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 59 of 66.
“Well, sometimes that may arise due to exigencies of service. The second point the Member for Anson made, if I got him correctly, was that sergeants who are in Division III are paid Division II salaries.”
“The efforts of the Police and my Ministry, both in terms of crime prevention as well as law enforcement, must be to promote the interest of the overwhelming majority who are law-abiding, and to try to protect them against the minority who indulge in crimes and other offences. In this regard, therefore, public relations, ie, getting rapport with the population, enlisting the support and cooperation in obtaining information, become vital. This is why in recent years, Sir, the Police have spent a great deal of time in developing the NPP system, the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme, to reach the schools, the young, community centres, exhibitions, talks, and crime prevention campaigns. This will continue, Sir. The Member for Chong Boon related the instance of the Shenton Way shoot-out. He has previously conveyed to me his feelings on this, which I understand. I am not sure whether that was an instance of bad public relations. If I remember correctly, much of the problems which followed the Shenton Way incident turned on whose bullet was it that caused the death of the person concerned. There was a great deal of speculation, and this could only be laid to rest after tests were conducted, and it took time to announce the results of the tests. I am not sure, Sir, that that instance really demonstrated poor public relations.”
“As to his other question on whether the Ministry can provide statistics on the relapse rate, I do not have the figures right now. But I shall certainly ask my officials to get the figures and supply them to the hon. Member. May I now proceed to the points made by the Member for Chong Boon. His question as to when his temporary NPP will be transformed into a permanent NPP will be dealt with by the Minister of State. Let me deal with his other two questions, These relate to public relations. A clarification must be made. The Member is under the impression that there has been a reduction in the number of posts for public relations. Although there were three posts deleted under this heading of Publicity and Public Relations, there has not been any reduction [n the number of posts for the Public Relations aspect. Under this heading, there are other components, such as Police Band, Crime Prevention Unit, and the three posts which were deleted related to the Crime Prevention Department in respect of which three posts were frozen in 1984-85. I would like to assure him that, first, the number of posts for Public Relations has not been reduced. Second, and more importantly, it is necessary for me to emphasize that I completely agree with him with regard to the remarks that he made about the importance of public relations in the Police Force. We are now entering a phase of community-oriented policing. In my view, there is no doubt that the vast majority, an overwhelming majority, of our people are law-abiding, they want to see their loved ones, their families and their neighbourhoods safe, sound and secure.”
“If the situation warrants, I am prepared to review the law to see whether an intermediate new offence should be provided. But at the moment we are not convinced that this is necessary. With that assurance, I hope the Member will be satisfied. May I now turn, Sir, to the points made by the Member for Whampoa, He made two points. The point about the Neighbourhood Police Post will be replied by the Minister of State. As to his other point on prisons reorganization, he is quite right in saying that in 1973 there was a Prisons Reorganization Committee on the rehabilitation system. His point was whether the recommendations have been implemented. I would like to inform him that this Committee proposed several major changes. For instance, changes to the law to proVide for corrective training or preventive detention or enhanced sentences for certain offences. Also, the Committee recommended that in order to prevent contamination of the less serious offenders by the hard-core offenders, there should be a segregation of hard-core offenders from the others. The Committee also made certain important recommendations concerning discipline and inculcating correct attitudes, in the prisoners, I would like to say that all these major recommendations have been implemented. I might add that we have not stopped with the implementation of the recommendations of this Committee. The prison rehabilitation system has evolved since then. The previous Minister in this House has made reference to the two-tier rehabilitation system -the Day-Release Scheme which has been introduced and the vocational industrial scheme for young reformative trainees and criminal law detainees.”
