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 3 of 7.
“Sir, Indonesia is our close neighbour whom we have strong historical ties. Indonesia has been our important trading partner and I hope that it will still be. What has been happening in Indonesia is saddening. The economic crisis she is going through, we hope, will be over soon. Indonesia's founding father has been a firm believer in the principle of Pancasila. Both Singapore and Indonesia are in the forefront of the non-aligned movement. Singapore has always been mindful of Indonesia's situation, and has done whatever help, both at the people and Government level, to the country. Singapore has conducted her relationship with Indonesia in a very courteous and considerate manner. Singapore does not believe in interfering in other countries' affairs. Therefore, it is saddening to note recently that some Indonesian leaders have started making reference to Singapore, and what is more sad to see is that a very important fabric of our Government structure is being questioned, ie, our meritocracy policies. I hope and pray that the Indonesian leaders will stop making future comments on this because it will affect our relationship with them. Singapore has always believed in meritocracy and it is because of this policy that our civil service and armed forces have been a model for others. I hope the Minister will convey to his counterpart in a very polite manner that we should keep each other's relationship at a level as is required in an international relationship and not to interfere with each other's affairs. Finally, Sir, I think Members of this House will agree with me that we hope that Indonesia's economic crisis will be over soon because it is in our interest to have a prosperous Indonesia. A prosperous Indonesia means a prosperous Singapore.”
“Sir, Malaysia is our closest neighbour, both geographically and historically. We were part of the same family but because of differences, we parted company. We are now both independent and sovereign. I was a little puzzled last year when I was in Malaysia. One leader suggested that Singapore should treat Malaysia as a big brother. I think in any international relationship, it is very important to get our bearings correct. As a Malay saying goes sak sama, we must be at the same level. Singapore is an independent sovereign country. We have our own policies. They have their own policies. We do not believe in interfering with their relationship. They should not interfere with our relationship. It is in the interest of both countries to cooperate with each other. Singapore has always offered its hand of friendship to Malaysia. I believe that we should not score points through either media or political organisation. Let us not debate openly our differences. We should talk to each other regularly. Our Ministers meet regularly. A pet topic of Mr Chiam See Tong, who is not here, has been an economic union. In his absence, may I say that I am in favour of close economic cooperation although I do not know whether it is feasible for us to have an economic union now. Sir, I would like the Minister to clarify what is the position about the water situation. Where are we now? On CIQ, other Members have spoken and the House is interested to know where we have reached the negotiation at this stage. I believe that the question of CIQ should not be delayed unduly. We should come to terms with our differences, and I would urge the Minister to impress upon his Malaysian counterpart that we should have a fruitful conclusion as early as possible.”
“The next thing that follows is that they have to pack and be sent to their countries of origin. Could we allow these workers a slightly longer stay in Singapore, so that they could look for other employment? They have paid huge sums of money, often selling or mortgaging their land. $4,000 may not be a big figure for us. But when we convert this into Indian Rupees or Bangladeshi currency, it is much higher. I will go one step further and ask the Ministry: can we have a job placement body in the Ministry which could help these foreign workers? They are helping us. We should help them.”
“Sir, I share the sentiments of Mr Chiam and Mr Yeo who spoke earlier. Sir, the foreign workers are helping in the economic life of Singapore. Just imagine if these foreign workers were not to work for one week, I think our housing estates will be dirty. Construction sites will come to a standstill. We must appreciate the contribution made by these foreign workers. There are two areas which I would like to touch - recreation and employment. Sir, there are certain games and sports which are not very expensive, for example, Kabadi for the Indian and Bangladeshi workers. All they require is a field. No other equipment is required. Could we help them by providing them grounds where these activities could be taken? I will go one step further. The employers should be encouraged to have small recreational areas at the construction sites. I pleaded with the Minister for Information and the Arts for programmes in Thai and Bangla. Unfortunately, he said that it was not possible. We must think of these poor workers who are away from their homes. They are lonely. They work hard. They must be given some opportunity to relax. On Saturdays and Sundays, they gather at the various places, as has been told to this House, but what about the other working days? Can we do something? I would urge the Manpower Ministry to work closely with the employers. There is another area on which I have spoken earlier, but I am going to repeat my plea and I hope that it will not fall on deaf ears. This is on foreign workers who have been exploited by some unscrupulous agents in Singapore. These workers come here and they work for one or two months and then they find the companies are closed and they have no jobs.”
