can run from one pocket to another pocket. What about Singapore? Where can a person run from one pocket to another pocket? Singapore itself is a pocket! If we had violence like in India and elsewhere, the Member for Serangoon Gardens and others have pointed out, it will be disastrous. That is why, Sir, the issue here is not so much a specific case of arrested persons. It is a larger issue which, the First Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out, is one of stability and vulnerability. As the First DPM pointed out, we are open to influences, to visitors. We travel, others travel here. We have seen how Vincent Cheng and his group have been exposed to Philippine Communists. We knew what was happening in the Philippines. We knew that religious organizations were being captured by the Communists. We knew that sooner or later it was going to affect Singapore and other countries. That is going to be exported, but of course it happened sooner than we thought. Take the four silat group members. They were influenced by and have connections with groups of spiritual silat in Johore. But what do we do? Ban foreign travel?”
“For if he had, surely he would have known what Vincent Cheng said about having accepted Marxism, what Kenneth Tsang said, what Lim Li Kok said, that Communism was a better alternative for our society, and she accepted Communism as a choice for Singapore. Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir in his speech said that we have seen in the United States riots and disorder, and yet they are able to handle it. This is just a passing phase. Are we like the United States? Can we handle problems like the United States? We are small, densely populated, with different races, languages and religions. Are we destined to be an independent nation? We are trying our best to run ourselves as an independent country. Let me quote what one American observer, Robert O. Tilman in a book "Southeast Asia and the enemy beyond" said: 'Of the countries considered here, only Thailand has any reasonable claim to nationhood.' And quoting from an American scholar, Rupert Emerson: 'Nationhood, described in its ideal form, is a single people, traditionally fixed on a well-defined territory, speaking the same language, preferably a language of its own, possessing a distinguished culture, shaped to a common mould by many generations of shared historical experience.' Apply any of those tests: are we a nation? We must succeed despite these insuperable difficulties in making ourselves a nation. But to compare ourselves with the United States. They have had over 200 years of history. They fought the British for independence; they fought a civil war. They are so vast, they can cushion against transient problems and crises in one state or county. Let us not compare ourselves with the United States.”
“But when they welched on their promise and they welched on the deal, they were arrested and detained. Members surely have not forgotten that. On the Member's points about the arrests being to stifle dissent and opposition. Other Members have very effectively demolished these arguments of the Member for Potong Pasir and I do not propose to cover the same ground. About Tan Wah Piow, the Member says he is a mere student. Nothing to worry about. Well, we beg to differ. He has not read obviously what the close associates of Tan Wah Piow have said. He has obviously not read that Tan Wah Piow's escape from Singapore was facilitated by pro-CPM elements, that Tan Wah Piow had actively campaigned on behalf of CPM members including Tan Chay Wah, a ranking CPM cadre from Singapore who was executed by Malaysia under their laws. Vincent Cheng said that Tan Wah Piow had been very strong on Marxism "all the way" and asked him to adopt united front tactics. William Yap said that Tan Wah Piow told him of his direct links with the CPM and of his trip to Beijing where he met the CPM leaders. William Yap also told us that Tan Wah Piow regarded Peninsula Malaysia and Singapore as one entity, the same approach as the CPM. Tay Hong Seng told us that Tan Wah Piow divulged to him CPM's covert communication system. I was also amazed at the Member for Potong Pasir's statement that none of these persons has ever said that he is a Marxist. I wonder whether he has read all the information that has been published. He told us that he has not watched some of the TV programmes. It is a pity. I would have assumed that when he takes an important position such as the call for their immediate release he would have at least acquainted himself with the facts.”
