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 54 of 66.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament: (1) accepts the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into allegations of Executive interference in the Subordinate Courts as contained in Cmd Paper 12 of 1986; and (2) deplores as dishonourable the conduct of the Member for Anson in pleading Parliamentary Privilege to evade having to give evidence on his allegations of Executive interference, allegations he had made on several occasions in this House, all of which were calculated to undermine confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the Subordinate Courts Judiciary. Sir, what is this debate and what is this motion all about? It is not about the Member for Anson. It is not about the Opposition. It is not about freedom of speech. Then what is the issue? Sir, the issue concerns a far more grave, a far more serious matter. The issue is about fundamental institutions and basic values of our society, an issue concerning standards of political integrity. It is about irresponsible attempts to bring into total disrepute our major institutions to destroy the integrity and thereby undermine the stability of our society's key institutions. Every society has its key institutions and fundamental pillars. Chip away at them, bring about cracks, and the whole fabric of our society may be brought to ruin. The Member for Anson's unfounded attack on the Judiciary is a clear example of this attack. His allegations, everyone must know and he must know, can have only two consequences. Within Singapore, it will undermine the confidence of our people in the integrity of our judicial system.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Members and the press can refer to the exhaustive discussion on 18th March. I do not intend to allow the Member to wriggle out by sidetracking the issue.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not see how his source can be credible when I have shown the House that the whole story is a figment of the imagination and totally fabricated. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Members will note that I have given an opportunity to the Member to own up like a gentleman to apologize for having misled the House for having raised what is a truly fabricated story. His view is that as an MP he can bring to this House any untruth or falsehood based on hearsay, rumours and third-party reports. His refusal to apologize, Mr Speaker, Sir, in any respectable Parliament in the Commonwealth would be considered a breach of privilege and so too our House must set certain standards in this regard, and I accordingly, Sir, wish to make a complaint of breach of privilege under Standing Order 95(7)(b).”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I can understand the Member for Anson's anxiety to sidetrack the whole issue. But we will not be sidetracked because my Ministry's position on the question of any possible contraventions of procedures have been fully answered and we fully answered his questions on 18th March 1986. He asked in what way does he owe an apology. I thought it would have been very clear. He owes an apology to this House for having misled it, for having misled us into believing that he had a basis for making such a serious complaint when it now turns out that he never met Mr Lim Poh Huat or members of his family, and the whole complaint was fabricated on hearsay and a third-person report. I think I will give him a last opportunity if he will apologize to the House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue is not whether the Police would or would not investigate. I have on previous occasions made it clear. Complaints of wrongdoing will be investigated. Any black sheep in the Police Force will be dealt with. The issue is whether an MP can come to this House and construct a serious complaint against the Police or any other Government department, or make a serious accusation without having taken any reasonable steps to ascertain if there was some grain of truth in the story. The Member for Anson said that all he did was to be satisfied about the third person, not Lim Poh Huat, not any member of his family. In fact, what the Member for Anson is saying is that if I have an appointment with Mr X and Mr X does not turn up and I question him and he tells me a story that actually he had gone to see the Member for Anson (if he was a client of the Member for Anson) and he had gone to see the Member for Anson to charge the Member for Anson for having pocketed his client's money, does that entitle me to come to this House to accuse the Member for Anson for pocketing client's monies? That is what this boils down to, and that is why I have asked the Member for Anson if he would apologize. I will give him one more opportunity as to whether he would apologize for having misled the House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, he has withdrawn the allegation but I asked if he would apologize to the House for having misled the House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, his refusal to cooperate with the Police on a matter which he raised, his inability to produce Mr Lim Poh Huat after all these months, the fact that he did not take steps to ensure the bona fides of the complaint, all these surely condemn him as being irresponsible. Clearly, the complaint is a fabrication. He has clearly misled us, Mr Speaker. I will now ask him: will he admit that he had made an unjust and false allegation? Will he withdraw the allegation, and will he apologize to the House for having misled us?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have asked on at least two occasions what are the steps that he took to ascertain the veracity of the story. And all that he can reply is, he kept asking the person who made the statement to him. I asked if he was a member of the family? He was not. The Member for Anson, in other words, is telling us to accept as permissible the practice of any Member coming to this House on the basis of hearsay and third-person report, and on the basis of a rumour, which he has not ascertained or tried to verify, and make a complaint against any Government department of abuse of powers, based solely on that unverified complaint. Of course, he does not have powers of investigation. That is not the issue. The issue is, did he make any attempt to verify that there was indeed such a person called Lim Poh Huat, leave alone whether he was arrested on that particular date, leave alone whether he had been arrested for 15 hours. Did he take any steps, and his answers to my question quite clearly show that he did not. Did he make any attempts to contact members of the family? Presumably, his informant would have informed him of the address of Lim Poh Huat. He would probably say, "Ask the Police to investigate." He might like to know that, according to the National Registration Office, there are at least 62 Lim Poh Huats in Singapore. And if you take into account persons whose names sound similar or spelt almost similar, there are more than 100 persons. The question therefore is, Mr Speaker, Sir, an issue of responsibility. Can a Member come to this House and make such complaints based solely on hearsay and a third-person report?”
