Shriniwas Rai
Singapore
“Like the Select Committee, Sir, we should encourage the public to put their proposals in writing to the Clerk of Parliament who could then send them to the Minister concerned for his consideration. Sir, I am aware that the GPC does play a very important and consultative role. But it does not come under the purview of this Parliament.”
“Sir, like good health, we take good government for granted. Sir, I end my speech with this remark. We are a young nation. Our institutions are still evolving. We must try to evolve a system of government that suits, and I repeat, our social, economic and political needs. We cannot just borrow from other countries' constitution.”
“Sir, I have the benefit of going through Mr Inderjit Singh's speech earlier, and I support his call for a two-tier category. I think it is something that is worthy of consideration. Although it may not be practical now, I think we should give it serious thought. Sir, this is a very judicious Bill.”
“Of course, if the need arises, and if it is useful for it to be corporatised, that can be considered. 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. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].”
“Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam has totally taken away my motion. It is not an amendment to the motion. He had been the Registrar of the Supreme Court. He knows the procedure very well. He must have my amendment in some form or other. What he has done is that he has completely taken out my motion and put in his amendment, which is wrong.”
“Yes, I am speaking on the amendment. Sir, I ask the House to reject the amendment. Do not laugh, Mr Jeyaretnam, I am coming to it. I think Mr Jeyaretnam forgets that any Member of Parliament can raise any issue in this Parliament. The fact that he has moved an amendment to my motion signifies that I have the right to speak.”
The complete record
Every one of 327 lines we hold for Shriniwas Rai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 7.
“Like the Select Committee, Sir, we should encourage the public to put their proposals in writing to the Clerk of Parliament who could then send them to the Minister concerned for his consideration. Sir, I am aware that the GPC does play a very important and consultative role. But it does not come under the purview of this Parliament. It is the PAP's own setup. The public must feel that they too can contribute and I am sure the consultative process which the Prime Minister has started can be further improved. Sir, our founding fathers have built sound democratic principles. I have every confidence that the coming generation will do their best to enhance parliamentary democracy. Finally, Sir, on a personal note, I would like to thank Parliament and the Special Select Committee for giving me this opportunity to be a Member of this House. It has been a rich experience. To you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am thankful for all your guidance and consideration. The Clerk and his secretariat staff have been very helpful. I join my colleague, Dr Lee Tsao Yuan, in wishing the nine MPs "Good Luck".”
“Sir, I am happy that the Prime Minister has moved this motion and acknowledged the former MPs for their contribution. Many of these MPs have sacrificed a great deal of time to serve the country. They were not adequately paid but they had one mission, ie, to serve. And I hope there will be the same passion in our youths to serve the country. Sir, I congratulate you for your foresight for having a moot Parliament. I hope the Members will spare some time to teach the young the practices and procedures of this House, if they have the time. Mr Speaker, Sir, now I move to the area which my colleagues, Dr Lee Tsao Yuan and Mr Tay Beng Chuan, have touched. I agree with them that parliamentary time should be increased for Questions for Oral Answer. Allow me, Sir, to offer some suggestions to improve our parliamentary system. Our parliamentary system and procedure should be changed to suit our needs. Members should be encouraged to put in Questions for Written Answer and these Questions and Answers could be released at intervals so that the press and the public could gain an opportunity to note the reply. Many of the questions asked by the Members do not reach the Members till the House is in session. Similarly, as most Ministers have their replies in writing which are read in the House, it would be helpful if the Ministers could give the Members the replies at least one hour before the session starts. In this way, Members would be in a position to scrutinise the answers and they can frame their supplementary questions. Sir, Questions for Oral Answer session forms an important part of parliamentary proceedings all over the world. Another area is that the public should have direct participation in our parliamentary democracy.”