“Sir, before we adjourned, in replying to the Member for Bukit Batok, I said that, first, there was a problem in, the law in that the offence of voluntarily causing hurt is not a seizeable offence and the vast majority of the cases fell into this category. Secondly, most of these instances involve minor scuffles, fisticuffs and so on, although from the viewpoint of the person concerned it may be a serious matter. Members would be interested to know that the volume of such instances is tremendous. Last year, we had about 12,000 such reports. The question is really one of allocation of Police resources and priorities. We have a lot of other problems demanding attention, such as crime prevention and law enforcement problems - robberies, serious crimes, thefts. I would like to emphasize that it is not the policy to avoid investigations. What the Police do in these cases is to work on a set of guidelines. These guidelines enable the Police to investigate the more serious of these instances, particularly the examples given by the hon. Member himself, such as where assaults, intimidations involving secret societies are indicated. In these cases, the Police will investigate. When the case is made out, they will take appropriate action. Where there are repeated incidents, the Police will also summon both parties to the court to show cause why they should not keep peace and the courts may require them to sign a bond. Sir, with the guidelines and the Police investigations within the framework of the guidelines, our assessment is that the situation is under control. We do investigate some of the cases but it will not be possible to investigate all the cases. I have taken note of the point made by the Member for Bukit Batok.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first take the point made by the Member for Bukit Batok. Sir, part of the problem is with the law, but that is not the only problem. The problem is also with the nature of the incidents which are involved. Another problem is with the volume of such incidents. First, let me say that it is not quite correct to say that the situations that he referred to are those where the only recourse is through a private or civil suit. It is an offence under the Penal Code, which is referred to as "voluntarily causing hurt". The problem, as far as the law is concerned, is that most of the incidents in this category of "voluntarily causing hurt" constitute an offence which, in law, is described as non-seizable, that is to say, the powers of the Police to arrest without a warrant are severely limited. Other offences such as causing hurt with dangerous weapons, or causing grevious hurt are more serious offences where the Police have powers of arrest because these are seizable. It is true that from the viewpoint of the person who is involved in an incident, it may be quite a traumatic and serious matter. But from our records the vast majority of these incidents involve situations where the persons are known to each other - neighbours, friends, in-laws who quarrel and so on. They may range from mere fisticuffs to fairly serious incidents involving the use of implements such as stools and so on. The question is, should the Police arrest all these persons?”
“Do you want me to start my reply now or -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it might be more conducive to a coherent reply if others, who have comments on policing, were to express their views now.”
“- but not on the basis of a Constitutional issue. And as the First Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out, if he really feels strongly that a grave issue of the Constitution has arisen, that the Constitution has been violated, it is a legal issue which has to be remedied not by Parliament but must be remedied by reference to the courts which, under our Constitutional system, are the proper body to pronounce on the legal interpretation of the Constitution. The legal interpretation of the Constitution is not what the Member for Anson says that it is. But it is what the court pronounces them to be.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have asked him, where does he get this legal proposition that every appointment must be authorized by the Constitution? The appointments which he referred to (Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries) are provided for in the Constitution. Now he wants all other appointments to be expressly provided for in the Constitution. But the point is that every year, in this Parliament, the Minister for Finance presents the Budget which expressly provides for the appointments of Political Secretaries. If Parliament found that that provision was unauthorized, Parliament would reject it. Parliament has the power to query such provisions -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a very strange concept in Constitutional law to say that every person who is appointed in the public service in Singapore or political service in Singapore must be referred to in the Constitution. There are many designations, many titles of people who are employed. The point that the Member for Anson made when he first rose was that he could not find any reference in the Constitution to Political Secretary, and I have pointed out that the Constitution has expressly taken recognition of the office of Political Secretary. As to the details of the appointment, there are many appointments in each Ministry - Minister, Minister of State, Parliamentary Secretary, Permanent Secretary, Deputy Secretary, down to the clerk, the peon and so on. Do all these appointments require special authorization in the Constitution? I would like to know where is there this rule that all these appointments must be specifically named in the Constitution. Where is the authority for that proposition?