“It is a pity if he does. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have examples in our recent history of persons who were arrested under the Internal Security Act and detained and were released and went back to the subversive activities. I do not propose to give their names for they are now leading straight lives and I do not wish to embarrass them. But I have their names, detained, released, went back to their subversive activities and had to be arrested again. This underscores the importance of us ensuring and being satisfied that the persons arrested will, in fact, be rehabilitated and are unlikely to resume the subversive activities. Those whom we were satisfied, we have already released them. Out of the original 16, four were released. Of the second group, three were released. The Member referred to Lim Chin Siong and others who were detained by the British. The PAP asked for their release before it took office. And he says, "Well, this is exactly the same situation." Is it? Does he not realize fundamental distinctions between that situation and now? First, they were detained by the British colonialists, not by an elected government which had the people's mandate to govern, including managing internal security of the country. The British were not elected by the people of Singapore. Unlike now, at each election, Opposition members have made issue of the Internal Security Act. It has been made an issue of and at each election Government's position has been endorsed. Secondly, the PAP was then fighting a battle against the British for independence. Thirdly, when they were released at that time, they published a signed statement where they whole-heartedly and without reservation supported the non-communist aims and objectives of the PAP.”
“It does not give us great pleasure and we do not relish in taking this action. The First Deputy Prime Minister told you just now with what care the matter was evaluated. Precisely because it is a decision which has got to be taken carefully. Some of them were law students in the Law Faculty in which I taught. A few of them were my students. Do I relish in taking action against them without grounds? There are grounds and there must be grounds when we act. When we release a person, when we arrest a person, when we detain a person, these are decisions which must be based on security considerations. We have made it clear in the press releases that they will be released even before the expiry of the detention orders if we are satisfied that they are rehabilitated and are unlikely to resume their subversive activities. That is a key criterion which is essential in deciding whether to release a person or not. Not because a person swears on TV or off TV that he will never do it again. The Member for Potong Pasir is a lawyer. He must have come across many cases of accused persons in court who will swear till they are blue in the face that they will never do it again. Does he really believe every one of them? An hon. Member: He does!”
“But if he wants to engage in a debate here, he must get to know something about it. And I would urge him to start reading about it because it has very serious implications. Let me just give the following quotation: 'Communists in Asian and Pacific nations are increasingly using Christian charities and humanitarian agencies to fund insurgencies and further their revolutionary aims. They are being helped in the strategy by radicals in third world churches and Christian aid bodies in Australia and New Zealand who are able to manipulate religious funding organizations. Unwitting church support for radical causes has gone not only to the Philippines and Singapore but also to Indonesia, East Timor, Sri Lanka and the Pacific islands.' This is not a Ministry of Home Affairs' press statement. It is the Washington Times of 7th July 1987! Let us therefore not under-estimate the potential of the problems that we have. Let us not under-estimate the problems that the CPM can pose. The CPM is still operating in the jungles in Malaysia. If the Member had read press reports, there were assassinations recently. Has the Member forgotten that there is a CPM clandestine radio station which broadcasts daily? The CPM underground still exists in Singapore. So let us be clear that we are not talking about activities which are exclusively and totally harmless. These are activities which have potential for tremendous damage to our nation. On this basis, he goes on to develop the point that they should be released immediately. He says, "Well, they've gone on television. They've said all that they have to say. We have established the case. So release them." He says he knows one of them. "Show humanitarian feelings and compassion." We are not devoid of humanitarian feelings.”
“That he was a Marxist in contact with Filipino communists, that he was, on instructions, setting up a Communist network, that he was, using, again on instructions, typical Communist united front tactics to infiltrate lawful organizations, that he was deliberately, as a matter of strategy, using religious organizations and religious publications. He thought it was a safe cover, that it would give them immunity. More than that: What was the plan to build up pressure groups to confront the Government, first, peacefully and then what? Escalating into mass events, leading to public disorder and maybe even riots, bloodshed and violence. Let us also not forget that Filipino communists were brought to Singapore to direct plays for the Third Stage. One member even attended a terrorist camp in Sri Lanka. Distribution of religious publications, contents of which were out and out political agitation. Distributed to whom? Distributed to priests with the intention of influencing them for it will have a multiplier effect on their congregation. Is that innocent? Infiltration of lawful organizations to hijack them away from their legitimate and legal objects for purposes of political agitation. Is that innocent? The Member for Serangoon Gardens put it in the proper context, ie, that we must view this not in isolation but in the context of our past. Have we forgotten our past, the chaos, bloodshed, violence caused by communists and racial agitators? Here, the recent episode has not one but two volatile elements, the Marxist element and the element of misuse of religion. Each by itself alone is potential for causing a tremendous explosive situation in Singapore. The Member for Potong Pasir says liberation theology is something new to him.”
