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 65 of 66.
“Bearing all this in mind, Immigration policy in terms of national interest means that we have to take into account whether the people that we are letting in to settle in Singapore as permanent residents will be able to contribute to our economic development or well being. Or to put it in a negative way, at least they must not be a burden or a strain on our limited resources. We have no other choice. We cannot view Immigration in abstract terms or, as the Member for Punggol has also pointed out, in purely humanitarian terms. If we ignore the interests of the overwhelming majority and have a free-for-all policy, it will be disastrous, particularly when we bear in mind the people who come and settle here as permanent residents will be a step towards citizenship with all the consequential rights. It leads to privileges in the area of housing. For every 10,000 permanent residents each of them is entitled upon marriage to a citizen to form the nucleus for application to HDB. We must bear that in mind. It brings privileges and eligibility for social welfare, education, medical facilities which are not available to other foreigners. Lest there be any misunderstanding of the problem, let me highlight the fact that people find it very attractive to come to Singapore. Let us look at some figures. In 1981, 12 1/2 million people obtained social visit passes to enter Singapore. Of these, 198,842 (nearly 200,000) have repeatedly been renewing their social visit passes, i.e. indicating a desire to stay here for a long, if not indefinite, period. Let us ponder over this. There are these many people who like to stay in Singapore, repeatedly applying for renewal of social visit passes, even though it has been reported in a foreign newspaper that people are starving in Singapore.”
“Or inhuman. But these terms, of course, are relative. They are relative depending on the country concerned, its economic situation, its size, its population, to some extent its geography, and so on. Therefore, what should be the overriding consideration in shaping our Immigration policy? What has been the over-riding consideration? Like all the other methods of governmental policy in Singapore, the over-riding consideration or Immigration policy has been national interest. And rightly so, for we must take into account our country and the welfare and interest of the vast majority of our people and succeeding generations. In terms of translating this element of national interest to Immigration policy, we must bear in mind that the forces of history and geography, and to some extent politics, have made us an independent nation, which is small in size, dense!y populated, bereft of mineral or agricultural resources. But what we have in our nation is people of determination and resourcefulness combined with a government that is dedicated and willing to harness the people to work so that we can galvanize ourselves, advance, modernize our country so as to be an economically successful, viable nation. In order to do this, we have invested heavily in education, other infrastructure, invested in quality of our youths, brought our birth rate to tolerable levels, so that, all in all, our population will enjoy decent standards of living. All this was pointed out by the Minister for Trade and Industry in his Budget speech. We also have a very large imported labour force who are here for limited purposes to solve the unemployment shortage. Whatever successes we have achieved must not be negated by any other policy, especially Immigration policy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am replying on behalf of my Minister. In fact, I am indebted to the Member for Punggol because, after having asked the question, he has very lucidly and eloquently informed the House what would have been my answer. So I will consider my response to be a supplement. 5.00 p.m. Sir, what the Member for Punggol said towards the end of his remarks about the United States Coast Guard turning away refugees, sad though it may be from the point of view of the refugees, I think it is a good point with which I could start, for it demonstrates that in the ultimate analysis each country has to take care of its people first and foremost. He may describe the Immigration policy as strict or tough, not liberal or liberal, relaxed, but these terms -”
“Sir, we could go on and on with this debate. I take the view that the Member for Anson, in his most recent response, does not have evidence. If he does not have evidence that there has been mala fide exercise of discretion by the Director of CNB or by the medical doctor, then I think there is no case whatsoever to suggest that the procedures I have outlined are inadequate and warrant certain additional safeguards.”
“The child is not going to consume drugs in the house. I think sometimes listening to these questions I get the impression that we are living in an ivory tower. I was always accused of living in an ivory tower in the university but I find that others have rose-coloured spectacles. People who consume drugs do so among their own cohort, not in the confines of their house in the presence of their family. It is natural and understandable that parents will always complain and make representations. I have outlined the safeguards. If the Member for Anson has evidence - not complaints made to him which are not evidence - has he evidence that there has been abuse of the Misuse of Drugs Act? Does he have any evidence that any doctor in the DRC has wrongfully certified a person as a drug addict when he was not a drug addict? If he has, then we have a case. Only then do we have a case for adding further ladders in the process. 4.45 p.m.”
“Sir, the Member for Anson asked whether there are any insuperable difficulties in providing further appeals. This raises the question which I asked at the Sitting of 16th March. Does he really believe that this Government would condone abuse, would want to spend such a great deal of resources in confining, feeding and caring for the addict, when I pointed out that the money spent, the manpower utilized, could be put to better uses in Singapore where we have a labour shortage? Secondly, does the Member feel that we are doing all this for any reason other than the national interest of protecting and insulating our people from the scourge of drug addiction? He wants a further appeal. It is not whether it is insuperable to add further ladders of appeal. Surely the question is: does the Member for Anson have any cases or experience? Does he have any evidence to suggest that there indeed has been an abuse and that people have been wrongly confined in the drug rehabilitation centre despite all these safeguards? If he has, then he has the duty to inform the relevant Minister and inform this House. It is not so much that he has received representations. I too have received representations from Members of Parliament as well as those from my own constituents, for it is natural that any parent would believe that his or her child is an innocent man, whether he has been charged for drug addiction or convicted for trafficking, or whether he has been charged for any criminal offence. It is natural, from our own experience, that the parents will be protective. They may genuinely believe that the child is not an addict for they are not able to keep a watchful eye on the child 24 hours of the day. Let us be a bit realistic about this matter.”