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson, when he first rose, said that he could not find any reference to the term "Political Secretary" in the Constitution. He obviously has not looked carefully. If he looks at Article 2, Clause (5), the Constitution has expressly recognized the office of Political Secretary, because it says: 'For the purposes of this Constitution, a person shall not be considered as holding a public office or an office of profit by reason of the fact that he is in receipt of any remuneration or allowances ... in respect of his tenure of the office of President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Minister, Parliamentary Secretary, Political Secretary...'. So he misled the House when he said that the Constitution makes no reference to Political Secretary.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last 10 years there were only three cases of kidnapping for ransom. One was in 1977, another in 1979, and the last one was reported in February this year. There is therefore no significant rise in the number of such reported cases. All the three cases have been solved with the arrest of the kidnappers. The recent case reported in February, 1985, was alleged to have been committed by someone known to the victim's family, and not by any organized gang of kidnappers. Sir, the law provides severe penalties for this offence. Under the provisions of the Kidnapping Act, a person convicted of kidnapping for ransom shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and, if not sentenced to death, shall also be liable to caning. The Police have been effective in dealing with such cases, which are investigated by the Special Investigations Section of the CID which has the necessary expertise to deal with delicate and complex investigations. The record shows that all 34 cases reponed to the Police since 1959 have been solved. Sir, the punishments provided by the Kidnapping Act and the success of the Police in dealing with these cases have had the desired deterrent effect. LOCAL INDUSTRIES AND MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS (Effects of economic slowdown) 3. Dr Augustine H.H. Tan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether the current economic slowdown has hit local industries more than large multinational corporations; how many local companies in manufacturing closed down last year; how many workers have lost their jobs; and what assistance the Government is providing to our local industries.”
“The Constitution of Singapore is set out in a written Constitution as interpreted from time to time by our courts. All of us, when we took our Oath of Allegiance, have undertaken to respect and observe the Constitution. This Constitution has provisions governing the fundamental liberties of the individual, among which is the provision that specifically states that, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law." So when the Member for Anson, a few moments ago, referred to the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act and the provisions in the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, what he has forgotten to mention is that these are provisions which provide for a particular solution of serious problems in our country, solutions which are to be found in provisions of the law which have been authorized by this Parliament and, furthermore, laws which are consistent with the provisions of this Con- stitution. Let me say further, there is provided in the Constitution that if anyone alleges or seriously believes that any provisions of the law enacted by this Chamber are inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution - the Constitution specifically provides that provisions of laws inconsistent with this Constitution are invalid - then, and the Member for Anson knows this, that person can go to the court to seek a declaration that such laws are invalid. I do not recall that the Member for Anson has ever challenged the unlawfulness of either of the laws that today he claims to be a violation of the due process of law. 12.45 pm”
“The term "due process of law" has different meanings in different countries. In the United States, its meaning is different from what it means in other countries. Sir, "due process of law" means that a person's liberty is subject to restrictions which are permissible under the Constitution and laws of each country.”
“Singapore has always kept its door open to foreign professionals who have the necessary qualifications and experience to contribute to our economic growth. As a small country, we have only a limited pool of talented Singaporeans and we must continue to welcome expatriates who are skilled and qualified. There is no evidence that the prospects of career advancement of local professionals have been jeopardized by the issue of employment passes. The Immigration Department processes applications for employment passes very carefully. Only those with the necessary qualifications and experience and who can contribute economically to Singapore are granted employment passes. Where necessary, relevant Ministries and Statutory Boards which are the vetting authorities are consulted. It is assumed that multinational companies are responsible organisations and will not want to add substantially to their operating costs in bringing out expatriates who are not required.”
