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 64 of 66.
“Sir, I request that I be allowed to say what I have to say, unless he has risen on a point of order.”
“In other words, the Government, according to his perception, must abdicate its responsibility to safeguard the well-being of the vast majority of the nation, it must abdicate its responsibility and decision-making powers in such a crucial area of citizenship and permanent residence. The Government cannot abdicate and will not abdicate its responsibility. If he and his party were to come to power and want to abdicate such responsibility, I fear the fate that would befall the nation. Has he not looked around what is happening in other countries? Does he not know where countries do not take -”
“May I request that the Member for Anson let me speak, as I did not interrupt him when he spoke, especially since my time is shorter than his? Foreign wives of Singapore citizens - the statistics of approval of permanent residence were outlined in this House the previous week. I pointed out that about 75% of these applications were approved. In fact, if we take the past three years, the figure of approval is more than 80%. If the Member for Anson knows of any other country in the world where there is such a high percentage of approval of permanent residence for wives, I shall be happy to receive his information. This shows that we have been very liberal. 5.30 p.m. There is no basis for the Member for Anson - and he has not indicated in this House any basis whatsoever -to draw his wild allegations that the granting of per- manent residence for wives has been discrimination on the basis of wealth. He has not brought one shred of evidence, and the fact of the matter is that we have been very liberal in granting permanent residence to wives. They are representative of all shades and classes of wives of Singapore citizens. The majority, in fact, are from the working class. We know that the Member for Anson has a penchant for making such allegations, but one would at least expect him to substantiate his allegations instead of making them out of thin air. Secondly, he has made the preposterous point that when it comes to the granting of permanent residence, it is not for the Government to take a decision. We must let the individual applicant or the sponsor unilaterally decide whether or not the granting of permanent residence is justified.”
“Sir, I have slightly under seven minutes to reply to the very sweeping allegations. I will be very brief. On immigration, let me state that there are certain figures which are revealing. There are more than 120,000 permanent residents in Singapore. There are many who want to become permanent residents. Last year alone there were 12,830 applicants for permanent residence, which represented a 47% increase over the previous year. This itself should make us think. There are many people who want to come to Singapore and settle. What should be our over-riding consideration in deciding ,on these applications? They must be in the national interest of Singapore, for once they are permanent residents they are entitled to various privileges and concessions. The Member for Anson, in his typical fashion, has referred to the situation of wives, foreign wives of Singapore citizens -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, he has asked a question as to what the Fire Service has done, and I have given an answer. As far as those houses which are vacant are concerned, appropriate action will be taken by the Fire Service and the other departments, including the locking up and boarding up of vacant premises. With regard to those houses where the residents are still in those remises, like any other premises in Singapore, whether shophouses or not, the residents in those premises must ensure that they do not have debris and other flammable material lying within the premises.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it is evident, from the wording of the Question posed by the Member for Anson, that he clearly was under the impression that those shophouses Nos. 243 to 235 were vacant. I have just demonstrated by fact that two of them were not vacant at the material time but that three were vacant. The situation is that this row of shophouses is awaiting demolition. They can only be demolished when the residents have moved out. Some residents have moved out and the contractors who have been entrusted with demolition will begin to demolish those shophouses which are vacant, and when the others move out those too will be demolished. The Member for Anson can assist by encouraging or persuading the residents to move out of these, as he has pointed out, dangerous premises as soon as possible and thereby enable this condition to be eradicated.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Fire Service is aware of the fire hazards posed by vacant buildings awaiting demolition. It has advised the relevant agencies, such as URA and HDB, on measures to be taken to minimize the fire hazards. These measures include the locking or the boarding up of the vacant buildings to deter trespassers and mischief makers. Furthermore, power supplies to such premises are also cut to prevent short circuits which may cause fires. There was a fire recently in the same row of shophouses referred to by the Member for Anson. The Fire Service did a splendid job in rescuing a family of four who were trapped in one of the burning shophouses. The fire started at No. 237 and spread to No. 235 Tanjong Pagar Road. Both premises were occupied at the time of the fire.”