“Indeed, interrogation of one detainee was stopped on medical advice on account of a flu. The Member for Potong Pasir obviously relies only on mischievous reports in the foreign press but he does not even consider local press and Malaysian press reports. The girl, Ng Bee Leng, reported in the press: 'The entire period of my detention I was not physically assaulted. Nobody laid a hand on me.' She confirmed that she had vomitted. But why? She said: 'I have been feeling quite sick. I was about to catch the flu.' And the doctors also advised that she was suffering from flu. What about the others? The Member for Potong Pasir, if he had read press accounts, would have found others, Mah Lee Lin, was quoted by the press: 'I have been treated very nicely by the officers. They gave me everything I wanted.' Jenny Chin reported in the Malaysian press that she was well treated during her detention. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there will always be mischievous reports in foreign newspapers. The Members of this House must be aware of the motives and intentions of those who purvey these reports in the foreign press. Sir, may I now proceed to deal with the main points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir. First of all, he argues that these arrested persons are idealists, harmless, may not engage in anything which can be said to be a threat to the security of Singapore. Is that so? What are the facts? Others Members have recounted some of them. What has Vincent Cheng told us?”
“Members will recall that this group of four persons were responsible for spreading rumours of racial clashes on or around May 13 and had been actively making preparations for these racial clashes, including sharpening of parangs, charming parangs, distribution of red sashes which were supposed to make them invulnerable. In the midst of all this when they went to Scudai for training sessions, the BSS leaders told the group, in particular Maznan, that the BSS groups in Kuala Lumpur and Johor would come and assist them if there were racial clashes in Singapore. Maznan was asked specifically to select at least 10 Singaporeans who could be sent to Johor for training in spiritual powers of the BSS. Fortunately, Sir, the group was arrested before Maznan could recruit the 10 instructors who were then supposed to instruct others in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir as well as a few other Members have asked me about all these allegations of torture. I have already publicly given a comprehensive statement. Just to reiterate the points that I have made, there is no truth in these allegations. First of all, we do not do these things and you cannot expect to do these things and get away with it in Singapore. Secondly, we do not do it not only because it is wrong but because it is unnecessary. Because each time we act under the ISA, we do so only after we have information, evidence, grounds, which we confront persons whom we arrest. Thirdly, Sir, Members will realize that no relative and no lawyer for the detainees has made any complaint of ill treatment. Fourthly, during interrogations, doctors are available to attend to the needs of detainees to see if they are fit to proceed.”
“We had wanted to extradite Tan Wah Piow but the Attorney- General advised that it was not possible to make a formal request for extradition for the following reasons: First, the offence under the Enlistment Act was not an extraditable offence. Second, the offence of having used a false document for purposes of gaining entry into the United Kingdom was an offence which was committed outside Singapore and therefore it was not extraditable. Third, he advised that it was only the United Kingdom Government which could punish or try Tan Wah Piow for the offence of having entered United Kingdom on a false document. Fourth, he advised that it was not possible to seek extradition for purposes of investigation under the Internal Security Act of Tan Wah Piow's role in the Marxist conspiracy. Hence, for these legal reasons, it is not possible to make a formal request for extradition. Another specific query which was raised was by the Member for Eunos who asked, in the context of yesterday's question for oral answer on foreign organizations and connections, whether there were any foreign organizations or connections with regard to the four members of the Silat group who were arrested. Sir, the answer to that is indeed there is a connection. Members will recall that the four persons- Maznan, Mohamed Noor, Jumaat and Abdul Gani - three of them had received training in Scudai, Johor Baru, from a spiritual Silat group known as the Budi Suci Sejati. Training involved ritual baths, silat stances and recitation of Quranic verses.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I respond to the various points raised in the debate by hon. Members. First, let me dispose of certain preliminary specific points before dealing with the thrust of the motion standing in the name of the Member for Potong Pasir and the amendment of the Member for Clementi. First, the Member for Radin Mas asked me to clarify whether it was true that those arrested, all of them, were Catholics. The answer is no. Of the 22 who were arrested, only 4 were Catholics. Second, the Member also asked for some clarification with regard to Tan Wah Piow's extradition and he referred to the press report in the Straits Times, which quoted the new British High Commissioner, that the Singapore Government had not made a formal request for the extradition of Tan Wah Piow. Sir, it is common knowledge that Tan Wah Piow has been wanted for a long time by the Singapore Government. We all know that he had committed an offence under the Enlistment Act when he failed to report for national service. He disappeared mysteriously and we later learned that he had fled to the United Kingdom. We were, of course, aware of the state of the travel document that he had when he left Singapore. We had photocopies of the passport supplied to us by the British High Commission and on that basis we suspected that he had forged the passport in order to gain entry into the United Kingdom. The matter was reopened in late 1986 when we were investigating the Marxist conspiracy. We asked the British Government to return the actual passport and it was returned to us in February 1987. An examination of the passport confirmed that Tan Wah Piow had made use of a forged document for purposes of entry into the United Kingdom.”