“Foreign entrepreneurs can obtain permanent residence under the Deposit Scheme. The Scheme was started in 1960 to promote and finance desirable industrial projects in Singapore. On 19 September 1979, the amount of deposit required under the Scheme was raised from $250,000 to $500,000. This sum was further raised to $1 million with effect from 14 July 81 so as to attract higher calibre entrepreneurs to Singapore. From 1981 to 1984 a total of 143.4 million was deposited under the Scheme. During the same period, $125.1 million were approved for investment in manufacturing projects proposed by depositors. From 1981 to 1984, 198 entrepreneurs were granted permanent residence under the Deposit Scheme. The total number of foreigners granted permanent residence under various schemes during the same period was 32,751. 15,254 applications for permanent residence were rejected. Of these rejected cases, 10 were applications from entrepreneurs under the Deposit Scheme. EMPLOYMENT PASSES (Use for Deployment of Surplus Personnel) 8. Maj Fong Sip Chee asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law (l) if he is satisfied that the issue of employment passes will not jeopardize the prospects of career advancement of local professionals; (2) if he is aware that there have been cases where multinational companies have taken advantage of employment passes to deploy their surplus personnel in Singapore so as to obviate retrenching them in their home countries; and (3) if he will agree that such a practice is retrogressive and works to the detriment of our local professionals.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the facts speak for themselves. Here, a Malaysian child becomes an adopted child of the grandparents. By the stroke of adoption, the child's grandparents become the parents; the uncles and aunts become brothers and sisters; the natural father becomes the uncle, and the father is a work permit holder, What more blatant example of an adoption of convenience can be presented to this House than this? 12.01 pm COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Additional Allotted Days)”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as to the first point, there is no reversal of a Court Order. It is established practice and law that the Court Order on adoption does not bring with it any legal rights to citizenship or permanent residence. Secondly, when the court makes an order, it does not take into account immigration status or immigration policy. This is precisely the problem with the law. There is nothing which is wrong with the court decision. What is wrong, Sir, is that there is a gap in the law in that neither the Attorney-General nor the Ministry of Social Affairs at that time had to comment on the immigration status of the child. This is the gap in the law that we are now seeking to remedy through the Adoption of Children (Amendment) Bill in which we propose that the immigration status and the immigration policy will become a relevant factor. As to the allegations of fact which the Member for Anson has raised, my Ministry has, in fact, ascertained that this is completely untrue. The child as well as the adoptive parents and the natural parents were informed of the breaches of the law, and they willingly took the child back to Malaysia.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason why this girl was asked to leave Singapore is that this was clearly an adoption of convenience designed to circumvent Immigration rules and regulaions. Sir, the adopted child is a nine-year-old Malaysian girl. Her natural parents and four of her siblings are also Malaysian citizens. She was first brought to Singapore in 1976 by her natural father. She was granted a Social Visit Pass for 14 days. Her Visit Pass was not extended and she overstayed in Singapore for more than six years. In other words, she was an illegal overstayer and her illegal presence came to light in December 1982. By then, Sir, she had been legally adopted by Mr and Mrs Therawardy on 2nd October 1982. Who were their adoptive parents? The adoptive parents were none other than the child's maternal grandparents. Her grand-father who has now become her adopted father is a 61 -year-old Singapore citizen who has seven other children of his own. There was no reason for him to adopt another child. Further investigations showed that the natural father was a construction worker in Singapore holding a Block Work Permit. As an unskilled work permit holder, he was not entitled to bring in his wife and children to Singapore on a Dependant's Pass. Sir, it is precisely to stop adoptions of convenience such as this that the Government has introduced amendments to the Adoption of Children Act.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, that, at the moment I am advised, is a hypothetical or academic question. If the situation does arise, my Ministry will consider it. REPATRIATION OF ADOPTED CHILD OF THERAWARDY S/0 MARDAN 12. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law if he will explain why the adopted child of Mr and Mrs Therawardy s/o Mardan was forcibly sent out of Singapore and if he will be good enough to allow the child to return to live with her parents.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to his supplementary question is that the policy and the reasons for the scheme were spelt out in the press release of June 1984. It was clearly stated in that press release that the purpose was to limit families so that they could break out of the low-income large-family cycle. Therefore, it must follow that those who, after receiving the cash grant, went on to have a third child would be defaulting the conditions of the scheme. If the Member for Anson can tell me how they can have a third child without their fault, I would be glad to review the matter.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Cash Grant Scheme for small families was implemented with effect from 1st June 1984. As at 28th February 1985, a total of 47 applications had been approved. Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister state the rationale or the logic behind asking these people to sign a condition to return the $10,000 if they should, through no fault of their own, have a third child?”