“Then came referendum and merger which was short-lived. The 1963 General Election was a watershed. Many felt that the PAP days were numbered as the Barisan had drawn huge crowds at its rallies. But the PAP leadership convinced and won the hearts and minds of the people. The Barisan Sosiaslis, instead of reviewing its electoral loss, decided to boycott Parliament. This was indeed sad. Had Barisan Sosialis played the role of a constructive opposition in Parliament, parliamentary democracy would have taken a different path. As a result of this boycott, the PAP Members had to play the de facto role of an opposition. And it is to their credit that they had done well. They used to question Ministers and they do still question. Therefore, I am a little surprised at some of the allegations made by some of the Opposition Members. From independence in 1965 till today, we have achieved economic progress, social and political stability because the people and Government have worked together in unison. Sir, when President Ong paid tribute to the Government, he was not just being polite. He was stating facts and reaffirming the political culture of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, in many countries in Afro-Asia, they started building national symbols. They built huge parliament houses, many with two Houses (Upper and Lower). But only in a few countries, the Westminster system has survived. Democracy has survived in Singapore because of the maturity of the electorate and the clean and honest Government we have. Whether the democratic system will survive in Singapore will depend on our people and the political leadership. We must teach the values of the democratic system from very young to our children both in schools and universities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. Sir, I rise to support the motion by the Prime Minister. Last year I had moved a motion on our founding fathers. Today's motion is timely and historic. The Prime Minister has done the House proud by moving this motion himself. Sir, the Second World War changed the history of colonies. India and other colonies became independent. In Singapore, the Colonial Government introduced elected members to the Legislative Council. But the power remained in the hands of the Governor and his officials. In 1955 the Rendel Commission came into force. For the first time, local Ministers were appointed with the British Governor still in charge. Mr David Marshall became the first Chief Minister. Later on, we had the constitutional talk in London which led to self-government in 1959. Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1959 when the PAP won the election under self-government, there was talk that there would be riot and chaos, as PAP was considered extremely left-wing. It had among its members some communist sympathisers. PAP won 43 seats. Opposition had 8 seats in the 1959 election. The Government had to tackle massive unemployment. HDB was formed to tackle housing. Most of the people lived in attap houses. And the Government made rapid progress in all areas. Then came, in 1961, the struggle within the PAP. Thirteen Members of the Legislative Assembly belonging to the PAP walked out and formed Barisan Sosiaslis led by Dr Lee Siew Choh and Lim Chin Siong. The House used to be packed both in the Chamber as well as in the public gallery. Ghost writers worked hard at their typewriters. The battle for Merger took centre stage. Mr Lee Kuan Yew went on air to give a series of talks. He exposed the communists and their sympathisers.”
“Adjourned accordingly at Twenty four minutes to Seven o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.”
“An NTUC official came and told me that he has moved away without meeting one sector, ie, the Indian activity group from the PA. When I whispered this to him, he said, "Yes, I am sorry, let us go." That is the quality of the man. He has finished his tour but he felt that he has left out one group and he must meet them. Sir, I would ask Members to endorse the motion wholeheartedly. I would also ask the Opposition Members to endorse the motion, even though they have filed an amendment to the motion and spoke in favour of it. This is not a political issue. It concerns the future of the country. It concerns how we are going to rule. The Government has introduced a very unique constitutional mechanism which has no parallel anywhere in the world. I think we owe it to ourselves to evolve the system by assisting. When the Prime Minister, Senior Minister and Minister for Finance spoke yesterday, I was relieved by the picture that they have painted because there were some doubts in the minds of some members of the public. This morning I had a chance to speak to some people and they were relieved that they have now been presented with the facts of the issue. Whenever there is any difference between the Government and the President, it is only fair that the public should know it. In this way, we can talk and debate on it. Sir, I would urge Members to vote for the motion. Resolved, That this House endorses the Principles for Determining and Safeguarding the Accumulated Reserves of the Government and the Fifth Schedule Statutory Boards and Government Companies as set out in the White Paper (Paper Cmd. 5 of 1999). ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed. " - [Mr Lim Hng Kiang].”
“All right. I know Members are eager to end this debate soon and I will do so. I would not take much time. Sir, I am grateful to the many Members who spoke, ie, those who have supported the motion and even those who have opposed the motion, because they have added to this debate. There is no doubt, as my good friend, Mr Tay Beng Chuan said, that President Ong has endeared and has done the Constitution and the country proud by the way he has discharged his duties. The Elected President is still in its infancy. It will take some time to shape. The Minister has been very assuring and I have no doubt that the Government intends to abide by the principles laid down in the Constitution and the White Paper. I have two clarifications for the Minister. (1) Should the in-coming President ask for a staff, I hope the Government will consider it favourably. (2) Should there be a dispute between the President and the Government, would it go to the Constitutional Court for a decision? Sir, the new President has won the admiration of my colleagues, Dr Lee, Mr Tay Beng Chuan and others, and I think Members will join me in wishing him well. He has a heavy responsibility in discharging his duties, but I have no doubt that his vast experience and the mandate he has received from the public will enable him to discharge his duties. Though he is an intellectual, he is a man of the ground. He has friends from all walks of life. I was surprised when his fruit seller came to the People's Association this afternoon to wish him. He was delighted and talked to him. I will give another example of the humility of the man. After he was returned unopposed at the Nomination Centre, he went around thanking people.”