“Sir, I take it that the Member for West Coast is not disputing the objectives of the policy but raising a question as to its implementation, and I gather from his supplementary question that he has knowledge of complaints about possible abuse of persons coming in who are not qualified or have not the requisite qualifications. Let me assure him that if he has such information and if he were to send it to my Ministry, we will have it thoroughly investigated. If it is substantiated, I also wish to assure him that we will take prompt action and, if necessary, terminate the employment passes of those cases which are substantiated. VACANT SHOPHOUSES NOS. 243 to 235 TANJONG PAGAR ROAD (Measures to minimize fire hazards) 4. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Singapore Fire Service is aware of the very serious fire hazard presented by the state and condition of the vacant shophouses Nos. 243 to 235 Tanjong Pagar Road and what has been done or is being done to prevent or minimize the risk of further fires thereby endangering the lives of the residents in the other shophouses in the same stretch of shophouses.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are requirements under the broad heads, but each case will have to be considered on its own merits. This is why, in my answer, I have set out the broad policy, for that is what the Member for Anson has asked - to set out the policy of our Ministry - and I have so set out. AUTOMATIC RESCUE DEVICE IN HDB LIFTS (Effectiveness of) 4. Mr Liew Kok Pun asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the number and percentage of lifts in Housing and Development Board apartment blocks that were brought to the nearest floor and had their doors opened by the Automatic Rescue Device thereby reducing the number of people trapped in HDB lifts during the recent island-wide power failure; and (b) whether his Ministry is satisfied with the effectiveness of the Automatic Rescue Device installed in all HDB lifts.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have received representations from writers and groups of writers. I would refrain from passing judgment on whether they have acquired the fame of international status. PERMANENT RESIDENCE (Policy) 3. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) if he will set out the policy of his Ministry as regards the granting of permanent residence status; and (b) how many wives of Singapore citizens have applied for the status in the last ten years and how many of that number have been granted the status.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we should not rush the Committee, for this is an important area. It has to examine all aspects. It is not a simple matter of deciding that we want to protect a group of Singapore writers. The complexities involved require careful examination. We must decide on the policy. It is not just a question of protecting the writers but we must also examine whether there are other costs and long-term disadvantages in one or other of the reforms. In trying to improve our copyright laws, we must ensure that the changes will benefit Singapore society as a whole. We must also look into what are the things we are going to protect - books, cassettes, audio tapes, video tapes, cinematographic films, computer programmes, and so on. We must also inquire as to the methods of implementation, whether the police have the necessary manpower to investigate, and so on. Bearing all these complicated aspects in mind, what I can inform the House is that the Committee is proceeding with its work expeditiously. It is not the intention of the Ministry to rush them into hasty conclusions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has pointed out that there are two international conventions, which is the case. However, in our approach to reviewing the law of copyright, we cannot approach it on a piecemeal basis. We have to approach the question of copyright in its entirety, for there will be far-reaching consequences. One of the matters before the Committee, which the Minister has appointed, will be which of these two international conventions should Singapore adhere to, whether we should adhere to them, and what will be the obligations and rights that will ensue from adhering to these conventions. But as I said, the question of copyright has many facets, and the adhering to an international convention is only one of the many facets which the Government is considering.”
“Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by Government of that portion of the foreshore and sea-bed off Ponggol containing an area of about 277 hectares, as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/83" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. COMMISSION ON PARLIAMENT STAFF (Report)”
“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 Government of that portion of the foreshore and sea-bed off Ponggol containing an area of about 277 hectares, as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECALAMATION PLAN NO. 1/83" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, at present, large parts of Ponggol are used for commercial pig farming. The leases for these intensive farms will expire by 1992. In the long term, Ponggol will be developed by the Housing and Develop- ment Board for public housing. To build up the land stock for future housing needs, it is proposed to reclaim the areas shown coloured pink on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/83", a copy of which is displayed in the library of this House for the information of hon. Members. The proposed reclamation will yield about 277 hectares of land. Approximately 133 hectares will be regained by filling up the swamps while the remaining 144 hectares will be reclaimed from the sea. Fill for the reclamation, about 14.4 million cubic metres, will be obtained from the Tampines cut site, overburden at the Pulau Ubin granite quarry and dredged seabed material off Ponggol. The proposed reclamation will take three years to complete at an estimated cost of $136 million. On completion of the reclamation, pending the development of the reclaimed land for public housing, parts of the reclaimed land will be used for industrial purposes, relocation of activities affected by public schemes and intensive pig farming. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“The High Court has also pointed out that another effect of a contrary interpretation would be that there would be two legal regimes of land acquisition: one legal regime where statutory boards will have to pay compensation at present day values, and another regime of land acquisition where statutory boards will have to pay at the 1973 values. The question therefore is, could this Legislature and its predecessors have envisioned such an absurd result? The answer is no, and precisely to confirm that intention this Bill has been tabled.”
“It will give the statutory boards immunity? That, too, is a complete distortion of this Bill. He interprets the two clauses as conferring statutory boards immunity from legal process in any case of land acquisition. If one reads the Bill carefully, one can see that clause 3 says: 'No compulsory acquisition of any immovable property ... shall be called in question in any court on the ground that the acquisition was not in compliance with any of the specified provisions ...'. and the specified provisions are set out in the Schedule. Therefore, where is the immunity that he refers to? Persons are still free to bring whatever legal action they are entitled to under the law in respect of all other aspects of land acquisition. So it is not true. The second point he has raised is that this takes away vested rights. The simple question before us and before this House is this. Do we want uncertainty with regard to land acquisition? Do we want public development schemes to be impeded, held up and delayed while various legal actions - pending, not pending, still in the minds of litigants - take their natural course? Anyone who has read the judgment of the High Court will come to the answer, "Obviously not." The judg ment of the High Court has pointed out that if the contrary interpretation prevails, the result will be that there will be two groups of statutory boards: one group of statutory boards which will be under an obligation to enter into negotiations, and another group of statutory boards which are not under an obligation.”