“We should applaud the Member for Potong Pasir. [Applause]. NON-CONSTITUENCY MEMBER (Filling of Seat) 12.33 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, then the record should state that the Member for Anson has said that he abstained, which makes it more interesting in that the Member for Potong Pasir supports the motion and the Member for Anson abstains. An hon. Member: I think we should applaud.”
“It is very good to know, Mr Speaker, Sir, that both the Members of the Opposition have supported the motion and it is unanimous.”
“I noted with strange coincidence that when the votes were taken just now, the Member for Potong Pasir was at the entrance and it was most unfortunate that he was not given an opportunity to express his Aye or Nay. But I take it that his vote would have been affirmative since he said the other day that he supported the motion in the name of the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah. And if it was otherwise, I am sure he would stand up and say so.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with the phasing out of its pig farming activities, Singapore will have to import pigs to meet the need of its pork-eating population. There is a need therefore to build a permanent holding station for imported pigs. And it is recommended that the proposed station be located at Terumbu Pesek situated south of Pulau Pesek, taking into account the land use of the southern islands. Sir, Terumbu Pesek is a reef which is submerged at high tide. It is therefore necessary to reclaim the reef to provide usable land area of about 30 hectares as shown coloured pink and edged red on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 3/84", a copy of which is deposited in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. Sir, fill for the reclamation will be obtained from Raffles Shoal shown coloured blue on the plan. The reclamation which will take about 10 months to complete at an estimated cost of $10 million will be undertaken by the Jurong Town Corporation as agents of the Government. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270) approves the reclamation by the Government of that portion of the foreshore and seabed at Terumbu Pesek containing an area of about 30 hectares as shown coloured pink within the site shown edged red on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 3/84" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS (Voting by Opposition Members on Motion for Address of Thanks)”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in the name of the Minister for Law, as it appears on the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows: That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270) approves the reclamation by the Government of that portion of the foreshore and seabed at Terumbu Pesek containing an area of about 30 hectares as shown coloured pink within the site shown edged red on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 3/84" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, before going on to this subject --- [The Minister proceeded with comments on voting on the Motion for the Address of Thanks by Mr Chiam See Tong (q.v.)]”
“I would answer the question in so far as a person can comprehend the English language. Mr Speaker, Sir, Hyde Park in England, in case Singaporeans do not know, in their culture, in their society, they have evolved a system where a person stands on a soap-box and makes a speech on any subject, including vitriolic attacks on another person's religion, another person's race, another person's language, anacks on immigrants, which are very provocative. This demonstrates my point. Do we want that to happen in Singapore? I think every Singaporean can un(jerstand what will be the disastrous consequences if we allow that in Singapore. And this reinforces my conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we must decide what kind of society we want. Do we want that kind of racial, religious and linguistic feelings to be stirred up under the guise of Western freedom of speech?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson advocates freedom of speech. He insists on the right to intervene. With your characteristic fairness, you have accorded him the right to speak, but his double standards on freedom of speech are such that he would deny me the right to expound my reply.”
“Well, he has had his say, let me have my say.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the example that he gave demonstrates the wide distance and the high clouds that he is on. Hyde Park in England. Let me tell the Members here, who have not been there and Singaporeans who have not been there, what happens in Hyde Park? To demonstrate my point that -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this fear that I am talking about, if the Minister wishes to know, is the fear in the citizens of Singapore that they may be arrested at any time by the police and detained without any due process of law. Does he not know that there is this fear? Prof Jayakumar rose ---”
“Secondly, he asked, "Is there freedom from arbitrary arrest?" There is freedom from arbitrary arrest because there is provision in the Constitution and our laws spell out the procedure for arrest and detention. I know what he has in mind because he has mouthed this many times. He says: "rule of law means you cannot have preventive detention; you must release all those in preventive detention". Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope all those who are watching us and reading our proceedings will think carefully about this. As a Minister for Home Affairs, as a person trained in law, there is nothing better that I would like than to repeal preventive detention, if I could do so. Because if I had a choice, I would want to prosecute every criminal in a court of law because the sentence, the publicity given to it, would have the greatest impact. But we have vicious criminals, secret society gangsters, who commit the worst kind of crimes but cannot get convictions because children whom they have raped or molested are unable to get evidence in the Court. Because we are unable to convict them in a Court of law, do we want, therefore to release these hundreds of vicious criminals onto our streets to terrify our loved ones? That is the policy question. This is where there is a big difference between the Member for Anson and the Government. If he had his way, he would abolish preventive detention, release all these criminals onto the streets. We, the Government, say we have a responsibility to the vast majority of our population and as long as we are in power, we want to protect the vast majority against this minority of black sheep. Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, again the Minister is completely unable to understand. I am surprised that he was at one time a teacher of law at the university.”