“I have got two clarifications for the Minister.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr S.R. Nathan's choice is not just the Cabinet's choice. He is qualified for the job because he was a former Permanent Secretary. And may I declare my interest, Sir. Mr S.R. Nathan is a member of SINDA. I have worked with him in SINDA. I was at the Nomination Centre this morning to endorse him. I spoke about him in May this year when the motion on Singapore 21was being debated and I paid tribute to the man who, because of his ability, has transformed one community organisation. And let me quote from Prof. Tommy Koh who had issued a statement to the public at large. He says: "Ambassador Nathan has the intellectual ability and moral courage to discharge his constitutional duties as President. Of his intellectual powers there can be no doubt." I was hoping that Mr Jeyaretnam will never bring up the office of the Presidency again, but since he has decided, he wants us to postpone the installation. Let us not shut out the Constitution. Let us accept this fact. He has been elected, and I use the word "elected" by the people. As I said, he should assume office. Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with Prof. Chin that the office of Presidency should go by convention. And that is why I brought up this White Paper today to have the approval of this House to give it the sanctity of a resolution of this House. Sir, I do not want to prolong the agony of this House. Let us reject this amendment. It does not deserve the consideration of this House. Mr Chiam has said some good words about the system, but still I do not agree with him and my good friend, Mr Low, here. I would urge my NMP colleagues and the entire Members of the ruling Party to reject this, and I will reply to other Members at a later stage, Sir.”
“I am sorry, Sir. Mr Jeyaretnam: He got carried away.”
“Take a writ in the High Court and I will argue against it, and I will not charge him any cost, if I win. Mr Jeyaretnam, let us be ---”
“Because he has offered himself for election and nobody comes forward to challenge him. Are you saying that he is not elected by the people themselves?”
“Yes, the checks and balances are there. But he was saying something more. Sir, the other thing I am saddened is this: Mr Jeyaretnam is a lawyer and he knows that. Mr S.R. Nathan has been constitutionally elected by the people.”
“And while honest men are still in charge, it is prudent for us to institute a system of checks and balances in our political system, instead of banking on good fortune to throw up good governments for the next 30 years."”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was at pains explaining to the House earlier the nature of the office of the Presidency. The President is never an Executive President. Leave the Constitution alone. Do not go to the Hansard because the Hansard is not the Constitution. But I will go to the Hansard since Mr Jeyaretnam has quoted from the Hansard and I will give him his piece. Speaking on the Second Reading of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 3) Bill on 4th October 1990, the Prime Minister said, and I quote: "Objective of the Bill: The Bill provides for an Elected President to safeguard the reserve and integrity of the public services. Specifically, the President will have: (a) the right to veto the annual budgets of the Government, statutory boards and key Government companies, if they draw down reserves accumulated during the terms of previous governments; (b) the right to veto key public service appointments; and (c) safeguard roles with respect to the Internal Security Act, the proposed Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill, and CPIB." I will go further. What the Prime Minister said is worth listening to. He said: "We are singularly lucky that able and honest men were in charge of Singapore for the last 31 years. They have not abused their powers. They have worked the parliamentary system very well. And because they have worked the system very well, this has caused some people to conclude that there is nothing wrong with the present system and that we should therefore leave things alone - do not make any modifications to the Constitution or to the system. But in my view, the marvellous working of our parliamentary system is due less to the merits of the system than to the integrity and quality of the people working it.”
“Thank you. Mr Jeyaretnam has cast aspersion on the office of the Presidency. The President has discharged his constitutional responsibility --- Mr Jeyaretnam rose ---”
“It is for the House to decide whether I have the right or not. Mr Low Thia Khiang: The House has already decided that you have the right.”
“Yes, I am speaking on the amendment. Sir, I ask the House to reject the amendment. Do not laugh, Mr Jeyaretnam, I am coming to it. I think Mr Jeyaretnam forgets that any Member of Parliament can raise any issue in this Parliament. The fact that he has moved an amendment to my motion signifies that I have the right to speak.”
“Yes, I am opposing the amendment. I am prepared to speak at the end of the motion, if I am allowed to.”
“Mr Speaker, do I have the right to reply to the Member now or do I wait till I conclude?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is a very uncalled-for remark. I am not part of the Government and I do not aspire to be part of the Government.”
“Thank you for your ruling, Sir. Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I hope you will give me another five minutes stolen by Mr Rai.”
“Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam has totally taken away my motion. It is not an amendment to the motion. He had been the Registrar of the Supreme Court. He knows the procedure very well. He must have my amendment in some form or other. What he has done is that he has completely taken out my motion and put in his amendment, which is wrong. I want a ruling from you, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“Point of order and clarification as well, Mr Jeyaretnam.”
“Could I have the floor, Mr Jeyaretnam? Mr Jeyaretnam: You can object to the amendment later, unless you are saying it is a question of principle.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am objecting to the amendment.”
“Sir, like good health, we take good government for granted. Sir, I end my speech with this remark. We are a young nation. Our institutions are still evolving. We must try to evolve a system of government that suits, and I repeat, our social, economic and political needs. We cannot just borrow from other countries' constitution. We must custom-make our Constitution. Sir, in two weeks' time, the President will leave the office. I want hon. Members to join me in thanking him for having discharged his responsibility with dignity and honour. He has won the hearts of the people. The House will join me in wishing him the best in the days to come. Mr President, you have made us proud. I ask hon. Members to support the motion which I have moved and which has the support of my colleague, Dr Lee Tsao Yuan. Question proposed.”