“Whether the lands in question can or cannot be acquired by agreement is exclusively a matter between the Authority and the President in the course of public administration. The effect of the High Court decision is, therefore, to affirm that section 21(l) does not impose an obligation on the Authority to enter into prior negotiations with the landowners. It follows that landowners do not have a corresponding right to compel the Authority to enter into prior negotiations. The point raised in the litigation is undoubtedly a technical one. Although the High Court has construed section 21 (1) in a manner which is in accord with its real intention, it is desirable that there should not be any further doubt on this matter as the Acts incorporating several other statutory bodies (set out in the Schedule to this Bill) contain a similar provision. The Bill seeks to amend all those Acts by removing those words in the various statutory provisions which may give rise to the element of uncertainty. The Bill also ensures that no previous compulsory acquisitions of lands will be questioned on the ground that there were no prior negotiations or attempts at entering into agreement with landowners. This is necessary in the public interest. This Bill is in conformity with the legal position as declared by the High Court. I should like to stress that the Bill does not in any way affect the existing rights which are accorded to landowners under the Land Acquisition Act. It makes clear beyond any doubt what is, and has always been, the legal position. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to That the Bill be now read a Second time." Section 5(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (Cap. 272) provides that whenever any particular land is needed - (a) for any public purpose; (b) by any person, corporation or statutory board, for any work or an undertaking which, in the opinion of the Minister, is of public benefit or of public utility or in the public interest; or (c) for any residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the President may, by notification published in the Gazette, declare the land to be required for the purpose specified in the notification. Section 21(l) of the Port of Singapore Authority Act (Cap. 173) provides that where any immovable property, not being State land, is needed for the purposes of the Authority and cannot be acquired by agreement, the Authority may request, and the President may, if he thinks fit, direct the acquisition of such property in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In two recent cases before the High Court, it was argued on behalf of the landowners that the words "and cannot be acquired by agreement" impose a condition precedent to acquisition, i.e. prior negotiations with the landowners must be complied with before the Authority can request the President to acquire the lands. The High Court rejected this argument and held that the words were too oblique and wholly inadequate if they were intended to impose such a condition on the Authority. The Court held that the provision merely requires the Authority to satisfy the President that the lands were needed for the purposes of the Authority and could not be acquired by agreement.”
“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, pursuant to Article 42 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the allowance of the Deputy Speaker shall be $1,500 per month with effect from 1st November, 1982. Sir, clause (3) of Article 42 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that the Deputy Speaker shall be paid such salary or allowance as Parliament may from time to time determine. With the revision of the salary of the Speaker last year, the allowance of the Deputy Speaker was revised from $500 per month to $1,000 per month with effect from 1st April 1981. Now that the salary of the Speaker is to be revised with effect from 1st November 1982, it is proposed that the allowance of the Deputy Speaker be also revised to $1,500 per month with effect from the same date. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, pursuant to Article 42 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the allowance of the Deputy Speaker shall be $1,500 per month with effect from 1st November, 1982. 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 Teh Cheang Wan). ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the salary of the Speaker shall be $17,400 per month ($9,500 on part-time appointment) with effect from 1st November, 1982. ALLOWANCE OF DEPUTY SPEAKER”
“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, pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the salary of the Speaker shall be $17,400 per month ($9,500 on part-time appointment) with effect from 1st November, 1982. Sir, Article 41 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that the Speaker shall be paid such salary as Parliament may from time to time determine. Following the revision of the consolidated salaries of the Ministers in 1981, Parliament determined, by a resolution of this House passed on 15th June 1981, that the salary of the Speaker should be $12,000 per month with effect from 1st April 1981. Consequent on the consolidation of the salaries for the civil service, by incorporation of the National Wages Council allowances from 1978 to 1981 into the salary scales with effect from 1st November 1982, the salaries of the Ministers were also similarly revised and rounded up to $16,700 per month with effect from the same date. To maintain relativities and following past practice, the salary of the Speaker should also be revised. The present salary of the Speaker of $12,000 plus the 1978 to 1981 NWC allowances of $5,323.14 total $17,323.14 per month. It is therefore proposed to revise and round up the salary of the Speaker to $17,400 per month with effect from 1st November 1982. Members are aware that the present Speaker has drawn only slightly more than half the salary determined for that office. He will continue to be paid in the same proportion to the full salary - hence my Motion that he be paid $9,500 per month for so long as he does not devote his full time to the office of Speaker. Sir, I beg to move.”