“Sir, the issue is not whether the Police now can interview because, on the basis of investigations, we know that the whole story has been fabricated. I would like to put the issue as what is the responsibility of any Member of the House when he brings up such serious accusations in Parliament. Have they done the minimum that is to be expected of an hon. Member? I have asked the question, what steps did the Member take to ascertain the veracity of the story before he raised it in Parliament on two occasions. And I have also asked another question, when was the statement signed?”
“Did he, for example, during these few months which have lapsed, speak to Mr Lim Poh Huat, speak to members of his family? Did he write to him? Did he telephone him? We want to know what are the steps he took to ascertain the veracity of the statement, apart from the so-called signed statement. And may I also ask whether the signed statement was made before or after the Member raised this question in this House? Because if he had the statement before he raised it, he could have very well informed us. I would like to know what is the date of that signed statement, and is he prepared to let the Police have that signed statement?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson did not make a casual accusation, a casual complaint. The complaint was made on two different occasions and, to know the gravity of his charges, let me very quickly point out what is it that the Member for Anson is saying. This is what he said, on the first occasion, giving an example of Police misuse of powers. "Does the Minister know that someone was arrested on the 1st March in the early hours of the morning and because he did not happen to have his identity card on him he was hauled off to the police station and he was locked up till 3.00 pm that afternoon? What was the reason for that? What was the reason for preventing him from getting in touch with his family?" Not a general inquiry, but a specific accusation. On 27th March he repeated. This is a case of a worker returning home at midnight after he had finished his work. Unfortunately he did not have on him his identity card. He "was stopped by the Police and was hauled off to the police station. For what offence? Because he did not have his identity card. And he says this man was taken off to the police station, put into a cell and was there for 15 hours or so till 3.00 pm. Then he was released without any charge preferred against him. During this time he was not allowed to telephone members of his family because a telephone call would have brought his identity card to the station. This is one instance." Such grave, serious accusations, when raised by hon. Members, surely must mean that the hon. Member must have taken some steps to verify the veracity of the claim before raising it here. I would like to know from the Member for Anson what steps did he take to ascertain the credibility and veracity of the complaint.”
“And all that he has said is that he has a signed statement from someone whose integrity he respects. I would like to ask, first, whether the Member for Anson can tell us if this signed statement, if not from Mr Lim Poh Huat, which is what I take it to be, was from a member of Mr Lim Poh Huat's family?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, what the Member for Anson has said is truly disturbing. He has attempted to wriggle out ---”
“If any officer has committed an offence as alleged by the Member, we shall prosecute him and discipline him including dismissal from the Force. But what the Member has done is to tarnish the image of the entire Police Force, and attempt to undermine public confidence in the Police without any excusable reason for so doing. The Member, as I have said, has not agreed to produce this Lim Poh Huat. I ask him now, can he and will he produce him? May I also ask the Member if he took any steps to ensure that there was indeed such a person, let alone one who suffered from unlawful detention. Sir, these are very important questions and I hope the Member for Anson will respond.”