“I have informed the House of the provisions in the Act which enable the addict to complain to a Magistrate and, finally, of course, over and above this, he can have recourse to the courts of law. If the Member for Anson has a better plan for dealing with the treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts, let him come out and tell us what his plans are.”
“I thought I have made that clear. Secondly, if the urine test is administered after six days from the date of consumption of the drug, the urine test will not show it. Thirdly, the medical doctor would be able to see from the medical examination and observance of the patient whether or not he is a drug addict. Let me add, since the Member for Anson has raised the spectre of abuse and, as established by the Member for Anson's own remarks, it is not just one medical examination. The doctor in charge sees the addict on three different occasions. Now that is a point to ponder - an addict is seen on three different occasions before the medical doctor arrives at his finding that the person concerned is an addict. Again, the Member for Anson asked: is it not possible that there could be a wrong diagnosis? Is it not possible? I think that is not the question. The question is: is there a serious probability that there will be a wrong diagnosis? Anything is possible in this world. To draw a parallel: is it possible that the Member for Anson tomorrow will resign from the Workers' Party and join the PAP? [Laughter] On the theoretical level, it is possible. Whether we will accept him is a different matter. [Laughter] But is there a serious probability that he will join our party? I would say, and I guess he will agree, that there is no serious probability. But this is no laughing matter. The future of our younger generation is at stake. I have recounted all the safeguards beginning with the elaborate urine test; the medical examination which I have now shown is on three different occasions. I have also informed the House of the Review Committee which meets every six months.”
“One can check with the Hansard to verify the truth of my recollection. Thirdly, his point, again a repetition, is: why is it that no urine test is made and why is it that the medical examination report is so brief? Now, here let me recall that he has made this same point in the courts of law in order to establish a proposition that the detention may be contrary to law. The Court of Appeal has rejected his proposition and said that the Director of CNB was entitled to rely on that report as worded by the doctor, which was read out just now. Whether it is necessary for the doctor signing the report to spell out in the whole series of pages in medical jargon - whether that is necessary or not - may be of interest to practitioners of medicine who are specialized in the treatment of drug addicts. But what we are concerned here is satisfying the provisions of the law where the law requires that a person be medically examined. The law requires a medical observation and examination, and that is precisely what the doctor has certified. He has not prepared that medical report for scrutiny by a private medical practitioner who may be employed by the Member for Anson. We are familiar that, in the courts of law, it is fashionable to pit one medical expert against another medical expert and each claiming that the other is not having the same expertise as he. But for the purposes of the Misuse of Drugs Act, the courts have held that that medical certificate is sufficient. Let me now proceed to reiterate the points that I have made. Why is it necessary to have a medical examination? Why is the urine test not good enough? I have explained that there were three good reasons why this may be so. First, certain addictive drugs cannot be seen in the urine test.”
“Sir, the point raised by the Member for Anson was, in fact, raised in a supplementary question when I answered his Question for Oral Answer on 16th March. However, I will not insist on the technicality of Standing Order 47(3) which seems to frown upon raising of matters which had already been dealt with at previous sittings of Parliament. But since the matter is important and since the Member for Anson feels that repetition may establish a valid proposition, let me also reiterate the points that have been mentioned. First of all, I stressed the other day that the treatment and rehabilitation of addicts is quite different from an approach where persons are charged for an offence, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned, which seems to be the approach the Member for Anson is harping upon as a preferred approach whenever he keeps on repeating that there is a parallel between this and the other criminal process approach where people are charged. It would be very easy for this Government to do that. Charge everybody who is a drug addict, for consuming drugs, and close our eyes to the consequence when he has served his sentence. That will never solve the problem. That is why we have taken the approach of treatment and rehabilitation so that we tackle the problem of addiction without causing the man to have a stigma for the rest of his life. 4.30 p.m. Secondly, the Member for Anson again repeats that there is only one doctor who signs. For the record, since the Member has obviously not heard what I said, what I said on 16th March was to refute his claim that in the drug rehabilitation centre there was only one doctor. And I stood up to say that that was inaccurate for there were two full-time doctors. I never said that the report was signed by two doctors.”
“This kind of cooperation is essential, for drug trafficking often involves international syndicates operating in the region.”
“Sir, responding to the first part of the supplementary question, I do not have with me the exact figures to show the reduction in heroin seizures over the years. But I can assure the Member for Punggol that the figures show that the amount of heroin seized over the years has been decreasing. This is because of effective detection at the Causeway and other points of entry through the use of various methods of surveillance as well as detection, including the deployment of dogs for this purpose. I think this has generally been well publicised. Big-time trafficking has been reduced. Let me give an illustration. Between 1976 and 1978, 50 persons were charged for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act which could carry the death penalty. We are talking of large amounts of drugs. From 1979 to 1981, 15 persons were charged. This demonstrates two things. First, that the measure of mandatory death penalty has worked as an effective deterrent. Secondly, big-time major trafficking has been reduced. Our problem now is reduced to that of ant-trafficking in small amounts. If I may turn to the second part of the Member's question as to cooperation with ASEAN countries. First, the drug experts of the ASEAN countries hold regular meetings to exchange views on methods of enforcement, treatment and rehabilitation, for different countries have different approaches and it is always useful to compare notes. Secondly, there is also exchange of information between the countries on known traffickers and suppliers and this is important when these traffickers are, in fact, moving from country to country, The cooperation that I am talking about involves supplying information to neighbouring countries when we know that a trafficker is in another country.”