“Any additional fill required will be imported. Mr Deputy Speaker, 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 Government of approximately 32.57 hectares of the foreshore and seabed at Pulau Busing shown coloured pink and the dredging of the seabed shown coloured blue and hatched black on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 7/82", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Hon Sui Sen]. Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen minutes to Eight o'clock p.m. to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS COLLECTION OF REFUSE FEES FOR HAWKERS IN HDB ESTATES 1. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for the Environment whether his Ministry will consider making arrangements with the Housing and Development Board to collect the refuse collection fee of $10.00 from stall hawkers in HDB estates, along with licence fees for the stalls collected by the HDB, so as to minimise inconvenience to the stall holders.”
“Mr Deputy 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 Government of approximately 32.57 hectares of the foreshore and seabed at Pulau Busing shown coloured pink and the dredging of the seabed shown coloured blue and hatched black on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 7/82", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Sir; you will recall that at its Sitting on 6th November, 1974, this House approved the reclamation, by the Port of Singapore Authority as agents of the Government, of approximately 24.29 hectares (60 acres) of the foreshore and seabed at Pulau Busing as shown coloured green on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 7/82" for industrial development. A copy of this plan is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. The Port of Singapore Authority did not, however, proceed with the reclamation in the light of a subsequent Government decision that Pulau Busing be allocated to the Jurong Town Corporation for industrial development. The Jurong Town Corporation now proposes to proceed with the reclamation on an enlarged basis incorporating an additional 32.57 hectares, shown coloured pink on the plan, so that the total area to be reclaimed will be approximately 56.86 hectares. The estimated cost of the reclamation is $47 million. Work on the reclamation will commence in late 1982 and is expected to be completed by mid-1984. About 3 million cubic metres of fill is required and will be obtained by dredging the seabed shown coloured blue and hatched black on the plan.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if he looks at the provisions of the Vigilante Corps Act, it provides for persons who may exercise disciplinary functions. If he looks at the Act as a whole, he will find that powers are given, for instance, in amended section 17, "where a subordinate officer is found guilty by a disciplinary officer", in which case it will be an individual. So to determine the persons authorized, one will have to refer to the entirety of the Act which defines specific cases of who is the disciplinary officer authorized to do so. But I specifically refer him to the amended section 17 which talks of a disciplinary officer with respect to specific different sections of the Act. 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 Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed, TELECOMMUNICATION AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE BILL Order for Second Reading read. 5.50 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Member for Anson asking as to who makes the regulations?”
“Other powers provided by this Bill include: (a) the ordering of payment of compensation up to $100 by a member of the Corps, to third parties who suffer damage or loss by reason of the offence; (b) the provision for deductions from his pay, for every day of absence without leave or desertion, for every day of detention, and for every day in hospital on account of sickness caused by an offence committed by him. The number of offences punishable under the Act is also increased from 12 to 27. The new powers sought under this Bill are based mainly on those available to the SAF under the Singapore Armed Forces Act. This will ensure that the Vigilante Corps can maintain a level of discipline as high as that prevailing in the SAF. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of the Vigilante Corps (Amendment) Bill, 1982, is to provide the Vigilante Corps with additional powers to deal with members of the Corps who commit disciplinary offences. The Vigilante Corps was started in 1964 mainly as a volunteer service to assist the Singapore Police Force in maintaining law and order. In 1967, part-time national service in the Vigilante Corps was introduced and the Vigilante Corps Act was enacted to regularize the position of the volunteers and to allow the enlistment of the national servicemen into the Corps. Given the nature of its duties, the disciplinary powers given to the Corps then were not stringent and were adequate. In 1975, full-time Vigilante Corps was introduced together with the Police National Service (Full-time) Special Constabulary (PNS(F)SC). The Police National Service (Fu ll-time) Vigilante Corps (PNS(F)VC) are subject to the Vigilante Corps Act, whilst the PNS(F)SC are governed by the Police Force Act. In 1981, the Corps was assigned wider responsibilities in Civil Defence which included the setting up of the Vigilante Corps (Construction Brigade) and other civil defence units. In view of its important role in emergencies, and to ensure an effective and reliable civil defence, there is now a need for stricter discipline to be maintained in the Corps. The Bill introduces the following additional disciplinary powers: (a) detention for a period not exceeding 40 days; (b) fine of up to $200; (c) stoppage of leave for a period not exceeding 28 days; (d) restriction of privileges for a period not exceeding 14 days; and (e) extra duty or drill for a period not exceeding 7 days.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Minister for Law, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Bill seeks to amend the Trustees Act (Chapter 40) by increasing the borrowing power of an "approved company" from three-quarters to the full amount of its mortgage assets. An "approved company" is defined in the Act as one that is incorporated in Singapore and which has a place of business in Singapore having, as its sole or primary object, the promotion of home ownership by advancing purchase monies, repayable by instalments over a specified period of time. Section 4(2) of the Act lays down the conditions under which trust funds may be invested with an approved company. One of the conditions is that the total amount borrowed by the approved company must not exceed three-quarters of its mortgage assets. Representations have been made that the borrowing power of an approved company be increased from three-quarters to the full amount of the company's mortgage assets. After consideration of these representations, it is felt that the limit imposed by the Act could properly be raised from threequarters to the full amount of the mortgage assets. This, however, requires an amendment to section 4(2)(c) of the Trustees Act; hence the Bill before this House. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof S. Jayakumar). Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. LAND TITLES (STRATA) (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 5.37 p.m.”
