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 57 of 66.
“There has been an increase in the number of robbery and theft cases in the first three quarters of 1985,whilst the number of housebreaking cases has decreased for the same period.Robbery increased from 375 cases in the first quarter to 395 in the second quarter and 467 in the third quarter. Housebreaking has decreased from 1002 cases in the first quarter to 850 in the second quarter and 900 in the third quarter. Theft cases increased from 5408 in the first quarter to 5803 in the second quarter and to 6549 in the third quarter. To keep the crime situation under control, the police have increased preventive patrols in crime-risk areas and also adopted various enforcement strategies. More police officers have been put on plainclothes detective duties to concentrate on detecting and solving crimes. Anti-crime operations involving Neighbourhood Police Posts (NPPs), Police Task Force (PTF) and Voluntary Special Constabulary (VSC) officers, detectives and off-duty officers have also been stepped up. These measures have resulted in more arrests. Comparing the period January-September 1985 and January-September 1984, robbery arrests increased by 67 cases (22.1%) arrests for housebreaking increased by 47 cases (11.5%) and arrests for thefts increased by 303 cases (8.4%). The availability of on-line computerised screening at police stations since August 1985 has facilitated checks on suspicious persons and vehicles by patrol officers. As a result, more wanted persons have been arrested and stolen vehicles recovered. However, the police measures alone are insufficient to effectively control crime. Public cooperation with the Police is also necessary. Timely information from the public can greatly assist the police to detect and prevent crimes.”
“ROBBERY, HOUSEBREAKING AND THEFT 19. Mr Chew Heng Ching asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether there has been a noticeable increase in the number of robbery, housebreaking and theft cases in the last six months; and, if so, what measures are being taken to curb this increase.”
“The Government does not as a rule exclude persons with previous convictions from seeking employment in the Civil Service or Statutory Boards. Generally, an enlightened policy is adopted towards convicted persons who apply for jobs in the public sector. Each case will be considered on its own merit. The seriousness and nature of the offence as well as evidence of rehabilitation and likelihood of recidivism and the nature of the job applied for need to be considered. The Government has a policy of assisting reformed ex-prisoners to secure jobs on release from prisons. The process of helping ex-prisoners to secure employment begins in the prisons. Vocational training and work programmes are provided in the prisons. Prisoners acquire necessary skills and develop good work ethics so that they can secure suitable jobs after their release. In addition, there are Day Release Schemes for certain categories of prisoners. The prisoners on the Schemes are released to work in the day and return to the prisons after work. The Day Release Schemes are to prepare the prisoners for working life after their detention and to provide them with employment which they can continue after release. Just before their release, all convicted prisoners who have served one year or more are offered employment and other assistance by a pool of trained Welfare Officers from the Ministry of Community Development's Prison Welfare Service and Aftercare Officers from the Singapore Aftercare Association. Assistance to secure employment for all released prisoners is therefore part of the rehabilitation process. Ex-prisoners who have difficulty in finding employment can seek assistance from the Ministry of Labour, Ministry of Community Development or the Singapore Aftercare Association.”
“- the other half by one ISD officer and a family who cooks for him home-cooked meals. He can move freely. At his request, he was allowed to plant vegetables. He has a TV, video-recorder and a hi-fi set. He is the most pampered prisoner in Singapore, and he is not in solitary confinement. The Question having been proposed at Twenty-one minutes to Eight o'clock pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at Nine minutes past Eight o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. statement - STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Cols. 487 - 488) two lists - LIST OF STATEMENTS MADE BY CHIA THYE POH WHICH ADVOCATED ARMED STRUGGLE, LIST OF COMMUNIST UNITED FRONT ACTIVITIES CHIA THYE POH PARTICIPATED IN (Cols. 489 - 494)”
“- in protesting categorically that this person is detained solely for beliefs and for conscience? Then, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson went on to say that Mr Chia Thye Poh has been detained virtually in solitary confinement. Well, Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I can inform the House that Mr Chia Thye Poh is probably one of the most pampered, if not comfortable, of prisoners. He is not in a solitary confinement in some dark cell. He is comfortably housed in a house situated on three acres of land, half of which is occupied by him -”
“He was informed in 1968 and in the interviews. Every detainee is interviewed periodically, and he was informed of this, and he knows about it. The Member for Anson must be very careful that he is not taken for a ride. Let me mention: not only was Mr Chia Thye Poh in detention but, as I have said, when in detention between 1974 and 1979 he influenced several warders and used them to send to other detainees folded slips containing transcripts of broadcasts of the CPM radio station. And he also used them to try to get the names of senior ISD Police officers. What is more important now is that the CPM broadcasts repeatedly have shown interest in his case. As recently as March 1985, the Voice of Malayan Democracy, a CPM radio broadcast, referred to his case and expressed keen interest in Chia's detention. The question is: is the Member for Anson fully aware of what he has got himself into -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as long as the Member for Anson advocates that this person is innocent, my job is to bring all the information here.”
“In 1968. And he conveniently refused to admit it, and refused to even appear before the Advisory Board.”
“' Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Anson must know that the basic reason as to why certain kinds of cases cannot be dealt with under the normal process is where the witnesses would not come forth, and evidence under the normal rules will not be available because of this fear of intimidation and threats of assassination and liquidation. The Member for Anson claims that he was told only now of his membership of the CPM. This is not true. The first Order of Detention was based on ample grounds, including his activities in the Communist United Front. Chia's membership of the CPM surfaced in 1968, following disclosures of his membership by his CPM superiors. And Chia was informed.”