“Tan Wah Piow was the mastermind of this particular network of Marxist conspirators. As I have stated publicly, there are many unanswered questions about Tan Wah Piow. In view of his sympathies for, and links with, the CPM (about which several of the detainees who are his close associates related on television), we have good reasons to conclude that Tan Wah Piow is not the mastermind behind the larger, more dangerous communist conspiracy. Until we interrogate Tan Wah Piow, we cannot be certain of the identity of persons or groups immediately behind Tan Wah Piow. KIDNEY TRANSPLANTS FOR NON-SINGAPOREANS 4. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon asked the Acting Minister for Health whether it is possible for a non-Singaporean kidney patient to benefit from our organ donation programme.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for Punggol, who is also the Chairman of the GPC on National Development, for his favourable comment. He has made a specific suggestion of conveying the key provisions of the Bill to members of the public in a form which is easily understood and shorn of all the technical legalisms. I think this is a good idea and my Ministry, together with the Ministry of National Development which has also an interest in the implementation of this Bill, will liaise to see how best it can be done. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes past Four o'clock pm. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS BY-ELECTIONS IN ANSON AND GEYLANG WEST 1. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Prime Minister what are the reasons for not holding the by-elections at Anson and Geylang West Constituencies.”
“The more foreign groups or individuals interfere, the more closely we examine their interests and when these protests come from those against Singapore's interests, the more systematically we proceed to protect our own interests, namely, the stability, security and prosperity of Singapore. HDB RENTAL TENANTS (Execution of legal documents and collection of keys) 5. Dr Ho Tat Kin asked the Minister for National Development if the Housing and Development Board will consider changing the current procedure of rental tenants having to execute the legal documents at the Board's head office and to collect the keys at the area office to allowing rental tenants to execute the legal documents and collect the keys at the same time at the area office.”
“Secondly, except for one organization, they did not protest when we announced at about the same time the arrests of another group of four Singaporeans who were members of a silat group spreading rumours and actively making preparations for racial clashes. Why? None of the organizations ventured to explain this double standard. Thirdly, these organizations claim to have a principled stand against the ISA. Yet, while they loudly protested against the arrests in Singapore, there was a deafening silence on their part when subversive elements were arrested in their own country under their ISA in May 1987. Fourthly, they conveniently ignored the fact that the Internal Security Act of Singapore is based on the Malaysian Internal Security Act. And unlike organizations in the West, these organizations cannot claim ignorance of the security threats from communists, racial and religious extremists which have led to the ISA remaining in the statute books of both Malaysia and Singapore. Sir, it is obvious that these organizations have double standards and have some ulterior motive in making Singapore as their whipping boy. And some have axes to grind. For they cannot believe that their protests can bring about results in Singapore. I must leave Members to form their own conclusions as to why is it that it is only our exposure and disruption of the Marxist conspiracy of English-educated graduates, including UK-returned students, that caused these organizations to express righteous indignation, while they remain disinterested over others whom we have arrested under the ISA. The Singapore Government is accountable to the people of Singapore.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a protest can only be lodged with a foreign government over actions attributable to that government. In the case of the arrests under the ISA, the question of protest does not arise because the Malaysian Government on its part has not done anything which amounts to interference in our internal affairs. On the contrary, the Malaysian Prime Minister and their Foreign Minister have publicly stated that the Malaysian Government could not interfere in the matter as it was strictly a Singapore affair. This is consistent with the practice which both Governments have always adopted of not interfering with each other's actions to deal with internal security problems. It is true, however, that a number of Malaysian organizations have protested against the arrests. They have demanded that the detainees be released unconditionally, immediately, or be charged in court. Some have alleged that those arrested did not pose a threat to the security of Singapore and that our security action was a move to suppress political opponents. Some have even called for the abolition of the ISA. I am sure that hon. Members would have noticed some strange and interesting aspects of these protests. First, these arrests are not the first time that we have acted under the Internal Security Act. Yet, none of these organizations protested before. It is only when we unmasked a Marxist conspiracy of English-educated graduates that they felt compelled to protest, although it has got nothing whatsoever to do with them. It is more than likely that the FUEMSSO Singapore members had worked together with their Malaysian counterparts whilst they were in Britain.”