“5 hectares as shown coloured pink and the dredging of the seabed as shown coloured blue on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 8/82", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. COMPLAINT BY THE MEMBER FOR ANSON”
“This reclamation, to be carried out in three phases, is expected to be completed by 1991 at an estimated cost of $380 million for Phase 1, $554 million for Phase 11 and $835 million for Phase 111. About 70 million cubic metres of imported fill material will be required. Opportunity will also be taken to dredge the area shown coloured blue on the same plan to provide for a berthing basin. The reclamation at Pulau Sakra and Pulau Bakau will cover an area of approximately 139.5 hectares of the foreshore and seabed around these two islands as shown coloured pink on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 8/82", a copy of which is also displayed in the Library of this House. This reclamation, to meet the demand for land for industrial use, is expected to be completed by 1985 at an estimated cost of $140 million. Approximately 10 million cubic metres of fill required for this reclamation will be obtained by dredging the shallow areas around these islands, as shown coloured blue on the same plan. Both the reclamations 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:- (a) the reclamation by Government of those portions of the foreshore and seabed off Tuas, Jurong, containing a total area of approximately 600 hectares as shown coloured pink and the dredging of the seabed as shown coloured blue on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 3/82", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore; and (b) the reclamation by Government of those portions of the foreshore and seabed around Pulau Sakra and Pulau Bakau containing a total area of approximately 139.”
“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 sect 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves:-- (a) the reclamation by Government of those portions of the foreshore and seabed off Tuas, Jurong, containing a total area of approximately 600 hectures as shown coloured pink and the dredging of the seabed as shown coloured blue on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 3/82", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singgapore; and (b) the reclamation by Government of those portions of the foreshore and seabed around Pulau Sakara and Pulau Bakau containing a total area of approximately 139.5 hectares as shown coloured pink and the dredging of the seabed as shown coloured blue on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 8/82", which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, in anticipation of the demand for industrial land in the 1990s, it is proposed to carry out two reclamation projects - one at Tuas, off Jurong, and the other at Pulau Sakra and Pulau Bakau. The Tuas reclamation will cover an area of approximately 600 hectares of the foreshore and seabed in an L-shape; adjacent to the existing reclaimed land at the western limit at Tuas, as shown coloured pink on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 3/82", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. The L-shape design will not only maximize the acreage of the sea-front land available, but will also avoid encroaching on the existing sea-front.”
“Order 23 and the rules thereunder. Let me say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we are not only aware but we have taken the precaution of being advised by the Attorney-General. Given a choice of having to choose between the opinion of the Attorney-General and the expert opinion of the distinguished Member for Anson, I accept, of course, the opinion of the Attorney-General who has researched this matter and not given it on the spot.”