“And if we want the process to continue, then we must send the right message to the people, because foreign capital and foreign talent are in short supply. Even America, with its huge population, is in need of talent. That is why they go to Silicon Valley from India, China and Taiwan. And if we want to create a Silicon Valley, we must have these foreign talents here. Sir, what is required is for the Ministry of Manpower to lay down a broad policy and send the message to the world at large. In conclusion, Sir, I do not forget my Singaporeans, because Singapore citizens and permanent residents who have been here have a stake in this country. But we should give an assurance in this House that their interests will never be sacrificed. We are bringing in these people to serve the country better. I hope when Raoul Patek reads today's debate, he will change his mind.”
“Sir, when Dr Tan Cheng Bock spoke last week during the debate on the Prime Minister's Office, he was misunderstood, so much so that the New Paper columnist Raoul Patek made a very reasoned argument that we should not close our door to foreign talent. Singapore has always welcomed foreign talents and, in fact, it was a Dutch economist who brought us to where we are today. There are many areas which Singapore does not have the expertise and I do not think that we will have it in the near future. I understand Mr Chiam See Tong's plea for looking after Singapore. But we can look after Singapore better if we look at the broader economic perspective because these are people, whether in the IT sector or financial sector, who create economic prosperity, jobs and wealth for us. And I think we should not be shortsighted that in times of crisis, we should forget them. To do so would be suicidal. Let me give an example. When I was in law school, most of my teachers were foreigners. Things have changed. Now, the Law Faculty has more local lecturers than foreigners. Similarly, some years back when the Government wanted to bring foreign legal firms here, some lawyers felt that the Government was not being fair. But we have to look at it objectively. If we do not allow these foreign legal firms to be based here, the work will go to Hong Kong and elsewhere. 1.00 pm Sir, I would urge the Minister not to be shortsighted, but look at the broader perspective of Singapore's economic framework. After all, we are a creature of an immigrant society. Many of our forefathers came from China, India and other places, and the process must continue.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your leave, may I ask the Minister of State whether any other student leader has been arrested for the last 10 years? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Not that I can recall.”
“Sir, before I speak on the issue, I share the sentiments of Dr Toh See Kiat on the Red Lion and I hope that the Minister would give consideration. After all, we are a Lion City, Singa. Sir, I move on to films. The Singapore Film Commission has come into existence. It is good. It is just not enough for us to nurture the film industry here. Recently I was in Australia and I was surprised how the Australians were trying to set up their own film industry and the Americans were interested in setting up a studio there. In fact, Indian film producers are sending their crew to Australia. Then I found to my surprise that they had also been to Singapore. And for Hindi and Tamil films, they sometimes come here for shooting. Let me share with the House an anecdote which somebody told me. They saw a Hindi picture with a Singapore scene, and they were so attracted that they sent a crew to visit some of the spots. This, of course, is a good selling point for us. But what would be more interesting is if we could develop the facilities as one-shop facilities where we offer tax incentives and what-nots. I think Singapore, being located strategically, has advantages. Because even Mauritius, which is far away, the Indian film crew are going in. Bear in mind that the Indian film industry is one of the biggest in the world. I think we should look at it not just artistically but also its commercial viability. In fact, two weeks back, somebody told me that there was a shooting done here by an Indian film company. But I think more must be done. Probably our High Commission and other agencies there could work it out.”