“There is no intention on the part of the Ministry to deliberately separate the addicts from the parents for longer than is necessary. So the answer I would give is that I understand the problem, but what is important is this: that if an addict is released prematurely, i.e. before he has been fully treated and before he has kicked off the habit, then the danger, and a high prob- ability, is that he will relapse before long, and this means that early release encourages the making of more hardcore addicts. In this sense, in the longer run it is in the interest of the addict and in the interest of the family that we ensure that the addict is fully rehabilitated and treated before release. As to the three cases he has mentioned, I found them to be of great interest for it shows that, as we have seen in other places, there is a growing awareness and appreciation of the important work that is being done by the Ministry, although the work may not be a pleasant one. It is never pleasant to put somebody in the rehabilitation centre. But as the Member for Punggol pointed out, this is a duty which we have to carry out, unpleasant though it may be; we cannot stinge, for if we want to insulate future generations from the scourge of drug addiction, there is no other course.”
“In 1981 out of five persons admitted to the DRC there was one new addict to four old addicts. So, while we can say that a considerable measure of progress has been reached, I would caution Members of the House that we cannot afford to relax. We must be vigilant, for drug addiction, once unchecked, spreads maliciously and rapidly. Turning to the last part of the Member's first general question as to what problems we have, the major problem that we have, as detailed in a speech by the Minister a few weeks ago, is that of hardcore addicts. Hardcore addicts are those who have been admitted to the DRC for a third, or more, occasion. In 1981 24% of those admitted to the DRCs were hardcore addicts in the sense that they had been repeated addicts. This is a problem for it shows that the normal approach of denying them drugs for a sustained period and the process of detoxification does not work with this category of hardcore addicts. The Ministry is now therefore focusing its attention on the problem of hardcore drug addicts with a view to working out a special regime of treatment and rehabilitation for these hardcore addicts so that they would go for more intensive rehabilitation which will be directed to an examination of the psychological make-up so that they too would be able to get rid of the addiction problem. Finally, with regard to the specific point mentioned by the Member for Ponggol, let me say that I understand the appeals made by parents to Members of Parliament. Indeed, if I may say so, as a Member of Parliament, I have also faced requests by anxious parents who naturally as parents, like any other parents, would want to be reunited with their children.”
“Eighthly, we have a system of counselling and aftercare services, which is important so that those released from the drug rehabilitation centres could adjust to society, reintegrate with normal life upon release. This is carried out by the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association (SANA), with their aftercare programme. It includes many voluntary aftercare officers. Finally, we have the Day Release Scheme which is also intended to assist persons who have been treated in drug rehabilitation centres to readjust to society. Turning to the third part of the Member for Punggol's question, what progress has been achieved? I think a considerable measure of progress has been achieved. Due to the effective employment of these measures, I am glad to report that the drug trafficking network has been smashed in terms of the major drug syndicates. Secondly, the estimated addiction population in Singapore has been reduced from 13,000 in 1977 to 6,100 in 1982. Thirdly, because of the effective policies for a reduction in the demand and a reduction in the supply, there is a scarce availability of drugs in Singapore. In fact, this is demonstrated by the increase in price at the street level. Five years ago, it cost $7 per straw of 0.2 grammes of heroin. Now it is $20 for a straw of 0.05 grammes. Another indication of our progress is the percentage of young persons who are addicts under 20 years of age. In 1977 an alarming rate of 31.4% of addicts were 20 years of age. Now, at the end of 1981, the number of addicts who are under 20 years of age, is 7%. Another indicator is what we could call the "infection" rate. In 1977 out of three persons admitted to the DRC, there were two new addicts to one old addict.”
“In this regard the assistance of the Ministry of Education has been obtained to reach the children in the schools on the dangers of drug addiction. Special booklets have been prepared to assist the teachers. The Institute of Education has revised its curriculum so that trainee teachers would also have some guidance on drug education. Secondly, as I have mentioned previously in this Chamber in response to a question by the Member for Delta, we also have resorted to preventive detention under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act where the normal processes of the Criminal Law are unable to effectively meet the drug trafficking problem. Thirdly, we have introduced in our laws mandatory death penalty for trafficking of certain amounts of heroin and morphine. We also have imprisonment and mandatory caning for certain offences. Fourthly, we have the treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts. This was alluded to in detail the other day when I responded to another Question for Oral Answer. This is an integral part of our policy so that it will help to reduce the demand for drugs. Fifthly, we have a two-year supervision period for those released from the drug rehabilitation centres. Sixthly, foreigners who engage in drug trafficking are charged in court and served with the Prohibition of Entry Order so that they will not come into Singapore again. Seventhly, strict controls are enforced at Immigration entry points to keep a check on persons coming in to engage in drug trafficking. Furthermore, under our regulations, the Controller of Immigration can deny passport facilities for those who have been convicted of drug trafficking offences or are under supervision orders.”