“) In view of the seriousness of your allegations, I trust you will give affirmative answers to these questions.' Sir, after more than one month, the Member has still not produced any evidence to support his allegations. Indeed, he has not even offered to produce this mysterious Lim Poh Huat. Indeed, Members may want to know what was his response to the Minister of State's request for cooperation by producing the said Lim Poh Huat for interview with him being present. This is what he said in his most recent letter of 23rd July: '... I am under no obligation to account to anybody for any question that I raise in Parliament and that a Member can only be questioned in Parliament on anything said by him in Parliament.' Several pertinent questions arise. First, why does he refuse to provide information on an alleged Police wrongdoing which he has brought up in Parliament? Secondly, why is he so defensive, pleading privilege and saying that he cannot be questioned for things said in Parliament? Has he forgotten that he has actually already made these allegations outside Parliament and without the benefit of privilege when he repeated all these allegations in writing to me and my Minister of State? Sir, as I have said, after an exhaustive investigation, my Ministry has established that the allegation of wrongful arrest was totally unfounded. There is no person by the name of Lim Poh Huat arrested or detained at the dates and times as alleged by the Member, ie, from past midnight 1st March to 3.00 pm on 2nd March. Everyone knows that serious disciplinary action is always taken against any Police officer who contravenes procedures or abuses powers.”
“The second point which the inquiry has established is that the Member for Anson did not make any report whatsoever at the Joo Chiat Police Station as claimed by him. May I on this point, Mr Speaker, Sir, digress to say that when my colleague, the Minister of State, wrote to the Member for Anson asking for details as to which officer he saw in the Joo Chiat Police Station, he responded by saying that, well, if he said that, he probably made a slip (of the tongue, I guess) and that he had sent a correction to the Clerk of Parliament. Whereupon we wrote to the Clerk of Parliament to ask what was the correction. And to our utter astonishment, we found that the Member tried to make a correction to change the words "I made a report at Joo Chiat Police Station" to "There should be a report at Joo Chiat Police Station." There is a world of difference between the two. The Clerk of Parliament informed us that the change had not been accepted. It is not surprising because it is a material change. And we would like to know why the Member for Anson tried to doctor the report in this manner. Sir, coming back to the substance of the allegations. On three occasions the Minister of State replied to the Member's letters, stating categorically that there was no basis to his allegations. In his letter of 25th June, the Minister of State asked the Member for Anson: 'Will you therefore agree to produce details of your allegations and evidence supplied to you by the said Lim Poh Huat so that these can be examined by my Ministry's officials and the Police? Will you also agree to produce the said Lim Poh Huat for interview by my Ministry's officials and the Police? (You can, if you wish, be present during this interview.”
“Sir, I asked the Police to let me see the report made by the Member for Anson at the Joo Chiat Police Station and I ordered a thorough investigation. I ordered a thorough investigation because I assumed that the Member would not have raised such an allegation without first satisfying himself that there was some credence to the claim. I assumed that he as a Member of Parliament would have at least established that it was a bona fide claim. I assumed, for example, that he would have spoken to Mr Lim Poh Huat or members of his family. If Mr Lim was married, then I assumed he would have spoken to his wife and children. If he was single, to his parents, brothers or sisters. The investigation into the allegation continued. Records of the Joo Chiat Police Station were scrutinized. The officers were interviewed. Even the officers' pocket books were examined. I personally met with Ministry officials and Police officials to satisfy myself that the investigation had been thorough and that every possible record, document and lead had been examined. I also directed that all relevant documents relating to Joo Chiat Police Station's operations during the few days before and after 1st March 1986 be kept in safe custody. All these records are available for further official examination if this proves necessary should the Member maintain his allegations. Sir, what have these exhaustive investigations established? They have established two things. First, they have established that there was not a shred of evidence to suggest that a Lim Poh Huat had been arrested or detained at Joo Chiat Police Station, or for that matter, at any other Police Station in Singapore, for any length of time, leave alone 15 hours, on the dates and times alleged by the Member.