“Sir, first of all, I must thank MITA and the National Heritage Board for the fine work it has done in Singapore. Our museums are today better housed. There are more exhibits. It is not only the local people who are visiting them but also the foreigners. What I would like to touch on today is another issue. This is trying to locate our buildings of historical interest, both commercial as well as residential buildings, where our pioneers had lived and many of our shophouses which used to house schools in Amoy Street and Tanjong Pagar. I would urge MITA to explore this. Whether it is school or clan association, it may have started off as a small shophouse and today a high-rise building may be there. What I want the Minister to consider is a plaque, which in fact they have already started doing. It is important for our children to know our history and this process could be easily attained if we follow some of the suggestions which I have told the House. 4.45 pm Another aspect which I would like the Minister to consider is this. Some years back, the National Museum joined force with the Hindu Endowments Board to have the Deepavali celebrations on a Sunday with food and paintings, etc. Because it was not well publicised very few tourists came. But the tourists who came were really impressed. I think it would be something for not only our own students to see, but also the visitors at large could see for themselves what Singapore has to offer. May I urge the Minister to consider this, even if it may require financial expenditure, but I think it is worthy of support.”
“Sir, the figure quoted by Mr Chng Hee Kok is really alarming. We must not welcome these unwelcomed visitors. The point, as pointed out earlier by speakers, is to tackle the problem at source. I would like to ask the Minister's response as to what steps have been taken to prevent these illegal immigrants from coming. Can we launch advertisements in newspapers and the media in these countries to warn them of the consequences that if illegal immigrants are arrested, they face severe punishment. It would appear that despite a very stringent law, these illegal immigrants still come to Singapore. The reason could be the economic situation in this country. There are two aspects which I want the Minister to consider. Firstly, Singaporeans have a duty to see that they do not in any way help these illegal immigrants. The moment that they know that somebody is a suspected illegal immigrant, they should report to the authority. And if every Singaporean takes this as a national concern, I think we can succeed. Secondly, I have another suggestion for the Minister. For those national servicemen who serve the Singapore Police Force, can we authorise them to act as Special Police? We could train them and they could be empowered to arrest. I think this is another aspect of community policing which the Minister may want to consider”
“I am interested in bringing to the Government's attention the question of culture tourism. We have the museums here and I think more and more efforts should be done to attract tourists to visit these museums. Secondly, we are a multi-racial society. We have a lot of advantages over the other countries, whether it is a Chinese opera or an Indian dance. We should try to market these values to the tourists. There is a growing number of tourists who are interested in not just seeing the sights in Singapore but also the cultural aspects of it, and we are unique in that we have the Chinese, Malay and Indian cultural heritage here. I would urge the Minister to consider ways and means of selling this to the tourists. 5.00 pm”
“Sir, many of the points I want to speak, Mr Inderjit Singh has already covered, but I have just one suggestion. Ministers go on official visits to many countries and I think it would be useful if the Trade Development Board works with the country whenever a Minister is visiting another country and see what are the opportunities available for us. Many people feel that we should wait. An entrepreneur should look now if there is an opportunity to go forward into the region itself. As cited by Mr Inderjit Singh, DBS is one classic example. Many people think it is not a good investment but they think in the long term. We must take a long term strategy. If I could just give an example. In India, there is a community call Marwaris who come from Rajastan. They are all over India and they are very successful. We can be Marwaris of Singapore, Sir.”
“Sir, town councils were introduced in order to help HDB housing estate management. It is a laudable objective, and it is still laudable. But I would like to ask the Minister to consider changing the concept of the town council into a local council where private estates as well as the Housing and Development Board estates could be managed together. We could go one step further. This town council could also manage schools as well as recreational activities in the area. At the moment, there is a clear segregation between HDB flats and private properties. It would be good national bonding and integration if both could come together. As it is, I know that some of the private residents provide membership for the town council, but that is not adequate. We should go one step further. I urge the Minister to seriously consider this. This will also lead to the growth of a civil society in Singapore and people from the private estates as well as HDB could forge together a national consciousness on issues affecting them.”