“This is very comforting. I take pride in this because without an honest and dedicated civil service we will never succeed in building a peaceful and prosperous Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, another concern in the President's address was the need for a good and honest government. Many of us, especially those who are young, take it for granted that there will always be honest government. We have maintained a high standard of integrity and honesty. It is to the credit of the founding fathers who paid a premium on a clean government. Some younger Members may not remember the clown and corrupt Ministers we used to have in this House. They do not even know who Chew Swee Kee is. It is important that whichever party forms the government, we must maintain this high standard. It is no use having the constitutional protection in the Presidency if we do not have an honest and open government. It is in this spirit that we must institutionalise the process and I urge all political parties in Singapore to make it as a part of their political platform and culture. Corruption here is indeed almost non-existent. Whenever corruption charges are before the courts, the courts take a serious view. Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members travel from time to time to other countries. We can see how the customs and immigration officials conduct their work. In some countries, they ask for baksheesh as if it was their birth right. Corruption is indeed almost non-existent here. It is part of a political culture. Sir, I want hon. Members to consider this aspect rather than the earlier aspect more closely. We are a country without natural resources except our people and our system of government. We must institutionalise this virtue of honest Government in every sphere of our life.”
“The Prime Minister said, and I quote: "Bear in mind that in introducing this Bill, the present Government is in fact clipping its own wings. Once the Constitutional amendment is effected, this Government will have some of its powers checked. The new Prime Minister will need to seek the concurrence of the President in certain key areas of Government." The Prime Minister has rightly pointed out his position. However, the power base did not change, and in fairness to the Prime Minister he did tell the House, and I quote again: "Let me stress here, however, that the Bill does not transfer the power of government to the Elected President, nor vest in him absolute veto power. Firstly, even though the President is elected by the people, he is not the Head of Government. He is the Head of State. He is not the Chief Executive of the country. The Prime Minister is. The initiative and responsibility of governing Singapore stays with the Prime Minister." Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government, Ministers and civil servants must at all times try to help the President by giving him the necessary information. If the President and his Council of Advisers are not given the necessary information, then the President is hampered from making his decision. This will do no good to the country. The President must have the right to call for papers and summon officers when the need arises. To assist the President, I am proposing to the Government that a high ranking officer be appointed by the President to assist him. This high ranking officer should have his own officials to assist him. We can call him Secretary to the President. I leave it to the draftsman to think of a name. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am pleased to know that the President has no problem in safeguarding the integrity of the civil service.”
“It became an electoral issue in 1988 and the PAP won the battle against the Opposition's call to curtail the power. We have had a lengthy debate on the Elected Presidency. Two White Papers were published. Public hearings took place in the Select Committee where there was an exchange of ideas. And I think some of the ideas from the representors were in fact incorporated in the Bill. Because of the nature of the office, in my submission before the Select Committee, I had pleaded that the Presidency should be above party politics and I am glad all political parties have done so. While the Cabinet and other MPs are entitled to support the Presidential candidates, political parties must never get involved in the campaign for the Presidential Election. Otherwise the President will be beholden. Sir, I have a terrible dislike of the word "beholden". Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's address to the press has given rise to public concern about the constitutional mechanism to safeguard our reserves. We must address and answer this question. The Constitution is not a writ in stone. It is a living document that requires changes, interpretation and even amendments from time to time to meet the requirements of the country. If the Constitution has to be amended, so be it. We should debate it in public and see if it could be accepted. The Elected President and the Government have both worked in a very harmonious manner. It must be so. I remember vividly the Prime Minister, who was then the First Deputy Prime Minister, said that the Government was prepared to have its wings clipped. There was no clamour to change the system. The Prime Minister did on his own initiative for the good of the country.”
“This still remains in the domain of the government of the day which derives its legitimacy from the mandate it obtains from the electorate at General Election where political parties offer their policies to the electorate. The President does no such thing. The Presidential candidate does not go before the country with any political platform. Mr S. R. Nathan has not gone to the country with any political platform. He asks the country to give him the mandate to discharge his constitutional responsibilities. And I repeat the words "constitutional responsibilities" which I have defined earlier. This distinction must be appreciated. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet are accountable to this Parliament. The President does not have to do so. I want to make this clear because some people think that the power base has changed. It has not. Having said that, Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot run away that the President is the Head of State. He symbolises our nationhood. We owe our loyalty to him. He bestows honour to our citizens. He is patron to many charities and art groups. In short, he is a symbol of power. It is therefore of utmost importance that the powers bestowed on him should be respected. His standing must never be undermined. He is not the ruling Party's President or Opposition's President. He is our President, the entire country, and we must bear this in mind at all times. Sir, the idea of Elected Presidency came from the mind of the then Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. He has given his thinking during the Straits Times interview recently. Members have read it. I do not have to repeat it. His younger colleagues accepted the principle of Elected Presidency and worked for it.”