“Is this a prisoner of conscience? Is this a person who was detained for peaceful beliefs, and contrary beliefs? Or for advocating violence? Because of his militant utterances and agitations, the Malaysian Government in 1966 banished him from entering Malaysia. In Singapore, Chia advocated armed revolution to achieve a unified Malaya, a CPM objective, when speaking at a pro-Communist Singapore Commercial House and Factory Employees Union meeting in July 1966. He also abandoned the constitutional means and opted for mass struggle outside Parliament after the Barisan MPs quit Parliament; announced a new mass struggle to take the form of rallies, house-to-house visits, processions, strikes, and other illegal demonstrations. He was involved in these illegal demonstrations in which there was even violence. That, Mr Speaker, Sir, should nail the untruth being pervaded in this House that he was detained for his beliefs or for his conscience. Then the Member for Anson asks: why do we not charge him in court? This is a very naive question because he must know the reason why the Internal Security Act provides for preventive detention. The Member knows that there are security cases where it is not possible to get witnesses to come to the court because the CPM will intimidate and liquidate potential witnesses. An open trial of a Communist is not possible. Police officers will have to disclose names of witnesses and their lives will be in jeopardy. The CPM and satellite organizations have standing directives to punish with death those who betray the CPM revolution, and these have been carried out. Between 1973 and now, at least 45 Police officers, government officials and civilians have been assassinated by the CPM in Peninsula Malaysia.”
“He urged the audience to resort to armed conflict against the constitutionally elected governments of Malaysia and Singapore.”
“Why has he refused to appear before the Advisory Board all these years? Why has he refused to renounce the use of force? That is why I say, Sir, that his release or his continued detention is very much in his own hands, and the Government cannot release him so long as he will not renounce the use of force. In fact, on the contrary, he indicates that he will revert to his activities. The Member for Anson, in his closing remarks, said that he was a prisoner of conscience, that he has been detained because he dared to criticize, that he dared to oppose, and he is a prisoner of conscience. Mr Speaker, Sir, this is why, to save time, I have distributed these two lists. As you can see, Chia began advocating violence in 1966 to achieve his political objectives. During the Eighth Annual Delegates Conference, organized by the pro-Communist Labour Party of Malaya, Perak Division, in April 1966, Chia called for the revival of armed struggle in Singapore and Malaya, condemning the "reactionary cliques in Malaysia and Singapore." He called for the armed struggle to overthrow the imperialists and their agents, and asked the audience to emulate the Vietnamese who had resorted to armed action against the US.”
“I will come to that. He has refused to appear before the Advisory Board throughout. The question is why has he refused to appear?”
“Not only that, Sir, from 1974 to 1979, while under detention he carried out his pro-communist activities by subverting some of the prison warders and getting them to distribute to other detainees folded slips containing transcripts of radio broadcasts of the CPM. Some of the prison warders were later charged in court. The question is: why does he refuse to renounce the use of force as a means of overthrowing the constitutionally elected government? The Member for Anson talks about natural justice, opportunity to be heard. There is an opportunity provided under the Internal Security Act and he has been asked to avail himself of this opportunity to make representations to the Advisory Board constituted under the Internal Security Act headed by a Judge of the Supreme Court.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the fact that I cannot deal with all the detailed points raised by the Member for Anson, and to save time, I will ask the Clerk to kindly distribute, with your permission, two lists (Cols. 489 - 494) - a list of communist united front activities in which Chia Thye Poh participated and a list of speeches and statements made by Chia Thye Poh which advocated armed struggle so that Members can make up their own minds, and I will refer to them. two lists - LIST OF STATEMENTS MADE BY CHIA THYE POH WHICH ADVOCATED ARMED STRUGGLE, LIST OF COMMUNIST UNITED FRONT ACTIVITIES CHIA THYE POH PARTICIPATED IN (Cols. 489 - 494) Sir, in the 11 minutes that I have I will deal with the main issues raised by the Member for Anson. First, his question as to how long more would we want to detain him. Sir, how long more he will be detained is a decision that is very much also in the hands of Mr Chia Thye Poh. Sir, he knows and he has known it for some time that he will be released if he gives a simple undertaking to renounce the use of force as a means of overthrowing the constitutionally elected government and not to assist the CPM or its related organizations. Renounce the use of force as a means of overthrowing the constitutionally elected government. Or he can also be released if he chooses to go to any country that is prepared to accept him. Has he agreed to renounce the use of force? Sir, he has not only refused to renounce the use of force but he has indicated that he will continue with the activities which he engaged in prior to his detention, if he is released.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I know how much time I have?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, then we must conclude that he has admitted that he has misled the House. Ouestion put, and negatived. Motion accordingly negatived. ADJOURNMENT TO A DATE TO BE FIXED (Motion) Resolved, That at its rising today Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed. - [Mr S. Dhanabalan). ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just wish to ask one question again of the Member, since he is the one who has alleged that I have misled. Can he give me an answer to the question as to where in the Hansard, and I know he has a copy of the Hansard, where did I say that I would try and provide the number?”