“All I wish to say, Sir, is to repeat again that whether or not the Member likes to believe that he represents the masses, the point is that at the sitting on 4th March, we made it clear that the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry on those terms as read out by him was in response to his request. He made the request and we responded on the grounds that we do not want to give any impression that there is any matter of public interest on which we want to conceal or cover up. And to quote the words of the Prime Minister, he said, "I assume that the Member will lead evidence. Because we have not seen the need for this Inquiry." It is the Member who wanted the inquiry and I think we must get that on record. PARKS AND TREES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 11.50 am”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, perhaps I could urge the Member for Whampoa and others who are intending to speak that we should not have a long debate on this. I have said that it is up to the Commission to decide whether it wants to exercise its discretion to make any payments. The Member for Potong Pasir has made his point and I think these are matters which should be taken up in the Commission of Inquiry. Two small points. Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir said that it is the Government which must do the job on this Commission of Inquiry with regard to his terms of reference. I think it is necessary for me to place on record who wanted this Commission of Inquiry. If we refresh our memory of the debate on the 4th March, it was the Member for Potong Pasir who wanted it. The Prime Minister made it clear that, as far as the Government was concerned, we had nothing to hide. But it was not the Government which wanted the Commission of Inquiry; he wanted the Commission. The Government responded that if he wanted the Commission, we will agree to the establishment of the Commission, and he agreed to lead evidence. I think we should get that clearly on the record. As to the terms of the advertisement, Sir, these are matters which must be determined by the Commission and by the Commission themselves. There are set forms and precedents on this matter, and it is up to the Commission to decide whether they want to consult him at all. I would have thought that the Commission would proceed on the basis that other Commissions have proceeded and use the formula and format which have been used from time immemorial. Thank you, Sir.”
“Quite frankly, I cannot see everybody wanting to lead evidence, but this must be something that we should have to leave to the Commission because, once the Commission is established, they are the masters of their procedure. But, no doubt, I am sure they will take note of the preamble paragraph in the Instrument which notes that the Member in this House had undertaken to lead in evidence. I think I have covered the points, Sir.”
“Here, too, Sir, I would like to point out this is not something within my authority to decide. I will refer him to section 7(g) of the Inquiry Commissions Act where the Commissioners have the power to award any person who has attended any meeting of the Commissioners, including interpreters and so forth, such sums as in the opinion of the Commissioners may have been reasonably incurred by him by reason of such attendance. Of course, I do not know how the Commissioners will exercise their discretion. It is up to the Member for Potong Pasir to make a submission to the Commission and it is up to the Commission to exercise its discretion. I understand that in recent Commissions of Inquiry, like the Hotel New World, some of the people in the private sector who gave expert evidence and testimony did not claim any monetary compensation and, perhaps, their view was that they were doing a public service. But it is not for me to tell the Member and his colleagues from the legal profession who are going to help him, whether they should forgo this monetary compensation on a matter of such public interest which, he says, exists in this matter. Then he said in Parliament that although he has undertaken to lead evidence, he will not always be there - this is something we must leave to him - and that there will be others leading evidence, that he cannot be in the stand all the time. Well, I take it that if he leads evidence, he need not necessarily be in the stand. There is a difference between leading evidence and giving evidence. I am not sure whether there is a confusion here. We have understood him to say that on these terms, on his terms, he will lead in evidence and that he will bring others to give evidence.”