“May I have your permission to quote from the document itself: "The constitutional practice embodied in these Principles is open to future evolution and refinement by future Presidents and Governments. This is necessary as over time the Government will make new transactions and policies, and the Principles will need to be extended or adapted to deal with these presently unforeseen situations." By endorsing this motion, we would be giving the Principles sanctity of a resolution which I think this White Paper rightly deserves. It will gain public confidence and it will have the approval of the highest forum of the land, that is, this Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, our Elected Presidency is a new institution. It will take some time to shape. We must give the institution a chance to develop. We must not get ourselves unduly concerned if there are minor differences as to the methods of achieving the Principles enshrined in this White Paper as well as in the Constitution. As a practising lawyer and a student of constitutional law, let me share with this House my belief in the Constitution. In our Constitution, the President is still the titular head of state. He is elected by the people but he has no executive power. He acts on the advice of the Cabinet but he is given extra powers to protect the reserves as well as the integrity of the civil service. He has veto power dealing with religious harmony and ISA. If there is a hung parliament, as it happens in India, he plays an important constitutional role in appointing the Prime Minister. Let us pray and hope that we do not have a hung parliament in Singapore. The President does not have the power to initiate policies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to you for giving me this opportunity and allowing this motion to stand on the Order Paper. Sir, I beg to move, That this House endorses the Principles for Determining and Safeguarding the Accumulated Reserves of the Government and the Fifth Schedule Statutory Boards and Government Companies as set out in the White Paper (Paper Cmd. 5 of 1999) [presented to Parliament on 2nd July 1999]. Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to the Prime Minister, the Senior Minister and the Minister for Finance yesterday, I was in two minds about whether I should proceed with the motion. Some Backbenchers felt that I should not proceed. I have considered the position and I am going to proceed with this motion. Sir, the Principles laid down in the White Paper were arrived at after consultation with the President and the Government. It is reassuring to note that if any issues arise and are not addressed in the Principles, the parties will resolve in accordance with the spirit and intent of the Constitution. I repeat the words "spirit and intent of the Constitution". This is in keeping with the spirit of conciliation and consensus we are trying to build in this young republic. It is a part of our Shared Values as well. On the importance of the Principles, I can do no better than to quote the President's letter. I quote: "will make for greater certainty and clarity in approaching matters affecting the reserves". Here again the key words are certainty and clarity. The White Paper will serve as a public record of the convention, and convention forms an important branch of constitutional law. Sir, the White Paper will become an important reference point in future.”
“Of course, if the need arises, and if it is useful for it to be corporatised, that can be considered. 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. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the remaining items on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].”
“However, in so far as the document relates to the creditor's petitions and statutory demands, the current position of the need for personal service still applies. It must be so because these amendments are to help the bankrupt. It is not to dispense with personal service where the creditors want to petition him for bankruptcy. This is done because there are express provisions in the Bankruptcy Act (sections 52 and 62) which specifically mention that these documents are to be served in a manner which is prescribed, and the rules in fact prescribe personal service. These sections clear up this point. The other point that Mr Ong mentioned is recourse to courts. I do not know whether he knows that section 30 in the Bankruptcy Act states very clearly that the OA is subject to the control of the court, and section 31 specifically empowers the court to review the OA's act on application of a dissatisfied bankrupt, creditor or any other person. This is a very simple process. All it entails is an application to court which would be heard in chambers, like any other summons. Even though the Act does give more powers to the OA, firstly, the assurance to the House is that the OA, as the record shows, will exercise these powers judiciously. Secondly, these amendments are procedural rather than substantive. Thirdly, sections 30 and 31 will enable recourse to the courts by any dissatisfied bankrupt, creditor or any other person who may want to seek redress from an OA's action. Mr Rai makes two suggestions, one complimenting the Attorney-General and the other about improving service in the IPTO. I think he will know that the IPTO was made an autonomous agency some years ago and that has improved its services.”
“Really, the important point is that the notice of the meeting or the notice that they can object in writing must be sent to the creditors. And this will be done because registered post will be used. Since a large percentage of creditors are institutions, companies, businesses - more than 80% - the likelihood of wrong address or the letter not reaching the place is very minimum. Indeed, the OAPT tells me that for many of these situations, creditors who are institutions have written off these debts and are not too concerned. In fact, they may agree to the composition but in the past they have never replied. So this new amendment will help expedite the process. Indeed, this is not a new situation because we have other provisions in our law where silence constitutes consent. Those lawyers who do criminal law will know that. An accused person who is served a notice of warning containing charges made against him, if he keeps silent, adverse inference can be drawn against him. Even in the Act itself, section 126 provides for a similar provision for discharge by certificate of the OA, which says that if the creditor does not object to a notice of the OA's intention to discharge a bankrupt, he is deemed to have no objection to the discharge. So this, in fact, has already been used in the current discharge scheme which has worked very well. It is really just applying it in other situations where it can be seen that from practical experience the OA is very clear that it will help expedite the process. The other point is section 157. Mr Rai also brings up this point. Of course, the amendment makes it easier for various notices and summons to be served.”