“This is a reprehensible, irresponsible attitude for anyone, more so for a political party which claims that it will provide an alternative government, and all the more abhorrent when perpetrated by a member of the noble profession of Advocates and Solicitors. We cannot have our courts subjected to such abuse. We will uphold the dignity of our courts and the judicial process. Finally, he has asked whether I am aware of the Rules of the Supreme Court because in his view this amending Bill is not necessary at all for there is ample provision in the law to meet the intent. Let me say that not only was I aware of the Rules of the Supreme Court but we had also sought the expert opinion of the Attorney-General who advised us that the existing provisions would not be adequate and that this -”
“It is his party, his society, through its wilful disregard for properly obtained orders of the court, which has shown the way for possible abuse and misuse of our judicial process, of our legal process and of our system of administration of the law. We do not have to wait for other perpetrators of the same kind of abuse of our court process before we introduce this legislation. Fortunately, the majority of societies, to the best of my knowledge, have paid due regard to our legal and judicial process. But now we have a society which has repeatedly not complied with the orders of the court and comes, nevertheless, with an institution of another proceeding. If this legislation is not passed, that society will be able to institute yet a third, a fourth and other proceedings against other defendants and thereby open the way for other societies to follow suit. Mr Speaker, Sir, he asked that the principle of legislation should be that legislation must be for the general good of society. May I inform him that that is what this Bill is all about. Is it in the interest of our society that a registered society be permitted to abuse our judicial process, to disregard properly obtained orders of the court? The approach which the society seems to adopt is to treat our legal system and our court process as a Las Vegas casino where the judicial process is regarded as a roulette wheel, where approach to litigation is made in a gambling manner, to drag a defendant each night in a pot-luck fashion and, when he fails, to sneak out without paying and to come back another night with another defendant in tow to try his luck again. This cannot be in the interest of our society.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me respond to the points raised by the Member for Anson. But before I do so, I think we should place on record certain important aspects of his response. I think we should place on record that he has never denied that his party instituted proceedings. He has never denied that he lost the proceedings. He has never denied that his Party refused to comply with the Orders of the court on costs, and he has not denied that notwithstanding the deliberate non-compliance with orders for costs in one proceeding, his society, nevertheless, proceeded to institute yet another proceeding . .let's disregard who was the other party. The Second Deputy Prime Minister (Foreign Affairs) has already replied to his first point, namely, that the Member for Anson has the impression that this legislation is directed against his political party and designed for one particular pending suit. Anyone who reads the amending Bill, and one does not have to be a lawyer to understand this, anyone who reads the amending Bill will see that it covers all societies which come under the ambit of the Societies Act. That is my first observation - that it is a complete untruth to say that this legislation is directed against one party. Any other society which falls within the purview of the proposed section 35A (1) will be covered by the intent and purport of this amending Bill. Secondly, he has asked whether I could point to other instances where other societies have been as delinquent and as contemptuous of court orders as his society has been. Mr Speaker, Sir, my answer to that is this.”
“Without such an amendment, any society may resort to law without a sense of responsibility towards its legal obligations to pay the costs of the defendant, if it were to lose the action. We have, as I said, already an example of such irresponsibility. This amendment will prevent further similiar acts of irresponsibility and abuse of our judicial process. Question proposed.”
“Although access to the courts must always be made available to all to pursue their just claims and grievances, we must ensure at the same time that defendants who have been successful in warding off unjustifiable and unreasonable claims and who have been unjustifiably dragged to court, should not be left without a hope of recovering the costs that they have been made to incur. The present, Bill seeks to prevent such abuse of our legal process by a registered society instituting legal proceedings without a care as to whether it has the means to meet the costs of the legal action. In addition to the requirement to furnish security for costs, the Bill also seeks to make certain officers of the society who approved the institution of legal action jointly and severally liable for the balance of any costs awarded to the successful defendant should the amount of security given be insufficient. This would also apply to any person who, on subsequently becoming an officer of the society, does not take reasonable measures to seek discontinuance of the legal proceedings. This will serve as an additional check against irresponsible acts by the officers of the society who use the society's name to initiate legal proceedings and will ensure that the court's award on costs will not be rendered meaningless as a result of the society's inability to pay. The amendments which this Bill seeks to introduce will effectively check the abuse of the process of the court by irresponsible officers of a registered society and help to preserve the common citizens' respect for law and order as administered by the courts.”
“We have the recent example of a political party, the Workers Party, which instituted defamation proceedings against an individual, Mr Tay Boon Too, a former Member of Parliament, and the Attorney-General (representing the former Department of Broadcasting). The plaintiff lost its defamation case against the defendants but did not fully pay the costs awarded to the defendants. Execution and garnishee proceedings taken by one of the defendants to realize a sum of about $25,000 as costs due to him showed that the plaintiff society had only $18.47 in its bank account. I think we are all familiar with the fact that an Order of Court was applied for and obtained for the appointment of an Official Receiver, in whose hands will be placed the assets of the party and who will be charged with the responsibility of getting the assets of the party and paying out its just and lawful debts. In spite of having such a paltry sum in its bank account and still being deeply in debt, that society nevertheless had again brought another defamation suit, as we know, against the Second Deputy Prime Minister, which, if it were to lose, would render it liable to pay another large sum of money in costs. The citizens of Singapore must be protected from such acts of irresponsibility on the part of the societies or any of its officials acting on its behalf. Rights must be accompanied by responsibilities. The right to seek redress in our courts is open to all; but it must be accompanied by a responsibility to comply with the awards and orders of the court. This amending Bill does not shut off or preclude any party from resorting to justice in accordance with the law.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Societies Act so as to empower the court, where proceedings are instituted by a registered society, to require it to furnish sufficient security for costs that might be incurred by the defendant in such proceedings. The court will be able to exercise such a discretion when it has reason to believe, on evidence before the court, that the society would be unable to pay the costs of the defendant if it should fail in its action. Upon failure to furnish such security, all proceedings against the defendant in the action may be stayed by order of the court until such time when the security is furnished. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is common knowledge that costs will have to be paid in any civil litigation. The party that loses his case in court will normally have to pay the costs of not only his, but that of the other party. If the court's order is not observed then, as the law stands at present, any judgment against a registered society can only be enforced by writs of execution against the assets of the society. However, there are instances where the successful party has not been able to recover the costs from the plaintiff. This means that if a society institutes legal proceedings but it does not have the assets or funds to meet the costs of such proceedings, a defendant who successfully defends an action brought against him by a society would be unable to recover his costs from the society. This is not an academic issue.”
“Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Prof S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 4.50 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a very short Bill but it nevertheless introduces a welcome and useful change in the law concerning proceedings in tort which are maintainable against the estate of a deceased person. Under the existing subsection (3) of section 8 of the Civil Law Act, no such proceedings shall be maintainable unless either (a) the proceedings were pending against the tort-feasor at the date of his death or (b) the proceedings are instituted within six months of the personal representative of the deceased tortfeasor taking out representation. Thus, unless proceedings were instituted before the death of the tortfeasor, a person who has a claim in tort against his estate has a very short period of six months after the grant of representation to commence proceedings. That this six-month time limit can give rise to considerable hardship and injustice, especially in personal injury cases, has been recognised in the UK where the law has been changed by abrogating this rule, thus leaving claims against the estates of deceased tortfeasors to be governed by the general law of limitation. The normal limitation period for an action in respect of personal injuries is three years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. This Bill seeks to delete section 8(3) of the Civil Law Act so as to remove the restrictive effect of that subsection with regard to the institution of proceedings in tort against the estate of a deceased person. With the deletion of that subsection, the normal limitation period would apply to such proceedings. This change would be particularly beneficial to persons injured in road accidents who, through no fault of their own, may be unaware that the tortfeasor has died. Sir, I beg to move.”
“This again is a subterfuge for I had personally checked with the Director of the CNB as well as the Ministry of Home Affairs officials as to whether he had any letters of complaint, written to the CNB or to the Ministry of wrongful detention. Let me say that he had not written any such letter except four letters which were written by his legal firm. All the four letters were asking for particulars and documents concerning persons detained in the DRC. None of these four letters alleged wrongful detention. As a Member of Parliament, he did write two letters. But these two letters were written to the Chairman of the Review Committee appealing for early release. In these two letters written as an MP there was no allegation of wrongful detention. Mr Speaker, Sir, thus the only cases, and I repeat, the only cases, taken up by the Member for Anson of wrongful detention are the two cases involving five drug addicts which were taken up by him as an advocate and solicitor as well as the present pending Civil Suit for wrongful detention. Mr Speaker, Sir, on these facts, it seems to me that there is a grave issue of a breach or abuse of privilege.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member states, inter alia, that the two cases were old cases taken up in 1980. He once again misleads this House by wrong information when he suggests or implies that he has no pecuniary interest now. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the second of the two cases that I referred to, Originating Motion 67 of 1980, it related to a person known as Subramaniam, son of Marie. As a follow-up of that Suit which was rejected by the court consisting of three Judges, another Civil Suit has been instituted for that same person and that suit is Suit 3949 of 1981 involving the same person where the claim is for damages for false imprisonment and wrongful detention. I pass this to you, Mr Speaker, Sir. [Document handed in to the Clerk.] This is a follow-up of a Suit instituted by Originating Motion for habeas corpus which was rejected. The same person instituted proceedings. Proceedings have been filed. The Member for Anson is acting as advocate and solicitor and his pecuniary interest is this - if he had been pursuing the line of questioning that he did, and if he had succeeded in eliciting from me an admission that there was a serious possibility of an error of diagnosis on the part of the DRC doctor, then this would have a definite bearing on this case which is now being instituted. It would have a bearing on the successful outcome of that case. The Member for Anson, therefore, has again misled this House by hiding his personal pecuniary interest and by not disclosing, even on his response to my question and in response to my point of order, that he had a pending case. Let me also say that at the sitting on Friday, he said that he had received complaints of wrongful detention not only by persons detained but from the parents and relatives.”
“This being the case, the Member for Anson had, in fact, raised the matter in this House in which he had a direct personal pecuniary interest without first disclosing it to the House. The Member for Anson owes this House an explanation why he did not do so. Mr Speaker, Sir, at this stage, before I go further with my point of order, the Member for Anson perhaps should be asked to explain why he had not disclosed his pecuniary interest.”