“And that is why the Immigration authorities and the Government, before as well as now and in the future, will be sympathetic to genuine cases of adoption, particularly where a couple do not have children for various reasons or unable to have children. But this is not such a case. And when we have instances where we have to take unpleasant decisions, as Minister for Home Affairs, I do not relish takin the decisions but the responsibility must be exercised. This is a blatant case of illegal overstaying. We had to act. We acted. Otherwise, I would have failed in my responsibility. The Member for Anson asked, "How many cases? Why don't you have checkpoint statistics for the whole of 1984?" My answer is: even if there was only one case, I would have had to act. If officials in charge of narcotics tell me of one case of a new method of smuggling in drugs, I am not going to ask them to compile one year's statistics. As Home Affairs Minister, I must act. If the Police tell me that they have discovered a new way whereby people bring in smuggled arms whether for Singapore or transhipment elsewhere, am I to wait for one year's statistics? No, I will act. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have demonstrated that there is nothing that I have said at any occasion which has been inconsistent with a subsequent occasion. I have made it clear that there was no criticism of the court. But there was a gap in the law, and there indeed was a gap in the law. And it was the Adoption of, Children (Amendment) Act which sought to fill that gap. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson's charges are wholly baseless, and I think that it really constitutes an abuse of the process of this House. Mr Jeyaretnam rose -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has, as I said, a case built up essentially on two limbs. The first limb was that the court and other agencies were fully made aware of all aspects of the case. And as I pointed out, this is not the case. I pointed out that the affidavit did not say that the pass had expired. The affidavit did not point out that the father was a work permit holder who had deliberately not renewed the child's pass and that the child had illegally overstayed. The law at that time did not make Immigration status and policy a relevant consideration. All that the court had to do was to look at the welfare of the child. Was the child physically in Singapore? Yes. And the fuss that he has made over the fact that the child was supposedly having no travel document, as I pointed out, that itself does not tell us anything. All it tells us is that the child did not have a travel document of her own and the fact that the affidavit ended up by saying, "the adoption is not objected to if the child is deemed resident" which is a stock phrase used in nearly every affidavit. As to the numbers, I have already pointed out that it is ridiculous to expect my officers to compile figures for the whole of 1984. Mr Speaker, Sir, as Minister for Home Affairs, I am, of course, charged with the responsibility for certain subjects and some of the decisions that I have to take inevitably may be unpleasant, unsavoury, to some of the parties affected. In this case of adoption, the Government's position is not against adoption per se. It is against adoptions of convenience or an abuse of our Immigration laws. We know that it is difficult in Singapore, given our family planning programme, to find suitable Singaporean children for adoption.”
“This is absurd. We have examples. But if the Member for Anson wants my Immigration officials to interview every one with infants in arms, the queue will end up in Johor Baru. The Immigration Department relies on surveys, observations, surveillance. And random surveys by the Immigration Department have led them to estimate that about 1,400 foreign infants under six years of age enter Singapore daily. 3.6% of them are not accompanied by their parents, ie, at least 50 children under six years of age arrive daily unaccompanied by parents. These are very telling statistics. The fact that they were not travelling with their parents at such a tender age would arouse the suspicions of Immigration authorities anywhere in the world, not just in Singapore. Suspicion strengthened by actual cases of adoption of convenience has led to the Immigration Department to take administrative measures, since June 1983 to discourage foreign children on social visit pass or other passes from becoming subjects of adoption of convenience. This condition has been imposed on more than 31,887 foreign children in Singapore. And the condition is: 'That this pass is issued subject to the condition that holder hereof shall not be proposed for adoption proceedings convened in Singapore.' If my officials tell me that they have observed certain trends, should I as a responsible Minister ask them to wait and compile for me one year's statistics? I must act to plug the loophole. It is absurd for me to ask them to compile such statistics and to interview every case. Sir, as I said, it is estimated that there are now 31,887 foreign children in Singapore on student pass, extended social visit pass or extended short-term pass. All of them have had their passports endorsed with a condition.”
“On the contrary, I said that I did not have the figures and I will indicate soon why that is an absurd request. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, his simplistic thinking is this, "The Minister said that there were examples of persons coming to the check-points, and I asked him what were the figures for the whole of 1984 and he said that he did not have the figures. There you are, he has misled the House." Just by examining what was said in Parliament, there was no misleading. I gave examples, yes. Now, let me show how absurd his request is and how ridiculous his charge is. The Controller of Immigration like other law enforcement officers, in order to carry out his responsibilities, has to be observant, has to be careful and vigilant about anyone trying to circumvent our Immigration regulations. He and his officers are highly experienced and observant. And when they tell me that there is a trend or cases or even one case of a new method of circumventing our Immigration laws, I am not going to ask them to compile one year's figures before waiting to implement any corrective measures. While I gave examples of cases - and I have examples of cases where persons at the check-point were observed seeking entry for infants - it surely does not mean that every one who wants to violate our Immigration laws will come to the check-point and openly confess their intention to violate our Immigration laws. This is absurd.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson, therefore, is grievously wrong in telling us that the court was made fully aware of the child's illegal status. May I now move on, Mr Speaker, Sir, to his other allegation. And that allegation is that there was some major inconsistency in my saying that we do not compile figures at the check-points for the whole year of 1984. Let us recall. He asked me on 14th May if I could give the number of foreigners who arrived at the Immigration checkpoints for the whole of 1984 with infants for adoption in Singapore. I replied that my Ministry did not compile such statistics. His allegation that I have misled the House will stand if any of these are established: (1) if I had said that I had statistics and then failed to produce them. (2) if I had said that there were statistics for the whole year of 1984 about persons coming to the checkpoints. (3) if I had promised that I would produce some statistics of the nature that he had sought. Were any of these three points met? No. In fact, I categorically stated that I do not have the actual figures. And I said that quite clearly, unequivocally. Incidentally, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is interesting to note that on 14th May, although I said that I did not have the figures, this is what the Member for Anson said: 'I asked the Minister for the number and he said that he would try and provide the number.' Where in the Hansard can the Member for Anson say that I said this? I quote him again: '. . he [referring to me] said that he would try and provide the number.' If he can establish that, then I would say that he has a case. Nowhere did I say that I would provide the kind of figures that he wanted.”