“Mr Ong Kian Min asked about this perennial question of travelling for bankrupts, particularly bankrupts who want to work overseas. He says in the past, it was so difficult. The bankrupt works overseas to help him pay off his debts, get him off the bankruptcy, helps everybody, but the bankrupt has difficulty travelling. I think he will be very pleased to know that this is a problem of the past, because the OAPT tells me that in so far as working overseas is concerned, he is now more relaxed. This is set out in a brochure, The Bankruptcy Information Sheet No. 5. There are many such pamphlets and brochures on various matters which have been produced and which are easily available, helping bankrupts along. This one deals with travelling overseas, which says that a bankrupt will be allowed to travel overseas or remain abroad if he is required to do so in the course of his employment. All that the bankrupt needs to do is to produce the employer's letter indicating the need to travel. Indeed between August 1998 and July 1999, there were 1,509 applications for bankrupts to travel for purposes of employment. And of these, only 6 or 0.4% were rejected. So this will be good news for bankrupts. Mr Ong Kian Min makes a few points about the Bill itself. One concern that he expresses is the amendment to section 95, as to the creditors' silence on a composition offer, whether that is unfair to the creditors. On the other hand, other Members who have spoken appreciate the thrust behind this amendment. Because here is a situation where you have creditors who, in the past, might have received letters informing them of the meeting but they did not attend. This holds up the process.”
“So lessons which are learned by this Unit can, of course, be applied to pre-bankruptcy processes which are also important, because then it will keep the person away from the bankruptcy regime. Mr Leong Horn Kee and Mr Inderjit Singh also asked about the criteria and the process by which the OA will decide whether or not to allow bankrupts to manage businesses or be directors of companies. Both in New Zealand and Malaysia, it is the OA who grants such permission. The OA is looking into the criteria that are used in these countries before finalising the factors that he would consider. What is important is that in processing such applications, the OA will consider the interests of the public, the creditors and the bankrupt. He will take into account a number of factors which will include, first, the cause of bankruptcy; secondly, previous involvement in a failed business or company; thirdly, liability of the proposed business; and, fourthly, whether creditors will benefit from the proposed business. These are the factors which will guide his deliberations. I have said just now that the OA is well placed to make this consideration because he and his staff deal with the bankrupt on a continual basis. So he will be able to assess not just their ability to pay but their character and whether or not they will fulfil these criteria. Certainly, when he makes his decision, he is not going to act alone. There will be a committee that will assist him in the OA's office. The committee will include other professionals like accountants who can also help him make a professional judgment. Let me assure this House that the OA will make his decisions very judiciously, taking into consideration the factors that I have mentioned.”
“The three years will enable the OAPT sufficient time to study the circumstances of the bankruptcy, and will also give the bankrupt an opportunity to show that he is prepared to work with the OAPT. All these factors are indeed taken into consideration. If he does meet the criterion, when three years are up, he will be considered for discharge by certificate. I think we should keep it at that, and not lower the 3-year criterion. Let us see how the process works, and if circumstances warrant it, of course, we can consider it down the road. The idea is not to put this 3-year limit as an absolute bar. If a bankrupt is able to make an offer of composition, which is accepted by the creditors or indeed has paid up fully, then he will be discharged immediately, once the creditors agree. So the 3-year bar is not an impediment in those circumstances. Indeed, the OAPT tells me that there have been bankrupts who have been able to get out of bankruptcy within a week. So a lot depends on how quickly they cooperate. His observations on the importance of pre-bankruptcy mediation are very valid ones. Indeed, Mr Singh will be happy to know that the Ministry of Law is now working with the Official Assignee and the Singapore Mediation Centre on a pre-bankruptcy mediation programme. Once the details are ready, they will be announced. In the meantime, the OAPT is already exploiting mediation, not at the pre-bankruptcy stage, but at the post-bankruptcy stage. A Bankruptcy Mediation Unit was formed earlier this year to provide mediation services to bankrupts and creditors to encourage them to work towards a settlement. I have been told that to-date, 104 cases have been successfully mediated.”