“Having made the preliminary remark, let me now quickly summarize the measures which the Government has taken over the past many years in response to the problem. Now, first, what was the problem? I think Members will recall that prior to 1970 there was no serious drug addiction or trafficking problem. And whatever problem existed related really to the taking of opium or similar drugs by the elderly people. But in the early seventies we began to see a problem arising where young persons, including school children, were resorting to certain kinds of drugs, including MX pills. In 1971 the Central Narcotics Bureau was established, especially to tackle the problem of drug addiction among the young persons. In 1973 the Misuse of Drugs Act was enacted in response to what was perceived to be a serious problem, for in 1974 we had in Singapore a heroin addiction epidemic. Just to show how rapidly the problem of drug addiction arose and (est there be any misunderstanding of any soft treatment of the problem of drugs, in 1972 four persons were apprehended for drug addiction; in 1973 ten persons; in 1974 110 persons; 1975 2,263 persons and in 1976 5,683 persons. Those figures are given to illustrate the enormity of the problem and the danger of the problem if not checked swiftly and effectively. To summarize the measures, I would say that the measures that the Government has taken to combat the problem of drug addiction and drug trafficking has been manyfold, multifaceted, preventive as well as remedial measures which are designed to reduce demand as well as to reduce the supply of the drugs. To quickly go through some of these measures. First, we have a system of preventive drug education for our youngsters.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked by my Minister to answer the points raised. I wish to thank the Member for Punggol for raising what are actually very serious issues in our country relating directly to the quality of our population and the future quality of our youth. He has asked, before citing specific cases, what strategies we have adopted to combat the drug problem and drug addiction and trafficking, what progress has been achieved, and what problems have we encountered. Perhaps I would begin with the preliminary question, and that is: how should the question of drug addiction and drug trafficking be viewed in our nation? Should we view it as a mere social problem which will fade away with the passing of time? My answer to that question is: definitely not. Here, I would like to point out that it is not just we, the Ministry of Home Affairs, or Singapore, that take a very serious view. In fact, the region takes a very serious view of this matter. At repeated meetings of ASEAN countries and officials dealing with drugs in ASEAN countries, they have pronounced that the drug addiction and drug trafficking is not a mere social problem but is a problem which can even threaten one's national security and stability. This is very significant. 4.00 p.m. If other countries in the region, endowed with much more resources, take such a serious view of the matter, what more our own country where, as the hon. Member for Punggol quite rightly pointed out, our most precious resource is our people, and when we look into the future, our most precious resource is our young people. So I am absolutely in agreement with him that it is important that the Government does not stinge in its effort to combat the drug trafficking problem and the drug addiction problem.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, should I answer the supplementary question now?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we are having a repetition of what happened yesterday, although I thought the Member for Anson would be a little bit wiser from yesterday's experience. I have given an answer as clearly as possible. The policy is spelt out in the law and the law requires that, when a work permit is cancelled for breach of any condition, the Immigration visit pass is deemed cancelled. Therefore, whether or not that person has any relationship with whosoever in Singapore, that person will be asked to leave. The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am raising a point of order. The Member for Anson's line of questioning is such that it would appear that he is championing non-citizens, foreigners. He has forgotten that he has been voted into this House by citizens. But the point of order is this. Will he declare his direct personal pecuniary interest in his line of questioning? In other words, has he got cases of this nature representing non-Singapore citizens regarding application for permanent residence? How many cases has he got, acting as a lawyer outside this House or in the name of his firm "J.B. Jeyaretnam and Company"? Can he declare his interest?”
“The Member for Anson should know that the legal basis for this is provided for in the Immigration Regulations concerning work permits. Paragraph 9 (A) (3) reads: 'Where a Work Permit issued to the holder of a Work Permit Pass is cancelled by the Commissioner for Employment, the Work Permit Pass shall be deemed to have been cancelled and the holder of such Pass shall not remain in Singapore thereafter. . I would have thought that this should be familiar to practising lawyers although I can forgive non-lawyers for not being aware of it. It is a simple question of allowing a category of persons to come into Singapore on certain conditions of which they are fully cognizant. They have breached certain conditions and the Work Permit Office cancels the work permit pass and, therefore, the entire basis of their stay in Singapore is negated. The Immigration Department has to follow the law which requires the work permit pass to be deemed cancelled.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me answer the question. In fact, the question has a bearing on the work permit policy which, of course, is administered by the Ministry of Labour. But never let it be said by the Member for Anson that we duck the question on a technicality. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no question of a forcible or violent overthrow of spouses of Singapore citizens. Let us put this question of work permit holders in the correct perspective. Work permit holders are foreigners who have been given work permits. For what reason? To work in Singapore. They are given a work permit in Singapore, precisely because we need them for that limited purpose. They are given a work permit on several conditions which may be imposed by the Commissioner for Employment. These conditions are made known to them. They are aware of the conditions. They accept the conditions and a work permit is then given to them. When the Commissioner for Employment has given a work permit, the Immigration Department, which is within the purview of my Ministry, then gives them the necessary visit pass which is coterminous with the duration of the work permit and which is valid for so long as the work permit is valid. In situations where any of the conditions is breached, and it may not only be a condition relating to the question of marriage, the Commissioner for Employment may terminate the work permit, again I repeat, for breaching any of the conditions which the work permit holder is fully aware of. When that condition is breached and the work permit is cancelled then, as far as the Immigration Department is concerned, the basis on which the Immigration visit pass was given, that is, the work permit, no longer exists and the person is not per- mitted to stay in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, he has given me the clarification. Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, if you are asking a supplementary question, carry on.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I must ask for clarification from the Member for Anson. Can he clarify his point that wives of Singapore citizens have been forcibly ejected from Singapore because they have contracted marriage? Is he referring to those wives who, before they were married, were work permit holders?”
“I thought I have made myself clear, Mr Speaker, that this is a case which has resulted in detention on very special and unusual circumstances. I myself cannot see how the Member for Anson wants me to give a categorical decision now as to whether this person is going to be released tomorrow or the day after, for that would spell a lesson for everybody else who is 9 potential violator of our immigration laws. Some people might think: "Well, four years' detention, OK. Five years' detention, it might be worth while living in Singapore for the rest of our life." I am certainly not going to indicate in this House that we are going to release a person who has violated the immigration laws after X number of years. I think it will be contrary to our national interest to do so. I will be surprised if the Member for Anson presses the Government for an answer on this case for he, in fact, would be encouraging all those who are thinking of violating our immigration laws to make a mathematical calculation, probably more accurate than he, that it might be worth while for them to violate our laws.”