“The Member for Anson has been spouting untruths, lies, attacks on the Government. If there is no freedom of speech, how was it that he was able to do that? How was it that his members in the pany were able to similarly make wild allegations? Mr Speaker, Sir, is that freedom from fear? I ask him to travel in New York, take a walk in the streets of New York; ask him to see whether he has the same freedom and the same feeling when he walks the streets of Singapore as he walks in the streets of New York, because I have lived in New York, as many other Members have, as a student. One of my friends was mugged in New York and when he reported to police a moment's later, the police were not excited and said: "Were you injured?" - 'No'. "Well, consider yourself lucky, don't bother." That is the freedom of fear that he is talking about.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, after I have replied, it will be clear who is distorting. First, he says that he never said that there were no provisions in the Constitution of Singapore on fundamental rights. My point is this. He said in this Parliament: may I commend to the Governnment restoration or investing of people of their rights? Elsewhere, he said that in Singapore there were no fundamental freedoms and liberties. And I pointed out before lunch that he failed to bring to this House's attention the fact that there are provisions in our Constitution and laws, and I asked: why is it that the Member for Anson, although he has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, misled this House by not bringing that important fact to the attention of the House? Secondly, he has asked, "Is there freedom of speech?" There is freedom of speech.”
“If he avoids being as lengthy as is usual.”
“We have the other extreme in countries in the West where they fall and bend over backwards to protect the rights of criminals, ignoring the victims and the majority of the population whom laws were intended and designed to protect. Even prisons in the western countries, human rightists claim that there should be conjugal rights for prisoners. The wives must be entitled to come in. We have to shape our own destiny. Our laws, our constitution, our legal norms must promote the kind of society we want. As Singaporeans listen to our debates, as Singaporeans watch on television, the question that both old and young must ask is: how is it that we have achieved a society where we have kept crime within reasonable proportion, where it is safe for the wife and children to work and live even though the head of the household may not be at home because he is on night shift? How is it that we have achieved racial tolerance? It is not through collection of words strung together in any legal document, although legal documents serve a purpose. Let us therefore ask: do we want to tear asunder and erode everything that we have achieved? That is the question facing us and I hope the young of Singapore, the old of Singapore, and the rest of us in Singapore, never forget that when we watch crime, absence of order, insecurity, instability, races killing other races, panic and fear, let us ask how do we ensure that that never happens in Singapore. The answer to that, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not in pious and ritualistic incantations of legal provisions of other countries. [Applause]”
“Mr Speaker Sir, in the Law Library at the Nationai University of Singapore I can tell you that there are impressive collections of constitutions of the countries, One collection is called "Peaslee's Constitutions of the Nations". The other is "Blaustein's Constitutions of the Countries of the World." If you read these volumes, you will think that every country in the world has a most beautiful record of human rights. But the most tyrannical regimes have the most impressive and a longer Bill of Human Rights. Mr Speaker, Sir, I had the occasion to serve as a Human Rights Officer in the United Nations Secretariat and was involved in the preparatory work for the drafting of the International Bill of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, instruments which the Member for Anson from time to time invoke. As I listened to the report and United Nations debates, one was struck with a hypocrisy of those who made incantations of human rights. The representatives of the most oppressive regimes were the ones who made the longest speeches about human rights. What is the lesson to be learnt from this? The lesson to be learnt from this, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that there is no magic formula. There is no magic legal formula. There is no magic constitution which we can borrow from any country because societies are different, situations are different. In some countries, we have one extreme - public beheading of criminals is an order. In other countries, surgical amputation of criminals is considered proper punishment. That is one extreme.”