“He makes much ado of the fact that in the affidavit of the Department of Social Welfare, it ends off: "I see no objection to the adoption of the child by the petitioners provided that the court is satisfied that the said infant is deemed to be a resident." So from this, he concludes, "Here you are, there is some doubt about the child's residence which is placed before the court." This is a phrase which is used in nearly every adoption petition. I have asked at random 16 other affidavits, also filed by the Department of Social Welfare, all of them have this concluding paragraph: "i see no objection to the adoption of the said infant etc. provided the said infant is deemed to be a resident." I have ascertained from the Attorney-General's Chambers that there is no definition of "resident" in the Adoption of Children Act and the court will be satisfied so long as it is adduced to the court that the child has been physically staying here, for even as short a period of four to six months. Now, the key point to bear in mind is that the legislation never made Immigration policy or the status of the child a key factor for the consideration of the courts. The court is concerned primarily, as I have mentioned before, with the welfare of the child, and this is the gap, Sir, which I referred to when moving the Second Reading of the Adoption of Children (Amendment) Bill, namely, we here in this House pass an amending Bill to make it expressly a relevant factor. So henceforth, all the agencies and the courts would have to direct their minds to the Immigration status. Is the child here lawfully? Illegally? On what pass? Did her parents bring her illegally? Has her visit pass expired?”
“That is what this sentence in the affidavit says: that the child entered Singapore without a separate passport for herself but rather her entry was endorsed on her father's passport. That is all that it says: that she did not have her own travel document but her entry was endorsed on her father's passport. The fact that this was brought to the attention of the court or to the other agencies does not in any way suggest that the girl's presence is illegal. All it says is that she does not have her own passport. What is crucial and what the Member for Anson does not point out is this. Does the affidavit inform the court that the girl has illegally overstayed by several years? Does the affidavit say that the father, having brought the child, went back and deliberately did not renew the child's pass, as is required by the law? Is there a reference to that in the affidavit? Secondly, is there a reference in the affidavit to the fact that the father is, in fact, a work permit holder? And was that point brought to the attention of the court? So the Member for Anson is the party who is misleading us into believing, when he says, that "all the facts were placed before the court." The most important fact here is not that she did not have a travel document of her own but that she had been an illegal overstayer for several years. Nowhere is it stated that the original pass on which she entered had expired a long time ago. Sir, under the Adoption of Children Act, as it stood at that time, the court has to be satisfied that the person to be adopted is a resident. That is true.”
“I also showed the absurd consequences arising from this Adoption Order. I also showed that there was a gap in the law, and the gap in the law was that the Immigration policy and status was, in fact, not relevant to the Adoption of Children Act, and therefore not a relevant consideration for the court. I emphasized time and again on all occasions that there was no criticism of the court's decision. Now, Sir, let me turn to his arguments on the first limb that I have misled this House by not disclosing the points which were raised in the affidavit in which he quoted. He sums it up by saying that all the facts were before the court, and the court was fully cognizant of all the facts, and so were the other agencies. Mr Speaker, Sir, he makes much ado about the phrase in the affidavit of the Department of Social Welfare, "She [referring to the girl] has no travel documents, as her entry was reported to be endorsed in her natural father's passport." From this, he concludes that all the agencies must surely have known that her presence was illegal. Bear in mind that the law as it stood at that time did not require the court to take into account immigration policy and Immigration status of the child. Immigration status - that is a very important point. The Member for Anson kept emphasizing this point - since it is said in the affidavit that she has no travel documents as her entry was reported to be endorsed in her natural father's passport, there you are, the Minister has misled. But I think all parents do know that when you travel, and if you have a child, you can include that child in your passport.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion standing in the name of the Member for Anson is a serious motion or it should be taken as a serioUs motion. It is serious to allege that anyone, more so a Member of the Government, has misled. I listened to him carefully and, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will reply to the points that he has raised. But I would like to state at the outset that I categorically deny his allegations and I will show, point by point, that there is no substance whatsoever to his charge. What he has said can be summarized as resting on two grounds. First, he asserts that all the facts were made known to the court through the affidavit and other documents, and that therefore I have misled this House on the various occasions I had spoken. A second limb on which his case rests is that, in not having compiled statistics for the whole year of 1984 in reply to his question, this was inconsistent with an earlier statement or statements that I had made concerning the debate on this question. Before I deal with these two points, I would like to show that what he has adduced is totally incorrect. Let me recapitulate, Sir, that this question has arisen on siftings on 18th March, 29th March and 14th May. On the last occasion, he did say that I had misled the House and I denied it. Now he has been able to elaborate his charge, As a backdrop, Sir, let us recapitulate that this case is about an adoption which we regarded as an adoption of convenience. The highlights of this case, as Members will recall, were, first, that this was a case of adoption of a person who had illegally overstayed. Her father was a work permit holder who, under the present rules and the rules pertaining at that time, would never have been allowed to bring dependants here for any significant period or length of time.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my Ministry does not compile such statistics.' I was very surprised at that answer and I asked him, through the Deputy Speaker: 'Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, has the Minister forgotten that when I spoke in this House on the Adoption of Children (Amendment) Bill, I asked the Minister for the number and he said that he would try and provide the number? Secondly, would the Minister agree that he seriously misled this House when he told this House that [and I quoted what I had read].'”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 3, line 18, to leave out "(a)", and insert"(b)". Sir, this amendment is necessary because this was a typographical error. Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 8 to 10 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed. DEVELOPMENT LOAN (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 3.45 pm”