“For further information, before the Prohibition of Entry Order had been served on him he had been engaging in nefarious secret society activities in Singapore and, in fact, had been detained for such secret society activities. He was detained, served a Prohibition of Entry Order which he violated. As far as I understand he has refused to go back to the country of origin. In fact, he has refused to disclose information and refused to give documents as to the country from whence he came. The question then is this: what do we do? He had lost his documents. In fact, many people deliberately lose their documents in the hope that hiving told us that they have lost their documents they would be let in Singapore for free. All I can say is that I cannot conjecture his future. But let me indicate the principles on which we deal with this case and the principles are the most important to be considered. The first principle is, that no person should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his illegality, in this case, illegal entry into Singapore compounded by the fact that there was a Prohibition of Entry Order served on him. Furthermore, as to whether he can be released in the immediate future, we will have to investigate in the light of his violation of the Prohibition of Entry Order and in the light of the fact that he had been involved in criminal activities. Should he be released into our Singapore society? This matter will have to be looked into by the Immigration authorities, particularly as to whether he will produce documents which will enable the Ministry to expedite his return to his country of origin.”
“Innuendoes. Let me give Members of the House a proper perspective. Sometimes when listening to this question we tend to forget which country this legislature is located. We think we are located in a country with vast expanse of land endowed with abundant mineral and agricultural resources, sparsely populated, so that we must bend over backwards to accept every illegal immigrant. But the truth is to the contrary. We are a legislature in Singapore and our immediate and over-riding obligation - and we will be abdicating our responsibility if we were to forget this obligation - is to our people, Singaporeans, Singapore citizens. That is the first preliminary observation I wish to make. The second preliminary observation is that we have laws, like any other sovereign country has laws, concerning immigration. Who can come in? Under what conditions, with what travel documents, for how long, and so on? What happens when people violate these regulations concerning our immigration? This is the crucial point. If a person violates our immigration regulations, should we condone it and tell him, "OK. If you manage to sneak through, good luck. You can stay in Singapore for as long as you like." Obviously not. We cannot bestow on persons who have wilfully violated our immigration regulations the fruits of their illegality. That is the second preliminary observation. Concerning this person, I do not, of course, have all the details about him. Let me say that he came back to Singapore despite the fact that he was subject to a Prohibition of Entry Order. In other words, this is a person who not only did not comply with the immigration laws but he also violated a Prohibition of Entry Order served on him previously.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me respond to that question. Once again, the question is pregnant with implications. An hon. Member: Innuendoes.”
“The Minister says that one man has been detained for more than five years under the Immigration Act. May I ask how long it is intended to keep this man in detention? Until he dies?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we have a problem. It is not so much an inability or an inadequacy of my answer, but I think it is an unwillingness on the part of the Member for Anson to accept an answer which somehow does not tally with his predetermined intentions of tallying information with his figures. Perhaps we can sympathize with him. To respond to his supplementary question, the answer is, of course, there is no danger. I have pointed out the whole panoply of the safeguards. For there to be abuse, there will have to be collusion between the apprehending officers, the Director and his Deputy Director, further collusion with the two full-time medical doctors, and yet even further collusion with the chairmen and members of the two appeal committees. Perhaps he might also want to suggest, I guess, that there has to be collusion with the magistrate later on. I think this is ridiculous, Mr Speaker, Sir. Furthermore, there is no doubt that here we have to challenge the professional competence of the medical doctors. I for one and the Ministry have no reason to suspect the integrity or the professional competence of either of the two medical practitioners. If the Member for Anson has a solid reason or evidence which casts serious doubts in any one particular case on the professional competence or the personal integrity of either of these two doctors to warrant the kind of investigation which must follow, then let him say so and let him supply us with the particulars. Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, it must be plain to anybody that there does not have to be any collusion for a man to be wrong in his diagnosis. Why are we evading this issue? I take it that the Minister is not going to answer this question. May I move on to something else and, that is, the Immigration Act.”
“And the chairmen of these review committees are medical practitioners. So if the Member is not satisfied, he should tell us on some occasion how he proposes to deal with the serious problem of drug addiction. What plans does he have? How would he attack this problem? Release all the drug traffickers who are now under preventive detention? Release all the drug addicts so that for the rest of their lives they will be in misery and also subject others to misery? This is a serious problem we are talking about. The Government has tackled it and has seen it fit also to provide five to six safeguards. If the Member says that these safeguards are not enough, let him come out with the plans.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I answer to the substance of the question, let me answer the innuendo that is hidden in the question, namely, to raise shades of innocent persons being sent to detention. Let me disabuse the Member for Anson of this innuendo. First of all, let us recall that it cost the Government an incredible sum of money maintaining these rehabilitation centres. It cost us a great deal of energy - deploying staff, including professional people, to run these rehabilitation centres - and indeed if all the people in the rehabilitation centres were not drug addicts, they could be usefully deployed to assist the Ministry of Labour in meeting the severe labour shortage. So there is no reason whatsoever for this Government, in view of these points which I have mentioned, not to close down these rehabilitation centres and to do away with them if the situation warranted it. If there were no more persons who are genuine drug addicts, nobody could be happier than this Government. But in the interest of the nation and to prevent drug addiction from spreading, we have to take these drastic measures, The possibility of abuse, let me say, is a theoretical possibility in any exercise of governmental power. The theoretical possibility of abuse is not a good reason for denying power to meet this dangerous threat to our society. I have already enumerated the safeguards. I have spelt out five to six safeguards. In addition, let me point out that the Member for Anson is wrong again on his understanding of the facts. There is not just one doctor. There are two full-time doctors. Furthermore, I do not think he listened to me when I -pointed out the safeguards. I said that there are review committees which meet every six months to review the cases.”