“So besides the bankrupts, there are also creditors who hold up the discharge process, in respect of offers of composition by bankrupts. They do not respond to the OA's letters, despite many reminders. This can be quite taxing. This is in fact one of the problems being addressed by the Bill, that debtors who come forward, cooperate and who are able to put together an offer of composition or scheme of arrangement should not be held back by creditors who do not respond to the many letters calling for meetings. Mr Chng Hee Kok also asked whether the new guidelines will apply to bankrupts whose process of discharge has begun. Of course, the new guidelines will apply to all outstanding cases. So they will benefit should they satisfy the requirements. Mr Inderjit Singh is another strong proponent for creditors. He applauds the Government for making these innovations to the Bill and, indeed, I want to thank him because I think he captures the spirit behind the Bill, which is to encourage entrepreneurship. On the other hand, like I have said, we have to keep in mind the central point that we want to maintain a balance between the interest of creditors and debtors. So we cannot go overboard. We must keep this in mind, because otherwise if bankrupts are able to get out of bankruptcy too easily without showing effort on their part, that may also increase business costs. That may also increase the reluctance of bankers to lend money. I think that is the central point. His points are well made, but, at the same time, we have to keep this balance in mind. On his suggestion for a faster discharge process for high-tech businesses, as I have said, we have moved it down from five years to three years.”
“One unit, for example, is the Bankruptcy Unit for Discharges, a special unit formed to speedily process all bankruptcy discharges. And it also maintains a hot line to inform bankrupts of the status of their cases. Indeed, some of its innovations, like I have said, have been recognised by other world-wide agencies. One example, besides the one I mentioned in my speech, where the Commonwealth Association of Public Administration and Management recognised its discharge by certificate process, is the fact that the IPTO last year became the first legal institution in Singapore and the first insolvency service in the world to be awarded the ISO 9002. And I am glad Mr Rai, through his practical experience, also testifies to the fact that the processes have improved. I think that is the first thing to note. If there is any delay in the discharge of any particular bankrupt, it is not because of the processes. The OA tells me that he has in fact hired temporary staff when the need arose to cater to the demand. He also tells me that from his experience, there will always be about 20-25% of bankrupts who do not cooperate with his office. They do not file statements. They do not turn up for meetings. So it is a matter of getting people to understand that it is to their full benefit to cooperate with the OAPT, particularly in view of the discharge by certificate process. It has worked for many cases, because this process, in fact, encourages deserving bankrupts to cooperate. And if they do and they fit within the requirements, then the OAPT can consider selecting such deserving bankrupts to be discharged. The other group of people who may hold up discharges are the creditors.”
“Thank you, Mr Jeyaretnam. I will do it. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: First, let me thank all the speakers who have spoken. Sir, indeed, as the speeches have underscored, it is important to keep a proper balance between the interests of the creditors and the debtors. There were some speeches in this House which have reflected some concerns of debtors, and other speeches in this House asking for more, reflecting concerns of creditors. I think this is something which we always keep in mind. I am glad that Members can see that in other exercises concerning bankruptcy laws which we had, first, the revamp in 1995, and then we continued to fine-tune the law over the last 2-3 years, we have kept this balance in place. Indeed, as one or two Members have asked whether or not there can be further refinements, the answer will be yes, because no laws are cast in stone, particularly laws like bankruptcy and as has been shown from our track record. I think, where appropriate, to maintain this balance in the light of changing circumstances, as have happened, with the drive towards technopreneurship. These amendments have been partly driven by this drive towards technopreneurship. Let me take the points of Members now. On Mr Chng Hee Kok's main point, he says that there are some people who still see bankruptcy discharge proceedings as being rather slow. I think a lot must depend on the bankrupt. Because in terms of refinements, firstly, to the procedures and, secondly, to the insolvency service of the Insolvency and Public Trustee Office (IPTO), the Official Assignee and his staff have made many improvements to the procedures and process of bankruptcy. Many units, for example, have been formed.”
“Sir, I have the benefit of going through Mr Inderjit Singh's speech earlier, and I support his call for a two-tier category. I think it is something that is worthy of consideration. Although it may not be practical now, I think we should give it serious thought. Sir, this is a very judicious Bill. The interests of the creditors and the debtors have all been taken into account. Finally, I owe it to the Attorney-General's Chambers. I wish to congratulate them for this Bill which is in simple language. Plain English is taking place now and I am glad. Perhaps the Minister could write a note to the Attorney-General's Chambers on this. Mr Jeyaretnam: You write.”