“This residual figure also includes an unknown quantity of persons who have taken provisional driving licences and have not reported for the test. In other words, there are many who have taken a PDL for a variety of reasons and may not even have ever ridden a motor cycle. That is the problem. I think the figures that I have given show that a vast majority have taken the opportunity provided to them and have passed. The point raised by the Member concerning the drafting - I myself have had this checked with the draftsman, the Attorney-General's Chambers, and I am assured that clause 4 of section 36, as amended, although worded in that way, would have the effect that we intend, that is to say, after the commencement of the operation of the Act, we will not be issuing PDLs to any motor cycle riders. The Member for Anson also wanted certain figures of motor cyclist fatalities vis-a-vis other fatalities. I do not have those figures here, but if he wants, I can supply him those figures at a later date. I believe I have covered all the points. 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. Jayakumarl. Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 -”
“I am glad to say that the Press and Television have indeed, from time to time, tried to assist us in driving this message home to the public, and I am confident that they will continue to perform this public interest message in the future. With regard to the point made by the Member for Eu nos, I have taken note of his points, particularly his call for more vigilance to be taken against hell-riders. I can assure him that the implementation of the provisions will be done carefully as he has advocated. I think the main point raised by the Member for Anson was that the measures which would disallow motor cyclists with PDL from going on the public roads after the commencement of operation of this Act would be unfair, that it is retroactive, and so on. I do not think I can agree with him that it is retroactive because nearly two years' notice has been given of this measure, and such ample notice was given precisely to enable them to take full advantage of the opportunities and facilities which we have provided for them to obtain the QDL. Just to give an example to the Member of the facilities which allowed so many to pass. At the end of 31st December, 1984, there were 17,678 "L" riders - persons in possession of PDLs. At the end of 31st July, 1985, there were only 7,013. In other words, during this period, more than 10,400 PDL holders took advantage of the facilities and got their QDLs. Now, as to the remaining figures, I do not think it is retroactive for them. If they were given repeated chances, some as many as three or four, and they still did not make it, the question is: do we want to put them on the road when they have failed to pass the test after three times? Do we want to put them on the public roads? Will it be safe for them and for other members of the public?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I wish to thank the speakers who have spoken on the Bill. The Member for Toa Payoh has raised several points. He has referred to certain press publicity of encouraging trends in the drop of fatalities, and whether we could, with confidence, attribute this to any particular reason. I for one would like to be more cautious and await further statistics for several more months before venturing a firm conclusion on whether there is a downward trend which we can attribute to any of the measures that have been taken. And I hope at a suitable date to give all the figures publicly. As to his suggestion of separate lanes, this is a matter which is being looked into as part of the overall traffic safety improvement scheme. The point he made about heavy cement mixers is also taken. I think this is one of the types of vehicles with which we are concerned about, which leads us to think of special measures for heavy vehicles. Cement mixers, I am sure, will also be classified under the category of "heavy vehicle." One can easily imagine the different consequences if a light vehicle crashes into a crowded bus station and compare it to a cement mixer which also crashes into a crowded bus station. As to the question of width, whether we should also have more stringent specificaions, is a matter I will take up with other departments because several departments are involved in this, including the Registry of Vehicles. As to publicity, I completely share his view that we ought to encourage and get the cooperation of the Press and Television to publicize the consequences of road accidents.”
“The list of compoundable offences can also be adjusted and more realistic composition fines set. Only the more serious offences will be referred to the courts. Let me stress, Sir, that traffic offenders will, even after this amendment, still pay composition fines of $50 or less for most offences. However, with this amendment, we will be able to consider a more rational approach, such as drawing a line between offences that result in accidents and those that do not, when penalizing offenders. At present, they are pegged at the same level. Also, at present, moving offences committed by drivers of heavy vehicles are given equal treatment as those committed by light vehicles. Heavy vehicles, by virtue of their size and construction, pose greater potential danger to other road users if not handled properly and carefully. Statistics have shown that heavy vehicles are about four times as prone to accidents than lighter vehicles. In some countries like Japan, the traffic authorities have taken cognizance of this fact and higher fines are imposed on heavy vehicles. We are considering doing likewise. The new maximum will also enable the Traffic Police to offer composition for some offences which are at present referred to court because of the $50 limit which is deemed to be inadequate. Sir, the other amendments, which are referred to in the Explanatory Statement, are really intended to remove inconsistencies in the existing law or to facilitate smoother administration of the law or are of a technical nature. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“In the United States, the limit is 60 mg/100 ml in all except two of the states. Evidence has shown that many drivers would show impairment of driving skill when their blood alcohol content level reaches 30 to 50 mg per 100 ml; at blood alcohol levels of 50 to 100 mg per 100 ml, the driving skills of most individuals will certainly be adversely affected and deteriorate rapidly, even in the case of a hardened drinker or an experienced driver. Amending the legal blood alcohol content level from the existing 110 mg/100 ml to 80 mg/100 ml will serve to deter motorists from driving if they consume alcohol excessively. May I turn now to the third main amendment, Sir, which is to increase the maximum amount to which traffic offences could be compounded to $200. There are several reasons for this. First, the present amount of $50, which has been in the law since 1966, is unrealistic. Secondly, under the Fixed Penalty System which was introduced in 1982, traffic violations were grouped into four categories according to the severity of the offence. Fixed fines ranging from $20 to $50 were imposed. Today, the amount of $50 for certain of the more serious offences, such as careless driving and failing to give way to ambulances and fire engines, is inadequate to serve as a deterrent. Some of the more serious offences are therefore not compounded. Because the maximum compoundable fine is $50, offenders of these more serious offences, such as inconsiderate driving, speeding far in excess of road or vehicle speed limit, are brought to court where they are given more serious sentences, With the maximum compoundable fine for traffic offences raised to $200, most road offences could be compounded by the Traffic Police instead of being referred to the court.”