“Indeed, if it has passed the six-day period or if he is on a drug which is not traceable in a urine test, but the medical examination shows that he is indeed exhibiting symptoms of drug addiction, the law has provided, and quite properly so, that he should be sent for treatment. That answers the question by the Member for Anson. I believe he asked for the details or the precise nature of the medical examination. These are matters, Mr Speaker, Sir, which are properly within the scope of the professional acumen and expertise of the doctors. It suffices for me to say that the two doctors have experience in this area, and I would like to leave questions of judgment on medical matters to them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me respond to that question. I think it has been pointed out in this House by the Minister, and certainly pointed out on many occasions outside this House, what the difference is between a situation where a suspected drug addict is subjected to a urine test and where a suspected drug addict may have a medical examination. The answer to this question, if I may summarize everything that has been said before, is as follows. The law is very clear. A person could be sent for treatment and rehabilitation either on the basis of a urine test or on the basis of a medical observation and examination under section 33 of the Act. That is the first point. It is not a urine test and medical examination/observation but a urine test or medical examination. And there are very good reasons for this, Mr Speaker. Let me enumerate them. The first is that certain kinds of drugs which are addictive by nature will not appear and are not traceable in a urine test. This has been made very clear before. Secondly, even where a urine test is conducted, the time factor is crucial. If there has been a lapse of more than six days between the time the drug was consumed and the administering of the test, it will not show in the urine test. This is why it is absolutely essential to have a medical examination. The third reason why it is important to have a medical examination, and why a medical examination is indeed ordered, is that through a medical examination, properly trained specialized doctors can observe withdrawal symptoms, which are indicative of drug addiction. For these reasons, it is possible that a person may ,have a urine test with a negative result. But that does not mean that he is not a drug addict.”
“My Ministry's view is that one or at most two competitors to SBS would suffice, Any more will be disruptive to operations, and will make planning and coordination difficult. There is also the additional expense and trouble that commuters will have to bear because of more transfers.”
“There is no room in Singapore for two bus companies of the present size of SBS. The second bus company will therefore necessarily have to be smaller. Far from being a drawback, this will be an advantage; the efficiency and operating style characteristic of a smaller company, such as short chains of command and easier control, will be pitted against the advantages normally possessed by a larger company such as more sophisticated planning, economies of scale, and so on. These differences can only enhance competition and efficiency. Let me also allay whatever fears hon. Members may have that competition between the two bus companies will mean a reversion to the turmoil that existed before the formation of SBS. The circumstances in 1971 were different. Merging the 11 bus companies was then necessary to prevent a total collapse. Over the years SBS has been consolidated and is today, I am happy to say, in good health. My concern is that it should remain that way and I believe some competition will help ensure that. The competition will not, however, be a free-for-all. The second bus company will not be allowed to grab whatever routes it likes. It will run a reasonable mix of good and poor routes and be responsible for taking care of the public transport needs of a distinct corridor or a New Town. This will also avoid wasteful duplication. When allocating routes, we will take care to ensure that it does not result in commuters having to make too many transfers. Competition will then largely be by comparison of performance. At the same time, however, there will be some on-the-road competition, where for example the routes overlap. Finally, we must strike a sensible balance between our objective of introducing competition and the number of bus companies that we should have.”
“The only solution available to us in 1971 was the total reorganization of bus services. This, hon. Members will recall, was achieved by merging all 11 bus companies in two phases, with a single company formed in November 1973. Having a single bus monopoly has not been without its advantages. Centralized planning has made it possible to rationalize routes on an island-wide scale to benefit the greatest number of passengers. Today, some 95% of commuters to the city area have a direct service. This is after taking into account the feeder services. Economies of scale, impossible to achieve in the 10 smaller companies, are more easily realized. But despite its many advantages, a monopoly can become complacent and bureaucratic. This is a short step to inefficiency and inability to respond to changing circumstances. I am not implying that SBS is or will be taking this road. The point I am trying to make is that we must prevent this from happening. And there is no better way to do it than by introducing an element of competition. In fact, around this time last year there was a spate of calls from Members of this House, from the press and the public exhorting the Government to find some checks against the possibility of SBS going slack. If I recall correctly, one or two Members even recommended a second bus company. I agree to this recommendation. A second bus company will help ensure that SBS remains efficient; in fact, each company will act as a check on the performance and efficiency of the other. Neither will have any overall advantage in terms of mix of good and bad routes, taxes or hours of operation. Ultimately both will be judged by the public in terms of which company can provide the better, more reliable and more comfortable service.”
“Sir, I do not see the significance of the hon. Member for Anson's reference to the fact that there was a fire in a particular place, unless he is alleging in this House that the Fire Service was either incompetent or negligent in responding to that fire call. SETTING UP OF COMPETING BUS COMPANIES 3. Mr Goh Chee Wee asked the Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour to explain the rationale behind encouraging the setting up of competing bus companies, and whether this move is not a reversion to the status prior to the formation of Singapore Bus Service. The Minister for Communications and Minister for Labour (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): Mr Speaker, Sir, to understand the rationale behind Government's intention to set up another bus company in competition with SBS, one has to go back a little in our history. Hon. Members will well recall that in the days prior to 1971, there were 11 independent bus companies, each operating a small fleet of buses. In fact, the largest of these, the Singapore Traction Company, had only 400 buses. This is about 15% of SBS's present fleet. It is true they were competing against each other. But the competition led to chaotic conditions as each company scrambled for short-term advantage. Not surprisingly, the level and quality of service were deplorable. There were never enough buses. Being old and poorly maintained, they were prone to frequent breakdowns. Operations were totally fragmented. As the routes of competing bus companies were poorly planned, commuters often had to make two or three transfers even for short distances. In short, this type of competition was neither beneficial to commuters nor did it serve any other useful purpose. It is not the soM of competition we intend to encourage now.”