“Previously, applications had to be made to Court and it was expensive and time-consuming. Now, this power is vested in the OA and it is a very laudable clause. I am a little concerned about subsection 2 of this section. It says that "notice of annulment shall be advertised in the Government Gazette in any local newspaper". I think, in fairness, Sir, the advertisement should be in one English newspaper and one in a vernacular language newspaper. The decision should be left to the Official Assignee as to which newspaper he wishes to choose. But perhaps one consideration should be the debtors. If the debtor is an Indian, he may want to publish in Tamil Murasu. Similarly, if he is a Malay, he may want to publish in Berita Harian. I think we should bear this in mind. Another suggestion is that the Official Assignee should farm out some of its work to accountants and lawyers. This would give an opportunity for young lawyers and young accountants to practise some insolvency laws as well. Similarly, I welcome section 123A. It allows for annulment of bankruptcy orders for debts that are being fully paid up. I am also glad that section 157 has brought about fundamental changes. Previously, we had what is called "personal service". New section 157(1) says that service could be effected by: '(a) delivering it to him; (b) by delivering it to any adult person residing at his usual or last known place of residence .; (c) by leaving it at his usual or last known place of residence or business; or (d) by forwarding it by registered post in a cover addressed to him at his usual or last known place of residence or business or at any address furnished by him.' The other thing I am glad, Sir, is the composition that the Minister has mentioned earlier. I am glad that it has been done.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for giving me this opportunity. Sir, I support the Bill. May I suggest to the Minister to consider changing the title of the Act from "Bankruptcy Act" to "Insolvency Act". "Bankruptcy" is a much disliked word these days. We have transformed our bankruptcy law in the last few years and this is very progressive, and I would like to thank the Minister for taking the initiative and bringing in the amendments at such a short notice. I also have some suggestions. Could the office of the Official Assignee and Public Trustee be corporatised to be more service-oriented in the long term? I am not suggesting that it should be done today. But we should look into this on a long-term plan. I have at the 1998 Budget debate praised the good work of the Official Assignee and Public Trustee. In fact, my feedback is this. I have had some dealings with the Official Assignee and Public Trustee and the department has improved by leaps and bounds. I have seen how effectively a bankrupt's case is being managed now and dividends paid at a shorter period than it was previously. What used to take a few years now takes a few months. The backlog has been cleared not only in the judicial system but also by the Official Assignee, and I think this House should be grateful for the work done by this department. It is very important that businessmen who have failed should be given a second chance. This would encourage entrepreneurship. I am glad that under clause 4, creditors can accept composition of this scheme by special resolution. This clause lays down the procedure for doing it. I do not have to repeat it. It is gratifying to note that under section 35A of the Act, the Official Assignee has the power of annulment before going to Court.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I shall be very brief. The Minister has pointed out the need to have this Bill. I am glad that this Bill will help in raising the standards of land surveyors in Singapore. Sir, in countries like Singapore, with its small size and very densely built, it is important that land surveyors have a high standard, like the other professions. I am very relieved that the Minister of State has also assured that those who are caught in the transitional period will be given a further chance of another two years because somebody has written to some of the MPs here. And I am glad that the Minister has acceded to this. Sir, the law will require every land surveyor to be registered. It will prevent any person from being employed as a registered surveyor or an assistant surveyor without the approval from the Board. This is very important. Most professional bodies require certain registration and I am glad that this provision will help in lifting the standard. What we would urge the Land Surveyors Board to do is to have courses conducted from time to time, just like the medical and legal professions are doing. It is important for us to have registered surveyors. It is very important for us in Singapore to improve ourselves by attending courses. With that, I support the Bill, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister a supplementary question? There are Indian students who are offering Hindi, Punjabi and other Indian languages. Their marks are not weighted at Primary Four. Would the Minister consider reviewing the position in the near future?”
“Sir, there is another point which I forgot to mention.”
“Instead of coming back to this House again, what we could have done is to state $200 or such a figure as the Minister may approve. That would save us the trouble of coming to this House, because $200 is a pittance if you really want to regulate some of the offences. My final point is to have a feedback where the public at large, the users of public transport, can give its views and the Council could study them and serve the public better. With that reservation, Sir, I support this Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Transport Council is doing a lot of work. In fact, our transport services, both the buses and MRT, have improved by leaps and bounds. But I would urge the Minister of State to take note of some of the areas which I am going to address to him. First of all, I agree that there should be a handicapped representative. Most of the Council members are car users. We should get a bus commuter to sit on the Council. I know we have an NTUC representative but it is not enough. The second point, which Dr Lee has mentioned, is to have a feedback unit. The bus and MRT are a very important part of our industry. The passengers are the best people to give feedback on the changes of routes and fares. On the fares, Sir, I share the concern of Members. The Council has members from MRT and bus operators and they are going to decide how much fares should be charged, subject to the Minister's approval. We should be more transparent. Whenever decisions are taken, there should be a convention that those who are involved directly in the operation of the bus or MRT should not take part when a decision is taken to raise fares. We should make it a point to see that these people do not vote. Otherwise, we will lose our maxim that justice must not only be done but seen to be done. The other point which I would like to comment is this. I think the regulatory power that is given to the Council is laudable. It should be because after all, the Council is in charge and clause 25 has laid down all the areas which it has to do and I welcome it. Another point which I would like to mention is the composition of offences. Why do we restrict ourselves to $200 for a fine?”