“Do we want a society of lawlessness, of chaos, where there is fear, where people are apprehensive in walking in the streets? Tourists have come here. Many of you who have friends from overseas have come to Singapore and they have said that they feel safe in walking in the streets in a way they have never felt in their own country. Mr Speaker, Sir, we must ask: what kind of a society do we want? We have achieved in Singapore a balance between the rights of individuals as well as the general well-being of the vast majority of Singaporeans who are law-abiding. Do we want to preserve it? Do you want to blindly adopt constitutional provisions from other countries as if these constitutional provisions would, by some miraculous effect, solve all our problems? We have law and order in Singapore. We have racial harmony in Singapore. We have stability and security. How did we achieve this? Not by cdnstitutional provisions alone but by a careful system of policies which the Government has developed over a period of years with the understanding and cooperation of our people. We want a society where the young and old in Singapore, wherever they live - whether in a HDB flat, purchase flat, rental flat, whether in any other kind of semi-detached, terrace house or bungalow - and wherever they 'work, they must feel that they, their loved ones, their wives and children have freedom from fear, ie, they can live, they can work and they can have recreation without fear of bodily harm, injury or commission of crime. We must develop our own method, our own system of balancing of rights and responsibilities. The Member for Anson asked for provisions from other countries.”
“Freedom of speech, yes, but freedom of speech does not mean that one can make inflammatory speeches to incite racial and religious hatred. We have not forgouen the SPLO which not too long ago involved a member of the party of the Member for Anson. It involved persons who, if they had not been arrested in time, would have caused racial strife in Singapore. Freedom of movement, yes, but not the right to riot, to smash windows, loot, as we see on television. Freedom of movement, yes. Right to travel, yes. But if you have criminal connections, connections with drug syndicates on the international level, we must deny them the right to passports. The Member for Anson says that Singaporeans are not allowed to marry. Here again is a distortion of the truth for he knows that Singaporeans can marry. What is it that we have done? We have said that the 150,000 to 160,000 work permit holders who are here to perform tasks for a limited period, here for a temporary period, the vast majority of whom are unskilled, know that they are here for temporary purposes and they must go back. We say, "If you want to marry, the condition is that you must seek the approval of the Government". The reasons have been spelt out. This is to avoid the tremendous social, economic and political consequences which countries in the West have faced as a result of uncontrolled influx of foreign labour. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not that we do not have rights. We have rights. The Member for Anson, if you read his speech, the flavour of his speech is to advocate absolute rights because he has not anywhere in his speech talked about the interests of society as a whole. What have we achieved in Singapore? My message to Members here in this House and to Singaporeans is: what kind of a society do we want?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before we broke up, I made the point that the Member for Anson had failed to bring to this House the fact that there were provisions in our Constitution, in our laws, which were brought about by an Act of this Government, Let me proceed now to the remainder of his thesis, which is to say that we must have provisions from other countries, practices of other countries adopted here. He pointed out the provisions of the Constitution of Guyana. Has he been to Guyana? I have been to Guyana. Has he read what has happened there? Grandiose provisions in the Constitution of Guyana did not prevent a religious fanatic from establishing a macabre cult which resulted in mass suicides and murders of hundreds of people who were in the town. We read about it. We saw it on TV. It happened under the nose of the government. Do we want that to happen here? We saw it on TV. We read about it in the newspafiers. What happens in other countries? Chaos, instability, crimes, riots, racial strife and fears in countries which have constitutional provisions, grand sounding Bill of Rights. Have those provisions prevented such scenarios in those countries? Do we want that to happen here? The Member for Anson said we have no fundamental freedoms. He said there is no freedom of speech. If there is no freedom of speech, how is it that the Member for Anson has been able to express all his vitriolic criticisms, scurrilous attacks on the PAP, the Government and the leaders all these years? Is there no freedom of movement? There is freedom of movement. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, freedom must be balanced with societal interests and the interests of the majority.”