“Sir, in addition to what has been said by the Minister for National Development concerning the safety features of the buildings and materials in HDB flats, let me state categorically that the Fire Service has a definite role to play and definite plans for evacuation have been formulated. In fact, it has been announced publicly before by the Minister for Home Affairs that these plans for evacuation form an integral part of the plans in Civil Defence. This was announced in a major speech recently.”
“Thirdly, due to the variety of uses, the variety of materials stored and the variety of individuals who may be either inhabiting, renting or visiting these premises, the approach which fire fighters have to use for highrise commercial buildings is totally different from the approach to be taken for residential highrise buildings.”
“The Fire Service has the concern also for fire prevention and remedial measures for HDB housing estates. I believe a separate question has been tabled concerning the question of fires in HDB flats. In the answer to this question, it will be made clear that the problems of HDB buildings are quite different from those of highrise commercial buildings. And since the question which I have been asked to answer deals with commercial highrise buildings, I should have thought that the question on the HDB flats, which is being fully answered in a separate question, is a subject to be dealt with separately. Since the Member for Anson has raised this matter, it is suffice for me to say that commercial highrise buildings are a separate category because the occupants are generally not familiar with the layout of the building, the exits, the stairways, in cases of emergency. Secondly, the nature of the materials which are stored in highrise buildings are very different from HDB premises. The variety of uses to which highrise commercial buildings are put to are different from those of HDB premises which are used for residential purposes. Highrise commercial buildings may be used for purposes of hotels, may be used for purposes of shopping complexes, may be used for purposes of offices, may be used for purposes of restaurants or places of entertainment such as cinemas. This is why it makes the question of fire fighting in highrise commercial buildings a completely different problem.”
“67 more operations books are being vetted by the Service and 75 more books are in the process of being prepared. In addition, evacuation drills have been carried out in 62 of the highrise buildings involving 36,856 participants. Trained personnel are then responsible for:- (i) enforcing good housekeeping rules and fire safety precautions; (ii) detecting and removing all fire hazards; (iii) organizing regular fire drills in order to ensure that persons working in the buildings are familiar with all means of escape in case of fire; and - (iv) organizing, training and supervising fire fighting and evacuation teams. These measures help to strengthen cooperation and coordination between the Fire Service and managements of these buildings. There are no simple solutions to fighting fires in highrise buildings. There is much in the building that could spark off and fuel a fire. In apartment, hotel or office premises, this fuel is found in the combustible furnishings, furniture and paper, and in restaurant or shop premises, this is found in the combustible decorations and in the articles displayed or goods stored. The best solution is to prevent fires from starting and, if this is not possible, to ensure that when a fire does stan, it is confined or quickly nipped in the bud. As fires in highrise buildings can result in large numbers of people being maimed or killed (as in the recent case of Hotel New Japan in Tokyo), managements of highrise buildings must give their fullest cooperation to the Fire Service to ensure that their buildings are reasonably safe from fire and that regular evacuation exercises are conducted and participated by all their occupants. There should be no complacency in this matter as a fire can start anywhere and at any time.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Fire Service's definition of highrise buildings is those buildings which are beyond the reach of the tallest fire service ladders and which require fires in such buildings to be fought from the inside, relying solely on the built-in fire fighting facilities. There are at present about 160 highrise buildings used for commercial purposes. In preparing itself to cope with the problems associated with highrise buildings, the Fire Service: (1) carries out simulated fire exercises in a different highrise building every Monday morning. This is to enable operational officers in these buildings to familiarize themselves with the layout of the building, the built-in fire fighting facilities and its operational procedures in tackling highrise fires. So far, simulated exercises have been carried out at least once in every one of the 160 highrise buildings and twice in some cases. (2) The Service has, since 1976, set up a High Rise Unit with the objective of carrying out twice-a-year inspections of all commercial highrise buildings in Singapore to ensure that managements maintain the fire fighting facilities in these buildings and take appropriate measures to ensure safety of occupants in the event of fire. Such inspections have been carried out in all the 160 buildings. (3) It maintains regular contacts with the management of these buildings to offer advice and expertise. It also trains selected members of these managements on fire prevention, preparation of fire emergency plans, basic fire fighting and fire evacuation. The Fire Service assists managements in preparing operations books on emergency procedures and evacuation plans. Thus far, 18 such books have been prepared and 586 members of managements trained.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the hon. Member couid supply me with further details as to the date, time and location, of course, he will be supplied with the necessary information. HIGHRISE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS (Fire prevention and evacuation measures) 2. Mr Sia Khoon Seong asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in view of the large number of highrise commercial buildings in Singapore, what plans the Singapore Fire Service has to get the cooperation of the management of these buildings on fire prevention and evacuation measures.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Kampong Kembangan has asked two supplementary questions. First, whether the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme will be extended to cover purposes and objects which are not immediately within the scheme as launched. The answer is that the scheme has been launched within the limited scope that I have mentioned. If that immediate objective is achieved, of course, it should be possible to consider extending the terms of reference of the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme. As to the second question, I understand the concern of the Member for Kampong Kembangan over what he considers to be an extraordinarily large number of traffic offences in the vicinity of his constituency. It should, of course, be completely open to the Neighbourhood Watch Groups or any other of the civic groups, such as the CCCs or the RCs or individuals for that matter, to bring this to the attention of the police. Now that he has mentioned it, of course, this will be taken note of and I will be conveying it to the proper authorities.”