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to inform Members that the Member for Anson has seriously misled the House when he made a complaint recently in the House of wrongful arrest and detention. As the Minister in charge of the Police Force, I have a duty to put the record straight. Sir, his allegation is totally false. Such allegations undermine the integrity of the Police Force. Sir, Members will recall that at our sitting on 18th March, the Member for Anson made the specific allegation that a person was arrested on 1st March at around midnight for not possessing an identity card and that he was locked up at the Police Station for about 15 hours, that is to say, into the following day, March 2nd. He also said that during this period, the person arrested had been prevented from contacting any member of his family. He repeated this allegation in the House nine days later on 27th March. On the first occasion, I asked for particulars and I added that I would then cause an investigation. No particulars were given. When he repeated the allegation, my colleague, the Minister of State, again asked for particulars. Again, the Member did not give any particulars but did say that he, the Member for Anson, had made a report at Joo Chiat Police Station. Nearly four weeks after the debate in this House, the Member for Anson finally wrote to me on 22nd April to provide the name of the person whom he claimed was arrested by the Police. He now alleged that his name was one Lim Poh Huat. In his letter, the Member for Anson repeated the allegation, namely, that Mr Lim Poh Huat had been arrested past midnight on 1st March, held in detention for 15 hours and released at about 3.00 pm the following day on 2nd March and he had not been allowed to contact any member of his family.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. WAGE RESTRAINT 3.41 pm”
“It gives protection to the author or owner of the copyright but at the same time provisions have been made for fair dealings, for the issue of statutory licences, for the issue of compulsory licensing arrangement, special provisions exist to cater to the needs of libraries, educational institutions and so on. There are, it is true, provisions for infringement of copyright but it is also provided that not every infringement would attract criminal prosecution. The law, in other words, Sir, attempts to be fair to all parties, is practical, and I think it would serve our country's national interest. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, That the Copyright Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. COMPANIES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 12.28 pm”
“He spoke about the May Day Rally. I am glad the Member for Kaki Bukit has answered him effectively. I was there, and I can testify that many of the persons who were there went there with infants in arms, little children who had to be carried. That speaks much more than the Member for Potong Pasir who admitted publicly that the only instance when he would have gone was if he was assured of an umbrella! So much for workers' solidarity! The Member for Kaki Bukit finally spoke about some of the points raised by other Members. His point about the need for communication and publicity programme is a valid one and one which we will give careful attention. As it is, some publicity has already been generated. But I take his point that as it is a Bill which affects so many persons, we should ensure that the maximum dissemination of the salient features of the Bill should be made public. Sir, as I said, I do not wish to go into the details of the points raised. Suffice it for me to say that copyright legislation is a very difficult legislation because it has to reconcile competing and conflicting interests - the interests of the author, the interests of the owner of the copyright, the interests of the consumer, the interests of the educational institutions, and so on. It has taken some time to draft this Bill but the time was necessary to ensure that the reconciliation was as desirable as possible. In the nature of copyright legislation, none of the interested groups can insist on having the cake and to eat it as well. There has to be compromise and adjustments and this is what our new law does.”
“There are very few instances where the author of a play performs the play himself. I have asked on numerous instances for the Member for Potong Pasir to cite me actual examples or, if he cannot cite examples, the provision of any law or regulation which requires the author of a play, of a book, of a drama, of a novel, of a newspaper, or a periodical, to submit the contents prior to publication to a Government agency for approval. The answer is: there is no such legal requirement. The only legal requirement that exists is with regard to public performance of plays which may require licensing under the relevant rules of the Public Entertainments Act. So the Member for Potong Pasir not only does not say anything about the Copyright Bill but even his irrelevancies are totally wrong. Mr Chiam See Tong rose -”
“Do not ask me whether it is true. He made the statement. I am asking for his authority. Does he know of any instance or does he know of any provision in any law which requires a person who is about to publish a play from getting approval and submitting its contents? I am waiting for the answer, Sir.”
“He made a statement. I am telling him now that it is totally untrue. I am asking him for his authority for the proposition that, under the laws of Singapore, any play or book has to be sent for prior censorship.”
“Can he tell me one instance where his Party or any other person had to submit a manuscript of a book before the book was printed?”
“Can I ask him whether he insists that every publication has to be screened in Singapore, including -”
“Or of a book. I do not know how you perform a book! Would the Member for Potong Pasir admit -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this shows his ignorance. What he said was - these are his words - "Every publication will have to be screened." There is, and any lawyer or layman would know, a very big difference between publication of a work and a performance in public before an audience of a play or a drama.”
“The publication of his Party - I forget the name and how often it appears - has carried all sorts of criticisms of the Government. Has he or his Party or the editors ever been asked to submit the contents of any forthcoming issue for publication for censorship or for approval or disapproval?”