“The Executive, the Minister for Law, does not give special directions to the Commission and, indeed, it would be improper. He has said that he hopes that there will not be a rush job, that time will be required. I think this is understandable. Again, this will depend on the Commis- sion. There are certain preliminary matters which will have to be done. There will have to be an advertisement, a public advertisement calling for members of the public who have information or representations to make on any of the terms to submit their views within a specified time, and this will be done. I am sure the Commission will organize its sittings in such a way that all the preliminary work which has to be done and perhaps even requests by the Member for Potong Pasir for whatever information that he needs is obtained by him before they begin to sit. I assume that this will be so. As far as the Government is concerned, we also do not want this to be a rush job and the Commission should take its time with all the preliminary matters before they conduct their public sittings. He has asked for help by the Police. He hopes the Police will help us - by "us" I take it that he means the Commission of Inquiry. If he will look at the Instrument of Appointment, under the hand of the President, the last page, the Commissioner of Police is directed "to detail police officers to attend upon the Commission for the purpose of preserving order ..., to serve summonses ... perform such ... duties as the Commission may direct." Then he expressed the hope that the lawyers being busy people, those lawyers I take it from the private sector, I take it including himself, who will be involved in the Commission's proceedings, will be given adequate remuneration.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may touch on the points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir. He commented on the first term of reference. I have explained the reasons why this first term is necessary. I have referred to certain statements that he had made which to any reasonable person reading those statements must imply that the CPIB was less than thorough in its investigations. I am glad to hear him this morning that he did not intend to say that the CPIB did not investigate properly. But I take it that he does not object to this additional term because the Instrument of Appointment incorporates all that he wanted and the Commission's terms of reference will not exclude whatever he wanted. The Instrument includes his terms and more, which is necessary for the reasons I have given. Second, Sir, he has said that he will be writing to me with various requests. I think it is important to establish one point - that once the Commission of Inquiry has been established, it then is created and has its own life and momentum and the Executive does not interfere with the way the Commission of Inquiry goes about its business. What powers it has are spelt out in the Inquiry Commissions Act (Chapter 48). I will refer him to the provisions and he will note that the Commission has considerable powers of investigation, summoning of witnesses, production of documents, etc. So the requests which he envisages to direct at me, in fact, should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and, when the Commission meets, to the Commissioners themselves, if he finds that his requests have not been adequately dealt with. That is an important point. We have established the Commission. It will be gazetted and thereafter it gets on with the job.”
“Therefore, the thoroughness and effectiveness of investigations of the CPIB into the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan should be inquired into by the Commission of Inquiry. With regard to this term, the Deputy Public Prosecutor will lead evidence to show that CPIB carried out its duties effectively and properly. The Director of CPIB will give evidence under this term. After this term of reference has been addressed, the Commission will then address the terms requested by the Member for Potong Pasir. With regard to those terms, he will, as he had undertaken, bring forth his witnesses and lead in evidence.”
“There must be certainly something behind that. If we dig deep enough, we will find the evidence.' In other words, he casts a doubt over the thoroughness and effectiveness of CPIB's investigations that they did not dig deep enough. The Government had expected the Member for Potong Pasir to refine his terms to inquire into the adequacy and efficacy of CPIB's investigations. He has not done this. The Government cannot allow these doubts on the effectiveness of investigations of CPIB to stand unchallenged. Accordingly, before proceeding to investigate the terms of reference which the Member has spelt out, the Commission will first address itself to the first term of reference, and I read: '(1) To enquire whether - (a) the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau did all that was necessary to uncover all the acts of corruption or criminal wrongdoing of the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan in investigating complaints of or leads to acts of corruption by the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan as Minister for National Development; (b) the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau 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; (c) there has been any attempt to overlook, to conceal or to cover-up any information concerning corruption or criminal wrongdoing.' Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is in the public interest that there can be no suggestion of any concealment or cover- up of any corruption or criminal wrongdoing by the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan or any other Minister or Parliamentary Secretary or Government officer.”