“If I am not telling the truth, the Member for Anson can refute me. As I said, provisions of the Constitution of Malaysia were made applicable in Singapore. He can check the Hansard, he can check Act 9 of 1965 where certain provisions were modified because of the Singapore situation. But he has deceived this House by not making any reference to the provisions in the Constitution which he has sworn to defend and uphold. I am saying that he has not kept faith with the spirit and intention of the oath which he has taken. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have many other points to proceed. I do not know whether you want me to develop my arguments now or to take them after the recess.”
“Only when all the facts are laid bare in this House can the public decide who is telling the truth, who is telling the untruth, and let them decide.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson can have his say at the appropriate time. My point is that the theme of the Member for Anson's speech was that there were no fundamental rights or freedom in Singapore, that they are non-existent, and that they should be restored. My reply to him is, why did he fail to tell this House that there are provisions in the Constitution, a Constitution which he has sworn to uphold and defend? Why did he fail to bring this to the attention of the House? And why did he fail to point out that these were provisions which the Singapore Government, by a specific Act, brought back into operation in Singapore? Mr Speaker, Sir, before we adjourn and before I resume my points, let me preface my remarks by saying that sometimes friendly, as well as unfriendly, critics ask us why do we come down so hard, sometimes, on Members of the Opposition? Why do we not let them have their say? Why do we clobber them? My reaction to that is that, as far as the Government is concerned, we welcome criticisms. We welcome challenges to our policies and decisions. We welcome criticisms. We welcome alternative policies. But if half-truths, untruths, distortions, are purveyed in this House, the Government must reply. Why? If I may quote from the Prime Minister a statement made many years ago in this House - repetitions of untruth, if it goes unchallenged and unrefuted might, as Mr Goebbels said, bring about the triumph of untruth over truth, therefore, whoever resons to untruths, half-truths, or malicious lies, it is the duty of the Government to expose them, set fonh the correct situation, lay down the truth, so that Singaporeans can decide.”
“Not only that, how did these provisions in our Constitution and laws come about? Were they handed to us by the colonial legislature and that we had no choice but to keep them in the statute books? He has again failed to tell us the whole truth. And the whole truth is, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when we separated from Malaysia we were left with the State Constitution of Singapore which had no provisions on fundamental rights of individual freedoms. How is it that these provisions were brought about? They were brought about by a decision of the Government which passed the law in this Chamber in 1965 known as the Republic of Singapore Independence Act (Act 9 of 1965), by which the provisions of the Constitution of Malaysia on fundamental rights were made to have continuing applicability in Singapore. So the Member for Anson has failed to bring this ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am prompted to take the Floor for several reasons. First of all, the remarks made a few days ago by the hon. Member for Whampoa; secondly, some of the statements made by Opposition Members. First, the hon. Member for Whampoa, in one of his interventions, cautioned the Government against succumbing to pressures from various quarters to relax laws and regulations which have brought about an orderly state of affairs in Singapore. I would like to respond to him and to assure him that the Government will not allow undermining and an erosion in our stability, security, law and order. And I would like to pay tribute to the Member for having shown his appreciation of the constraints and the realistic factors and circumstances which operate in our society. Contrast this, however, with the statements made by the hon. Member for Anson. His whole speech was devoted to purveying the untruth that in Singapore there are no fundamental freedoms, no rights of the individual. He asked for a restoration of the rights of individuals in Singapore. First of all, let me say that the Member for Anson has taken an oath in this august Chamber which, inter alia, says that he will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of Singapore. But implicit in the oath also is that he must not omit the important provisions of this Constitution. He must not mislead the Members of this House; he must not mislead Singaporeans. Why did he fail to mention in his speech that our laws and our Constitution provide for fundamental freedoms and rights of individuals which are enshrined in our Constitution? If Government and the Legislature should act inconsistently with the provisions of the Constitution, this could lead to a challenge of governmental action in our courts of law.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Ought not the Member for Anson ask this question at the time the previous statement was made?”
“The work permit statistics sought by the Member are not available.”