“An important point was raised by the Member for Radin Mas when he said that several persons, including school children, are very concerned and apprehensive that their possession of materials - photo- copied or duplicated materials - might render themselves subject to prosecution. On this point, I think it is important for me to emphasize and to assure the Member that, under the proposed provisions of the law, possession will not be an offence. That is an important point which I think needs to be emphasized if, as indicated by the Member for Radin Mas, there is some confusion on this. Possession will not render one to criminal prosecution. The Member for Potong Pasir supported the Bill but everything else that he spoke had nothing to do with the Bill. His points were completely irrelevant. He talked about intellectual freedom and so on. I do not intend to deal with the breakfast or dinners that he had with various persons. But one important point which I want to make by way of rebuttal is that, and I quote his exact words, "Every publication in Singapore will have to be screened." These are his exact words - "every publication". I would like to ask him under which law, either in this Copyright Bill or under which other provision, is any publication, including his journal of the Singapore Democratic Party, required to be submitted for the contents to be screened? I will save him the embarrassment of having to rise up and admit his ignorance because there is no law requiring him or anybody else who wants to publish a book or any other publication to submit the contents of the publication to any Government agency for prior censorship. He knows it.”
“In this regard, I would like to refer to the answer which was, in fact, given by the Member for Chong Boon - that licensing and other contractual arrangements can be made. But equally and more important, I would like to point out that there are specific provisions in the Bill for educational institutions and I would like particularly to refer to clause 52 onwards. As to the comment about the provisions dealing with Government subject to confirmation which I have to make with the draftsmen, my understanding is that these are, in fact, identical to the provisions to be found in the legislation of other countries, such as Malaysia and Australia. But, as I said, this is subject to confirmation. The point was also made by the Member for Anson that private educational institutions seem to be excluded from the benefit of the provisions pertaining to educational institutions. Where such educational institutions are organized solely for profit, I think the reason may be quite obvious because where educational institutions are run for profit the persons running the institution logically ought to bear the burden of infringement of copyright. The Member for Chong Boon referred to clauses 31 and 32 and the concern and grievances of a particular group of book distributors. I assure him that this is being looked into as of now and it is a matter which will also be looked into by the Select Committee. The points made by the Member for Fengshan have some validity and the details of his proposal as to whether the exceptions made for consumers who make copies solely for personal or private use can be extended to areas other than that of recording or film or television broadcast will be looked into by the Select Committee.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have taken note of the various points and suggestions made by hon. Members. I thank them for their expressions of support and I give them the assurance that their views will be carefully examined by Government as well as by the Select Committee. In view of the fact that the Bill will be referred to Select Committee, hon. Members will understand if I do not deal with each and every one of their points so as not to pre-empt consideration and decision on their points by the Select Committee. I will refer to a few points brought up by some Members. The hon. Member for Bukit Timah asked whether the 30-day period is too short for international film manufacturers from publishing it here. This point actually will have to be taken care of by bilateral agreements or by accession to the international copyright conventions. He has referred to clause 199 and asked whether it meant that no action can be brought against infringement of copyrights which took place prior to the commencement of the operation of the Act. The answer to that is that infringement of copyright which occurred prior to the commencement of the operation of the Act can still be proceeded with by action. But the penalties and the other provisions will be governed by the existing law and not by the new provisions of the proposed Bill. He has referred to what he calls the computer network. He is obviously very well versed with computers and I would suggest that he kindly elaborate this point either in writing or in oral representation to the Select Committee. The Member for Anson expressed concern for textbooks for students, a point also made by other Members.”
“He is taking up my time. There was no wrongdoing. There was ample evidence for the detention and indeed the detention was deliberately delayed both by the CID and later by the Ministry of Home Affairs to take cognizance of the court case. And it is only when it was impossible to delay further that the detention was ordered. My response also shows, Sir, how carefully and seriously we take allegations of wrongdoing or assault in criminal law detention cases. Sir, earlier I had mentioned the rationale for criminal law detention. Let me also point out that there are many safeguards. Not only the Police are required to act under strict guidelines, the cases are scrutinized by my Ministry and the Attorney-General must consent before the papers are put up to me. When it comes to me, I do make queries. And after it has been approved by me, it goes to an Advisory Committee comprising of persons including lawyers in the private sector, and then it goes to the Cabinet. I might say that the Cabinet does not view these lightly either and the Cabinet has also asked searching and penetrating questions in certain cases. The Advisory Committee is not a farce. I know of cases where the Advisory Committee has, in fact, ordered the release of persons who have been recommended for detention. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes to Six o'clock pm to Monday, 31st March, 1986.”