“This is a troublesome as well as an unpopular procedure - both for the individual and the Police, It is, therefore, proposed that the breathalyser, which is a simple equipment which can indicate the level of alcohol in a person's blood through a breath test, be used as a screening device for suspected drunken drivers. I would like to stress that the breathalyser will be used only for screening because in other countries, the breathalyser readings can be used in court as evidence. In New Zealand and France, for example, the result of the breath test alone can be used in prosecuting drunken drivers, although the suspect has the right to ask for a blood test. In other countries, there are variations. In England, the results of breath tests can only be used as evidence in addition to the blood or urine tests. In Japan, a confirmatory blood test is necessary in order to convict a drunken driver in court. However, we are proposing to use the breathalysers for screening suspected drunken drivers only. Where the reading on the breathalyser exceeds the legal prescribed limit, the driver will be brought to hospital for confirmatory blood and urine tests. In other words, with the breathalysers, the Traffic Police will have an easy-to-use screening device to detect drunken drivers and the law will therefore have to be amended for this purpose. I will now move on to the maximum level of blood alcohol content. In Singa- pore, the law prescribes the highest permissible level of alcohol in blood at 110 milligrams (mg) of alcohol in 100 millilitres (ml) of blood which is not as strict as the limits imposed in other countries. Many developed countries, such as the United Kingdom, Germany and France, adopt the limit of 80 mg/100 ml. In Japan, the limit is even stricter at 50 mg/100 ml.”
“The Motor Traders' Association in conjunction with the Traffic Police had also conducted free lessons to assist 'L' riders to pass their tests. The pass rates have improved from 16.6% in the first quarter of 1984 to 27.7% in the corresponding period of 1985. When learner riders will no longer be allowed on public roads, they will have to undergo the training at an approved riding circuit to attain a sufficiently high standard in the theory and practice of handling and riding a motorcycle. Following this and on successful passing of the riding tests, they will receive their Class 11 QDL for motorcycles. The first riding circuit at Ang Mo Kio has already commenced operations. Let me now turn to the other measures concerning drunken driving. With regard to drunken driving, Sir, we intend to introduce the use of breathalysers, and further, to make the level of blood alcohol content more stringent. The number of serious and fatal accidents involving drivers and motorcycle riders while under the influence of alcohol has been increasing. Between 1975 and 1978, there was only an average of 79 cases per year of drivers who had committed traffic violations under the influence of alcohol. This number rose to 126 cases per year for the period 1979 to 1982 and 129 cases per year for the period 1982 to 1984. As regards the breathalyser, Sir, presently, when a driver is suspected to be under the influence of alcohol, he will be brought to a hospital for blood and urine tests.”
“5% of road accident fatalities. Motorcyclists with provisional driving licences (PDLs) are more prone to accidents than motorcyclists with qualified driving licences (QDLs). 23 learner riders were killed and 827 others injured in accidents last year alone. A major problem, of course, has been that the motorcyclists hitherto are allowed to learn by riding on public roads by trial and error. They needed only to pass the Highway Code Test and attend a half-day Pre-PDL course before they were given a PDL which gave them full freedom to ride on public roads, which, of course, is unsatisfactory, as inadequately trained PDL riders constitute a danger to themselves and to other road users. In other countries like Japan, PDL riders are not allowed on public roads. In view of the high rate of accidents involving PDL riders, all unqualified riders will not be allowed on public roads when the Act comes into operation. Only riders with qualified driving licences will be allowed on public roads. Malaysian learner riders will also be subject to the same rule. In this connection, Sir, the Traffic Police also have stopped renewing existing PDLs or issuing new PDLs from April 1985. In order to give PDL riders enough time to obtain their QDLs, more than 1 1/2 years' notice was given for this measure. The Traffic Police also made arrangements for these 'L' riders to have more opportunities to go for these tests. From December 1984, arrangements were made for the 'L' riders to ballot for vacant testing slots. Tests were also conducted during the weekends. With the additional facilities, tests conducted per month increased from 5,000 to 8,000. A sample survey showed that, on the average, a PDL rider who turned up for the tests had taken three to four tests.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the main purpose of the amendments is to achieve the objective of reducing the number of accidents on our roads, to ensure smoother and safer traffic flow and to improve traffic safety management. The main amendments on which I will touch are: (a) measures to require learner motor-cycle riders not to learn on public roads; (b) measures against drunken driving; and, (c) increasing the maximum compoundable fines for traffic offences. The context in which these measures should be viewed, Sir, are the fact that the road accident rate has been rising steadily from 1978 to 1984. There were 278 road deaths in 1978 compared to 327 in 1984. The number of vehicles on our roads has been increasing at the rate of 6-7% each year. The Traffic Police therefore embarked on a comprehensive programme to reduce the number of accidents and to ensure a smoother flow as well as a safer traffic flow. Members will recall that these measures included the following: Restructuring of the demerit system for errant drivers as well as Fixed Penalty Scheme for traffic violations. Secondly, we introduced the Japanese method of training and re-training of drivers. Thirdly, the riding and driving tests were also upgraded to improve the standard of riding motorcycles and driving on our roads. Publicity and education programmes on road safety were stepped up as well. Enforcement action, though not always popular but necessary, also was intensified. Let me now deal with the first measure, that of requiring learner motorcycle riders not to learn on public roads. Sir, there are 135,000 motorcycles in Singapore. They constitute 27.6% of all motor vehicles. In 1984, motorcyclists involved in fatal accidents accounted for 35.”
“Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in answering his question concerning Article 135(l)(c), I clarified that a travel document issued under the Convention of Refugees is not a travel document or certificate of status mentioned in Article 135(l)(c). If he now wants to talk about Article 135(l)(b), there again the wording is clear: whoever applies to the authorities of a place outside Singapore for the issue or renewal of a passport, it would include any place, any authority, outside Singapore. Sir, on the question of statelessness, I have already elaborated and explained the position. In other words, we are following the approach in Articles 134 and 135. The approach in Articles 134 and 135 is the approach which is adopted in this amendment, and there is nothing new.”
“Why did the Member for Anson not say so?”
“He has quoted Oppenheim as authority for the proposition that what we are seeking to do is retrogressive and he has implied that this is somehow inconsistent with international law. I think if he wants to quote Oppenheim or any other known works of international law, he should also tell this House that the cardinal principle in public international law is, as far as nationality and citizenship are concerned, that questions of nationality and citizenship under international law are within the sovereign right of each country to decide.”
“As to the suggestions made by the other Members expressing concern on the implementation of this amendment, I have already, in my Second Reading speech, given the assurance that there will be no automatic or blanket implementation of this empowering provision and, secondly, we will be very careful in implementing the provision so as to distinguish cases where there are genuine and good reasons for the person's absence abroad. When we come to the Member for Anson's points, as I have said, many of his criticisms have been answered by preceding speakers. I think we must come back to see the parameters of this provision. What are they? Does the amendment give us arbitrary powers to deprive any citizen on any grounds? Let us recall the principal feature of Article 135(i)(c). It is concerned with citizens who have been continuously abroad, ordinarily resident, for 10 years or more. That is the first ingredient. The second ingredient is that during this period of 10 years he has not even once come back to Singapore on a travel document issued by the Singapore authorities or on a certificate of status. That is the parameter of Article 135(l)(c). So, in reply to the question posed by the Member for Anson as to why we are doing this, the correct question has been posed by the Member for Clementi, ie, let us ask: how do these persons who stayed away for 10 years or more and never returned to Singapore once on a Singapore passport or travel document justify their continued citizenship to be recognized? That is the question. I have also spelt out the problems that we have which must be tackled in this amendment. The Member for Anson has raised this matter on the level of international law.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill; in particular, they have saved me considerable time in replying to the points made by the Member for Anson because the Members who have spoken have put the matter in correct perspective. In other words, when we talk of constitutional rights and of citizenship rights, let us also talk of duties and responsibilities, and that is the context in which we should view this measure. Let me take up one or two specific points mentioned by various Members. The Member for Changkat asked why is there a discrimination against women in Article 134(l)(b). First, let me say that this is not a new amendment. This is a re-enactment of an existing provision in the Constitution which we have had for a long time. Secondly, she has misunderstood the provision. If she looks at Article 134(1) (b), it is not deprivation of citizenship of a woman who marries a non-citizen. It is deprivation of citizenship of a woman who, in the first place, becomes a Singapore citizen by having married a Singaporean and thereafter marries a non-citizen, say, after divorce. So the original link which was the basis for granting a citizenship through marriage is non-existent, and if she marries a foreign citizen then only Article 134(l)(b) comes into play. Sir, the Member for Fengshan has brought up a useful suggestion and my Ministry will take it up with my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as to whether overseas missions and consulates could implement the idea which he advocated of advising those who come to renew their passports from time to time.”