“' In deference to the Member's stated desire to recast his terms in an acceptable form, the Government waited for his redraft. On the morning of 23rd March, I asked the Member whether he had a redraft or if his terms read out in the House on 4th March were final. He asked for time, and at about 6.00 pm that day he handed me his revised terms of reference. I now wish to inform the House that the President has appointed a Commission of Inquiry consisting of three members as proposed by the Member. The Chairman of the Commission will be Judicial Commissioner, Mr Chan Sek Keong, and the other two members will be Mr Robert Iau Kuo Kwong and Mr Thai Chee Ken. The full text of the instrument of appointment signed by the President will be gazetted soon and is now circulated for the information of hon. Members. I shall request the Clerk to kindly distribute the said instrument. [Copies of instrument distributed to hon. Members]. Sir, this instrument reproduces the revised terms of reference submitted by the Member for Potong Pasir in their entirety as terms of reference No.(2) and No.(3). The instrument also records the fact that the Member had undertaken to lead in evidence (the words used by him) relating to those said terms. If I may turn to another matter, Sir. At our sitting of 4th March, the Member made several references which implied that the CPIB had been less than thorough in their investigation of the case. For example, he asked whether, now that the Minister has died, everything will be closed and covered up. He said that there was "evidence that strange goings-on have taken place. This is indeed very, very strange. So I think there is need for an inquiry into that area." Then referring to a core contractor willing to give a bribe, he said: 'It is no small sum.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Members will recall that at our sitting on 4th March, the Member for Potong Pasir asked the Prime Minister "whether he will call a public inquiry to get to the bottom of (what he termed) the Teh Cheang Wan affair and to make recommendations to prevent further corruption at high places." The Prime Minister said that 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. The Prime Minister repeatedly asked the Member to spell out the terms of reference. It was only after the lunch adjournment that the Member read out his proposed terms, although he said that he had it all the time since that morning. The Prime Minister pointed out that the terms were ambiguous and suggested that the Member refine them. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister said he was prepared to accept the draft as it was and to gazette it because he would not stop any inquiry. In reply, the Member insisted that "as far as the substance of this reference goes, (that is, the reference of the inquiry that he wanted) it stays." The Member also requested that there should be three commissioners instead of one. In response to the Prime Minister's question whether he would lead evidence on the terms requested by him, he said: '... not only I will lead in evidence but I have certainly people who are willing to assist me in that area.' And this was noted by the Prime Minister when he said: '... as he said he would lead evidence and he will bring people to bring evidence. So be it.' The Member's final words on the terms were: 'I wish to have these terms of reference written out in a form that is accepted under the Inquiry Commissions Act.”
“That is for the Government to decide and if the Member wants to pursue it, by all means. Secondly, Mr Chairman, Sir, to respond to the Member for Jalan Kayu, his point is that we should have some guidelines. Guidelines do exist. But to go beyond that? One of his suggestions was perhaps we should have a time limit, a 10-year limit, on criminal records. I am not sure whether that itself is a good and convincing answer. I would ask him, as he is in the banking sector: would he be interested to know if potential applicants to the banking sector who are going to be employed by his firm, would he ask them to disclose whether they had any previous convictions? And if a person had a previous conviction for counterfeiting or embezzlement of funds, 12 or 13 years ago, would he consider that irrelevant or relevant? He may consider it irrelevant if the person is going to be employed in a job in a bank which does not have access to money. But if the applicant is going to have access to money, he may consider it relevant. If a person was convicted of child molesting and rape, is that relevant or irrelevant? It may not be relevant in certain kinds of jobs. But it may be relevant if you are going to put him in charge of a child-care centre, even though he was convicted of child molesting more than 10 years ago. So these are the questions we have to ponder carefully, instead of arbitrary delineation of 10 years or 15 years. You have to leave it to the employer to decide. Thank you, Sir.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, he should be told that he does not need a seconder for an adjournment motion. Mr Chairman, a full reply was given and the gist of the reply is - it is not a question of image, it is a question of law, order and security. Whether Mr Chia Thye Poh wants or does not want to continue detention very much depends on Mr Chia Thye Poh himself, and that was stated here; his refusal to give a statement on renunciation of force and violence as a means of change in Singapore.”