“Sir, the Ministry's Legal Officer and the other officials decided that in view of this persistent secret society acts, a further delay in detention just because he had a summons case which was still dragging on, was not in the interest of law and order, and we gave consent. Why was he arrested outside the courts? The reason is that the Police ambushes at his known haunts and locations were unsuccessful, and he was arrested outside the courts.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have 10 minutes, I would like to use all of it.”
“--- to find out whether we have conducted any investigations. And if he is not satisfied with the reply, he could then raise it as a matter of public importance on a Motion for Adjournment. He never wrote to the Ministry or to my officials to find out the facts. Mr Jeyaretnam rose ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I start off first by saying that the points raised by the Member for Anson will be met fully during the 10 minutes that I have. But I would like to make the observation that although the Member for Anson says he does not have the intention of smearing the Police, in effect that is what he is doing because for the past 20 minutes he has constructed an edifice of wrongful detention based on what? Allegations, to use the word that he used, "allegations" and nothing more than allegations. I would have thought that, as a responsible Member, he would have written to me or to the Ministry of Home Affairs ---”
“Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. DETENTION OF DAVID TAN LENG HUAT 5.24 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Potong Pasir has the quotations which he claimed to recite earlier on, let us have the quotations and we can have a debate on another day.”
“Be patient, Member for Anson. The Minister of State will reply.”
“Because the Police will not and do not condone or tolerate any black sheep in their midst who perpetrate acts of violence, and we will want to weed them out of the Police Force. Having said that, I think the Member for Anson has done disservice by coming here and, solely on hearsay evidence, mind you, and together with the Member for Potong Pasir, criticized the Internal Security Act on allegations of hearsay evidence. He comes here on hearsay evidence and tarnishes the entire Police Force, saying that violence is rampant. I think it is totally uncalled for and a totally irresponsible act. I make no apologies for the criminal law preventive detention which he alluded to. Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as the Government is concerned, we would like to bring to book any criminal element in the courts of law. But we know that there are criminal elements, secret society gangsters, who we cannot bring to court under the normal processes because witnesses are terrified to testify in a court of law. The option therefore is: do we take into account the interests of the safety and security of our people, their ability to walk in the streets, live and work, with peace of mind? Or do we let loose all these criminals to harass, victimize and terrify our people? This Government has decided that if the normal processes of the law do not work, we cannot let loose these criminals on to our society. This is our responsibility and we intend to carry out the responsibility. If the Opposition Members come to power and they want to abolish the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and let loose all these criminals, that is their option, of course.”
“Sir, I have only 10 minutes left. Please allow me to finish. He claims that people are in a state of fear. It is really surprising that people, who are in a state of fear, could have elected two Members of the Opposition. I will not belabour the point about Chia Thye Poh. I have given a detailed statement in August 1985. I only need to stress what I said on that occasion - that Chia Thye Poh knows that he will be released if he gives an undertaking renouncing the use of force or, alternatively, he can be released to go to any country which is prepared to accept him. The Member for Anson, and this is the last point I will deal with, joined the bandwagon and says that Singapore is a Police state; Police are acting in rampant and reckless disregard of the law. Surely, as the Member, a legal practitioner, he must know that if this is true, there must be many successful prosecutions brought against the Police for assault and violence. I think it is very irresponsible and very unfair to the Police for him to come here and make allegations that the Police are resorting to violence. Where are his facts? If Members had heard him, this is what he said, "I hear of increasing stories. I hear people telling me this." In other words, Sir, the easiest allegation one can make against the Police, and it is a reckless way of ridiculing the Police in any country, is to spread a rumour alleging that the Police engage in violence. Within the Police, there are strict checks and safeguards to investigate any allegation of assault. As the Minister for Home Affairs, let me say that not only the Police but the Ministry also takes a very serious view of any allegation of assault and investigates it. Why?”
“His point is that there is no communist danger in Singapore, no possibility of communist insurrection or communist insurgency. I would prefer to rely on a political scientist such as the Member for Serangoon Gardens. Has not the Member for Potong Pasir heard of the Voice of Malayan Democracy, which is the CPM radio station which broadcasts even now? Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir said that the Internal Security Act should be abolished. I dread really the day if he became the Minister for Home Affairs and abolished the Internal Security Act.”