“They wilfully overstay, contravening our Immigration laws and we have had to detain them and repatriate them. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the problems I have mentioned are real problems. The most effective way of dealing with them is to amend the Constitution in the manner proposed. However, as I have stated, those who have had good reasons to be away, because of the nature of work or business, will be given special consideration and this amendment is not directed at them. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I might point out that Articles 134 and 135 of the Constitution have been redrafted and re-enacted and I should explain the reason. This is because the grounds for deprivation and termination of citizenship in the existing Articles overlap. To illustrate, both Articles at present refer to the ground of having acquired the citizenship of another country. Another illustration is that both Articles refer to a citizen who has exercised rights of a foreign citizen. There is duplication and this duplication causes confusion. Furthermore, the existing Article 134 does not provide for reference to a Committee of Inquiry. We have therefore redrafted and re-enacted these two Articles, unnecessary duplication is avoided and all cases under both Articles 134 and 135 will be referred to a Committee of Inquiry, Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Many of them had left Singapore in the early 1950s and 60s when Singapore was going through difficult times. These persons, for all practical purposes, had migrated with no intention of ever returning to Singapore. They have grown up in an alien environment. They have not contributed anything to our economic development. Claiming to have been born in Singapore, they now want to come back, be recognized as citizens with all the rights and privileges and to enjoy the fruits of the labour of those Singaporeans who remain in Singapore. Quite clearly, those who have no skills or no family roots here would have problems adjusting to our society and our way of life. More often than not, many seek to return when they are past the age of 18, knowing full well that we do not want to recruit them into National Service at that age. To give an idea of the size of the problem : In 1984, the Registry of Citizenship received 726 claims to Singapore citizenship. However, in the first six months of this year alone, 729 claims were received, exceeding the figure for the entire of last year. I might add, Sir, that there is also a serious problem in establishing whether a person who claims to have been born here and who has been away for so many years is indeed the person referred to in the birth certificate relied on, particularly if that person never registered for a Singapore identity card or for National Service. Therefore, the Ministry of Home Affairs has had to reject many claims which were dubious and based on suspect documents. Matters are further compounded when some of the claimants, whose claims have been rejected, enter Singapore on foreign passports as nationals of foreign countries and subsequently refused to leave.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, although the Bill has several clauses, its main purpose is to introduce a new provision to provide for an additional ground for deprivation of citizenship and this is contained in the new Article 135(l)(c). The other provisions in the Bill are essentially redrafts of existing provisions, Article 134 and Article 135 of the Constitution. The new additional ground will enable the Government to deprive a person, who is 18 years old or above, of his citizenship, if he has been ordinarily resident abroad for a continuous period of 10 years and has not returned to Singapore during that period on a certificate of status or a travel document issued by the Singapore authorities. Sir, let me emphasize that this amendment is an empowering provision. There will be no automatic loss of citizenship. The Government will be selective and will not deprive the citizenship of persons who have good reasons to be away. For example, it is not the intention of the Government to act against persons who, by nature of their work or business, find it necessary to travel and remain abroad for long periods. I should also mention, Sir, that there is a saving provision in Article 135(l)(c)(ii) to cater for persons who are abroad in the service of the Government or of an international organization of which Singapore is a member. The President is empowered to designate other bodies or organizations for this purpose. Why is this amendment necessary? It is necessary because we have had considerable problems with persons outside Singapore who were away for many years and later alleged that they were born in Singapore.”
“I believe the Member for Anson is referring to the case of Chia Thye Poh who is detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA). Chia was a member of the illegal Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). Chia was specifically instructed by the CPM to penetrate the Barisan Sosialis and engage in Communist United Front agitation to destabilise the Government. This he did by mounting a series of illegal demonstrations and industrial strikes. Chia was therefore placed under preventive detention in November 1966. Under the Internal Security (Detained Persons) Rules 1960, only close relatives of the detainees, their legal counsel, and members of the Board of Inspection comprising prominent members of the public, are allowed to visit them. There is discretion to allow visits by other relatives or friends. Unfortunately, in the 1960's Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen visited ISA detainees and abused the privileges. They interfered with Government's efforts to rehabilitate them. They had encouraged the detainees to remain steadfast in their stand against the Government, so that their continued detention could be used to embarrass the Government. Since then the privilege of MPs to visit detainees has been withdrawn. We have permitted the Member for Anson to see Chia as his legal counsel. PROFITS AND LOSSES OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED COMPANIES 9. Dr Toh Chin Chye asked the Minister for Finance and Minister for Health if he will give the profits and losses of each of the companies in which the government has an interest for the years 1983 and 1984.”
“The answer, as I have said in my Speech is, yes, workmen's compensation will apply to those released on the Day Release Scheme because they are working outside the prison. As to whether some sort of insurance or workmen's compensation scheme should apply within prisons, this is a separate matter which I am prepared to look into. His question as to whether trade unions can organize and recruit, the answer to that is, of course, no. Because prisoners are convicted persons and are unlike any other law-abiding ordinary persons who have not been convicted. It makes a mockery of the whole system of arrest, punishment and incarceration if we remove all distinctions between prisoners and law-abiding citizens. Maj Fong Sip Chee: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir -”
“The reason is that it is the most practical solution to our problem because we must be confident of certain conditions, the place of work, the kind of employment, who he comes into contact with, the possibilities of contamination, escape and so on. Also, it has to be done on a fairly large bulk basis, and it will be very difficult to administer the scheme if every individual is a free agent to seek his own employment. Supervision will be very difficult. The Member's second point is the question as to wages and market rates and whether this will be negotiated, again, by the individual or by the administering authority. Here again, for practical purposes, it must be done by the administering authority in order to get employers, manufacturers or the service sector to participate in the scheme. The third point is with regard to the retention of wages. He wanted to know the method in which the wages are retained. What actually happens is that the prisoner on the scheme opens an account with the POSB and the monies are credited to the POSB account. It gathers interest. He withdraws whatever money he needs that is allowed for his purposes, and the family is also allowed to withdraw the money. His question, I believe, was also whether in certain cases where the family is in dire straits, whether we would allow the family to use the entire amount. My understanding is that we are not very rigid on this and in deserving cases we have, in fact, allowed the family to withdraw a considerable amount. I am not against the family withdrawing the entire amount if the prisoner consents to it. The Member for Kampong Chai Chee has asked certain interesting questions. First of all, his question was whether workmen's compensation would be applicable.”