“In the interim, both the north and south bays will be used as an extension to the recreational belt along the East Coast Parkway. It is advantageous to carry out this reclamation now and take advantage of the existing reclamation project at Pulau Tekong Besar where dredging plant and equipment are already mobilized, so that the additional reclamation can be proceeded with, as an extension of the existing reclamation. The Port of Singapore Authority, as agent of the Government, will oversee the reclamation, which is expected to be completed in about four years' time, at an estimated cost of $165 million, inclusive of cost of shore protection works. 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 those portions of the foreshore and sea-bed at Changi containing a total area of about 181 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO.1/82"which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to Friday, 5th March, 1982." - [Mr E.W. Barker]. Adjourned accordingly at Fifteen minutes to Eight o'clock p.m. to Friday, 5th March, 1982. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PERSONS DETAINED WITHOUT TRIAL 1. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will give the numbers of persons detained without trial in Singapore as of the 15th February, 1982, detailing them under the various laws under which they have been detained and the length of their detention spaced at five year differentials.”
“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 those portions of the foreshore and sea-bed at Changi containing a total area of about 181 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/82" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, you will recall that at its sitting on 29th July, 1975, this House approved the reclamation of approximately 607 hectares of the foreshore and seabed at Changi for the development of our former airport at Changi into a civil airport involving the construction of a second runway. The reclamation has been completed and our Changi Airport is now in operation. On 20th February, 1981, this House also approved the reclamation of approximately 510 hectares of the shallower fore-shore and seabed on the southern portion of Pulau Tekong Besar for future industrial development. Pending such development, the reclaimed land, when completed, will be used as a training area by the Singapore Armed Forces. The Port of Singapore Authority, as agent of the Government, is overseeing this reclamation which is still in progress. It is now proposed to reclaim about another 181 hectares of the foreshore at Changi, made up of two bays as shown coloured pink on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/82", a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. The additional reclaimed land will be held in reserve to meet the long-term needs of Changi Airport.”
“With the disruption of the large scale syndicates, addicts have had to resort to obtaining their drug supplies from smalltime street pushers or themselves have become addict pushers. If we had not taken such action under this law or taken other measures such as the mandatory death penalty for certain drug traffickers, there is no doubt that we would have today drug trafficking and drug addiction problems of alarming proportions. I would also like to inform the House that adequate safeguards have been built in to the implementation of the Act to ensure that each case is considered carefully. The consent of the Public Prosecutor is required for a detention order. Each case (after the issue of Detention Order) is referred to an independent Criminal Law Advisory Committee which examines all the evidence, including the representations of the detainee concerned, before arriving at the recommendation as to whether the Order should be confirmed by the President. The detainee is allowed to be represented by counsels at this hearing. Each case is reviewed annually by another Advisory Committee to determine whether the detainee should be released, be placed on Police Supervision Order, placed on the Day Release Scheme or have his period of detention extended. The President's approval is required for all Orders which are to be extended. 3.30 p.m.”
“The detention of secret society members under the Act, therefore, has succeeded in significantly reducing secret society activities. Where investigation and intelligence indicate the existence of secret society activities and where they cannot be dealt with under the normal processes of the law, these are nipped in the bud by the use of Detention Orders and Supervision Orders under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. The implementation of this legislation has resulted in fewer incidents and has helped make Singapore a more safe and secure place. The reduction in the number of secret society incidents does not, however, mean that the problem has been totally eradicated or that such preventive detention is no longer necessary. There is the threat of a potential revival of secret society activities as evidenced by the recent triad ceremonies in South Johore in which there was attendance by a number of Singa- poreans. Any slackening of our vigilance will result in a revival of the lawlessness of the 1950s. Turning to drug traffickers, preventive detention under the same law has been resorted to from 1974 onwards. Again, the Act was used because witnesses were not prepared to come forth to give evidence against drug traffickers who had underworld and international syndicate connections. It is because of such preventive detention that we have been able to smash the highly organized network of drug traffickers in Singapore. The number of drug traffickers detained has been reducing, from 203 in 1978 to 109 in 1981. The preventive detention of drug traffickers has indisputably had a deterrent effect in disrupting and eliminating major drug syndicates which had been operating.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Delta is referring to the detention of secret society gangsters and drug traffickers under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. Under this legislation, where the Minister is satisfied that a person has been associated with activities of a criminal nature, he may, with the consent of the Public Prosecutor, order the detention of that person if he is satisfied that it is necessary that such person be detained in the interests of public safety, peace and good order. As of 15th February 1982, there were 1,019 criminal law detainees. Of this number, 541 were detained for secret society and other criminal activities and 478 for drug trafficking activities. The Act was implemented in the late 1950s when secret society activities were rampant. Those were the days when it was not safe to walk on the streets because of secret society activities which included gang clashes, killings and murders. The number of reported secret society activities and incidents in 1959 was as high as 416. The normal judicial proceedings which assume that there will be witnesses who will be willing to come forth and give evidence, proved totally ineffective. This was because witnesses were terrified of appearing and testifying in the Courts for fear of swift reprisals. It was found that the only effective way to cope with the situation was to use the powers under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act to detain gangsters and secret society members under preventive detention. There is no doubt that this legislation has had a significant deterrent effect on secret society gangsters. The number of secret society incidents dropped drastically from 416 in 1959 to 12 in 1981, while the number of secret society killings decreased from 21 in 1959 to three in 1981.”