“A ceremony will be organized on a suitable date by Government to give commendations. Details as to the date, the function and the nature of the awards will be announced later. As regards his comments on sustaining the interest of Civil Defence, I have taken note of his proposal for telematch. We will give it consideration. But he is right that Civil Defence is a long-term effort and we must find ways and means of sustaining the interest over a long period of time as more and more volunteers will be coming on to the scene. Training them in basic Civil Defence skills alone may not harness their continuing interest. Perhaps they will have to develop into a separate grassroots organization of their own, with their own camaraderie and special ethos. But he is right that Civil Defence is an integral part of Total Defence. I think we all would have wished that the hotel collapse could have been avoided but he may be right that that unfortunate event might have brought to the minds of all of us how important it is to take Civil Defence seriously, which means not only the SCDF but all of us have to play a part in understanding the importance of Civil Defence, and taking part seriously in exercises and drills which are being held from time to time. Now I come to the point made by the Member for Potong Pasir. All of a sudden he has become an expert on communist insurrection! I do not know whether he listened to the comprehensive statement which I made on 31st August 1985 on the question of Chia Thye Poh and where I distributed fairly detailed papers to Members of the House. If he was here, obviously he did not listen, because if he had listened, he would not have made the point that he mentioned just now.”
“We will also mount and step up publicity over television, press and other media to spread the message on the do's and dont's. Fire safety exhibitions will also be held. Finally, together with Civil Defence, we will encourage as many people to purchase a BCF fire extinguisher. On the operational side, plans are in the pipeline to build five new fire stations and to relocate three others which will bring about a 15-fire station configuration which will help to reduce response time. As far as the query about arson is concerned, arson has been suspected in some but not most of the cases, and investigations are going on. The Member for Jalan Kayu will be pleased to know that the Police and Fire Officers have been undergoing specialized fire and arson investigations. Turning now to Civil Defence. I thank the Member for Jalan Kayu for his words of appreciation. I would really not want to single out any one particular group or unit for the effort in rescue operations when the hotel in Serangoon Road collapsed, because I think it was truly teamwork which we can all be proud of. It was indeed a very moving scene to see so many people - Singaporeans, foreigners, public sector, private sector, service personnel, non-service personnel, individuals, organizations working as a team, tirelessly and fearlessly, over so many days and nights, and many of them, in fact, risked their lives. I think it is a team effort in which the Civil Defence forces and volunteers also played their role. The Member also asked whether recognition will be given and the answer is yes. The Government has decided that recognition will be given to individuals and organizations who were directly involved in the rescue operations.”
“But the number of deaths in 1985 was high - 23. Many of the fires involved old buildings in which there were many people living in a rather congested situation. The Members asked what would be the strategy and approach of the Fire Service. Basically, Sir, the approach of the Fire Department is not very different from the approach of the Police in preventing crime, and tackling crime. The key really is to try to prevent fires because once a fire occurs it is really a question of trying to limit the damage and put out the fire as soon as possible. If prevention is the key, then our strategy is to mobilize and harness the cooperation of the people as widely as possible. This means to increase public knowledge on the do's and don'ts, and to increase public understanding of what is necessary to prevent fires. In this regard let me say that several steps have been taken. First, a National Fire Prevention Council has been formed and the members will be announced shortly. The purpose of the Council is to promote public awareness of fire safety and concern about outbreaks of fire and to secure public cooperation in establishing proper safeguards against loss of lives and properties in cases of fire. We hope that membership of the Council will be such that it will harness the support of the private sector, insurance sector, construction sector, and so on. Furthermore, in areas which are particularly vulnerable to fires, we are assisting the grassroots organizations there in establishing volunteer fire squads which will have the function of early alert and putting out incipient fires before the fire engines arrive. One has been formed in Chinatown and, if successful, we hope to form squads in other areas.”
“The Member for Anson talked about violation of fundamental human rights. The point I would like to make is that both the Registry of Marriages as well as the Office of the Work Permit, Commissioner for Employment, make it very clear to the parties before they marry that marriage does not confer automatic rights of entry or permanent residence. If I may quote from the letter which is issued at the Registry of Marriages. I will not read the entire text: 'This is to inform you that your marriage to a Singapore citizen/permanent resident will not automatically confer on you the right to reside in Singapore permanently. Similarly, it will not automatically entitle you to the issue or renewal of any immigration pass to remain or work in Singapore. The purpose of this notice is to inform you the position concerning the issue of entry permit for permanent residence or any other immigration passes to work or stay in Singapore.' And the party acknowledges receipt of this letter. Similarly, in work permit cases, where approval is given for marriage by the Commissioner for Employment, a similar letter is sent before marriage. It states, inter alia: 'Please note that the approval of marriage does not confer on the applicant the right to permanent residence in Singapore. Your continued stay in Singapore will normally be allowed if you are in employment.' So, Sir, in view of this fact that parties prior to a marriage are placed on notice, I do not see how there can be a so-called "violation of fundamental human right". Sir, may I now turn to the question of fire services which was raised by both the Member for Toa Payoh and the Member for Jalan Kayu. The number of fires in 1985 was 5,384. It was higher than in 1984 but lower than in 1981, 1982 or 1983.”