“The Member also read another report, this time by a private practitioner who commented that the DRC doctor's report did not set out what the symptoms were and, in the view of this doctor, withdrawal symptoms were not conclusive and should be supplemented by other tests. At that time, although these particulars brought up by the Member for Anson sounded familiar because I had read the papers relating to two cases where the Member for Anson had acted as an advocate and solicitor outside on behalf of five persons on writs of habeas corpus in the High Court by way of Originating Motions for the release of the five drug addicts detained in the DRC, on Friday I was not sure that these particulars related to these two cases which the Member for Anson acted as a lawyer. After the Sitting on Friday, I went back to the Ministry of Home Affairs to check the files, and I found out that, indeed, the documents were related to the two cases involving five different persons. I now tender affidavits of the DRC doctor as well as of the private practitioner employed by the Member for Anson's clients in these two cases involving five different persons. [Copies of Affidavits handed in to the Clerk.] The first case is Originating Motion 47 of 1980 and Originating Motion 48 of 1980 involving two inmates. The second case was a case which went to three Judges of the High Court, Originating Motions 67 of 1980, 68 of 1980 and 69 of 1980. In the first case involving two inmates, the action was successful. In the second case involving three inmates which went before the High Court of three Judges, the case was unsuccessful and the Judge in the first case mention was overruled.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise on a point of order for I would like to raise a point of order concerning a breach of privilege under section 31 of the Parliamentary (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, 1962, and Standing Order 62. Section 31 provides that: 'A Member shall not in or before Parliament or any committee take part in the discussion of any matter in which he has a direct personal pecuniary interest without disclosing the extent of that interest and shall not in any circumstances vote upon any such matter.' Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Sitting last Friday on the debate on the Estimates of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Member for Anson moved a motion: 'That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by the whole sum in respect of Subhead 01-02 of the Main Estimates.' relating to Drug Enforcement. He also voted on it. When speaking on the motion, the Member for Anson alleged inadequate safeguards when detaining drug addicts in the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) and maintained that an innocent person could be incarcerated up to 36 months. He alleged that there was a serious possibility of error on the part of the DRC doctor in making his diagnosis. He also said that he had received complaints of wrongful detention. The Member for Anson cited a case of a person who had undergone such a medical examination. He read out the report of the doctor on his finding of definite withdrawal symptoms consistent with heroin addiction. The doctor had reached the conclusion after observing the person for three days, for five minutes on each occasion.”
“3% of these applications were approved. Hon. Members: Hear, hear! 6.00 p.m.”
“Sir, my answer can be given within the space of two minutes because this is a repetition of the same question which I answered fully. Let me just confine myself to the following points. First, the Member has ventured into the realm of international law and has cited the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with which I am familiar, for I have taught it in my class in the University. He has referred to a provision in Article 16. Article 16 as well as all the other provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights nowhere confer a right on an alien or a foreigner, whether the wife or not, to enter into a country. The general principle of public international law is that it is a sovereign right of a country to determine admission of aliens subject only to such conditions and treaties as it may have expressly agreed to. Secondly, he does not cite other provisions in the Universal Declaration. He does not cite, for instance, Article 29. Article 29 says: 'In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are deter- mined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and [I stress] the general welfare in a democratic society.' This general welfare and national interest is the underpinning of our Immigration policy. He refers to several cases. In one of the cases the wife was allowed to enter into Singapore. So I do not see how he justifies his point. Finally, let me say that when we talk of wives of citizens, to dispel any notion that the Member for Anson raises of a draconian policy, last year there were 3,331 applications by wives for permanent residence. An overwhelming majority of 76.”
“Sir, I am tempted to answer but, as I explained on the 16th March, the Immigration Department's role with respect to work permit holders is, as he suggested, in close conjunction with the Ministry of Labour. Where a work permit is granted by the Commissioner for Employment, then that person who is a holder of a work permit will be granted the necessary Immigration pass to stay in Singapore. If for any reason the work permit is cancelled or terminated, then under the Immigration regulations that pass which entitles a person to stay in Singapore is also cancelled. He has raised an important point but if I may with respect ask the Member for Punggol to be a bit patient until we reach the Ministry of Labour - I think this is a question of policy which the Minister for Labour would not like me to pre-empt him from replying. Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, in view of the not so unsatisfactory reply of the Hon. Minister of State, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“That is for social visit passes. Let us take applications for permanent residence. Last year alone, there were 8,719 applications for permanent residence in Singapore, of which, if Members are interested, more than 87% were approved. Members might want to conclude whether we had been excessively brutal in our Immigration policy or not. Apart from this, in 1981 alone there were 34,816 people (nearly 35,000 people) who came into Singapore and overstayed and were detected. There may be many more who have not been detected. The point I want to make with these figures is an inescapable conclusion that there are a lot of people who want to come to Singapore and to stay here. We cannot take a humanitarian approach and say, "Fine, all of you stay here." It will be suicidal for the future of our country. We have to be selective. Other countries are doing it. Other countries take into account the national interest. We too have to take into account our national interest, consider whether they will be contributing to our economy, our future well-being or at least whether they will be a burden to our society. So, Sir, that in a nutshell sums up the rationale for my supplementary answer.”