“We will be prepared to look at this case, not necessarily on the grounds of marriage, but on the merits of the case and the fact that he has been here for such a long period of time. She made references, I believe, to HDB and so on. This underlines the point that I made, ie, we must bear in mind that permanent residence and citizenship has privileges including that of housing and so on. But I would think that it is a wrong approach in shaping immigration policies to grant permanent residence because that person wants a particular privilege. That would be a wrong approach. In that case, then lots of people will be knocking at the doors of the Government wanting privileges and concessions which they would get only if they become permanent residents or citizens. I believe I have touched on most of the salient points. While we are on immigration, the other day the Member for Anson raised the same points which were dealt with when he asked supplementary questions with regard to the question the Member for Clementi asked on spouses. Mr Speaker, Sir, what I said the other day was that the practice in most countries of the world is to make a distinction between grant of citizenship or permanent residence on the one hand and grant of entry and immigration on the other. That was what I said, and he can check the Hansard. My Ministry has consulted the embassies of as many countries as it could - Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Brunei, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Japan, Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Germany, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Pakistan. My Ministry asked whether there is any automatic right of entry on the basis of marriage, and the answer is no. The only country where the answer was yes, was Switzerland.”
“If the person is already of age, then we would want the person to qualify on his own merits, and here again we do not take an unsympathetic view if the person is the only non-citizen in the family. As far as allowing persons, whether married or otherwise, to be here on long-term social visit pass, we do allow them extensions. Often these extensions are given up to three months in one year. Our concern will be really whether or not the grant of long-term social visit pass or repeated extensions will lead to a de facto permanent residence situation. That is one consequence we want to avoid, and for cases which she mentioned where extensions are necessary to allow persons to make arrangements we do give special consideration to such cases and we will continue to do so. I understand her poignant call for equality between male and female spouses. Maybe she is right that this distinction between applicants for citizenship or permanent residence, male spouses and female spouses, has its origin in some peculiar aspect of Asian culture which decrees that the woman must follow the man. I would not like to completely extinguish her hopes for eventual change in this alleged discrimination! She should continue the fight and perhaps with more Members of the fairer sex in our Chamber they can win the hearts and minds of the policy-makers. But let me caution here that our understanding of the position in countries where they have taken a very liberal view on this is that it has led to an increase in the number of marriages of convenience. So we would want to watch out for that. She gave an example of a situation where the husband has been here working and providing for the family for 13 to 18 years.”
“In December 1984, Members will recall that we amended the relevant laws to provide for enhanced penalties not only for illegal overstaying and illegal entry but also to penalize persons who harbour and employ illegal overstayers and illegal entrants. Action by Police, Immigration and Ministry of Labour will continue. Both overstayers and harbourers, including employers of illegal overstayers, must know, as they already know it, that it does not pay to engage in this activity for they cannot escape apprehension and prosecution. If I may turn to the points raised by the Member for Changkat. She has raised several issues. First, she has advocated that the Ministry should devise a special scheme for artists and talented persons and that our approach should not be too narrow. Indeed, we have considered this and I would say that our approach is not narrow because there is a special scheme for those who are artistically inclined and outstanding in their own fields. It is not just MTI or PIPS or CATS which are the vetting authorities. There are other vetting authorities, for example, Ministry of Community Development, SBC, Ministry of Education, who are consulted in these cases, and I would like to say in response to her comment that even religious workers are considered for permanent residence. As regards aged parents, while each case is considered on its own merits, I would like to inform her that we are sympathetic as far as possible, especially if the applicant has no other children to rely upon except the sponsor in that case. As for brothers and sisters, our policy is that if the person concerned is the only non- citizen in the family and is under 21, we are quite liberal and sympathetic.”