“That is the question. And if the HDB can carve out some of its older 5-room and HUDC blocks, build some swimming pools and other facilities, upgrade them into a real condominium, I think many Singaporeans will then stick with these flats for a few years and then move on. My plea to the Minister, and in fairness to the other Members, is this. Watch the market and then have a long-term planning. Do not act on short-term measures. Take a long-term planning. After all, land is limited in Singapore. And I share the sentiments of what Dr Wan Soon Bee has said earlier. The property prices should not be too volatile.”
“Sir, owning a private property is a very desirable ambition, and I think we should encourage it. The only caveat is that in this country, the property market is so volatile. If we take 1981 as a base, a terrace house in Serangoon/Hougang used to cost $40,000. Ten years later in 1991, it was $400,000, 10 times. Nowhere in the world could we have such a high appreciation. Sir, I have here this morning's Business Times. Let me quote Mr Greenspan. He said: "Based on a medium period of owning a home for nine years, that each home sale since 1995 has averaged roughly US$35,000." Here, in the height of the property speculation, the next day you can make $35,000. This is dangerous and we should check it. I have some proposals for the Minister. There has been some success with Executive Condominiums. The Government, at the moment, is the biggest owner of land, and I am concerned especially with 99-year leasehold properties. The cost of construction does not rise and fall very much. It is almost at a very level position. What the Government can help to make the dream become a reality is this - sell the land or possibly the HDB could join forces with the private developers, and then at least you have some control over the market forces. I know the Minister will say that we should not interfere with the market sentiment. But this is one suggestion. Secondly, there is this perception in some Singaporeans that we must buy a private home within 5-10 years. I think this perception has to change with the economic reality. I must especially applaud the Ministry, and the HDB in particular, for building very good housing. I have been to other parts of the world, both developed and developing, but I think our housing policy has been a resounding success. Can we improve on it?”
“Sir, I think the House must be grateful to the Minister for giving very comprehensive replies. He has offered a written response to Mr Inderjit Singh and I hope that he would also give Mr Chuang a written reply as well. With that, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $761,329,600 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $764,045,500 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head U - 1.00 pm”
“Sir, a few years ago, Government introduced tax provisions for property purchased within three years. If you sell the property, you have to pay tax. This was to check speculation in the property market. I think it was timely. But the time has come for the Minister to consider whether this arrangement should still exist. I would urge him to take away this legislative process or reduce it to less than 30%. I leave it to the Minister's discretion, Sir. Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (Marine Parade): Sir, allow me to add on to Mr Singh's comments on GST. The administration of the Goods and Services Tax has been a challenge to cash flow management for many SMEs. This is particularly so for those who manufacture or trade a combination of domestic and imported inputs for export market. The different treatments frequently mean that such companies indirectly bear the cost of financing the GST payments before the eventual reconciliation. To illustrate, GST is paid for inputs and value-added whilst the offsetting comes only at the point of export. With sluggish demand, the time difference can sometimes stretch for months. Sir, with intensifying competition, margins are already being sliced very thin. The administration of GST can therefore become a huge burden and sometimes mean the difference between a small profit and a loss. Can the Minister therefore review and streamline the procedures for GST administration, especially for SMEs? Can a greater grace period be allowed for such cases so as to ease cash flow for companies, especially during this difficult period?”
“I have been supportive from the very beginning about the merger of the local banks. I have filed a Question for Oral Answer and the DPM has replied. I again plead to both the banks and the Government to take steps because it will be in the long-term interest of the financial market in Singapore that the banks are consolidated. Perhaps, the Government may take a lead by telling the banks. At least, those in the UOB Group should merge together. Similarly, other banks which have other subsidiaries in the stable should do so. Every other country, even in India, is thinking of a similar move to merge, and if we are to succeed in this sector, I think it would be in the long-term interest for the banking sector to have fewer banks. I would urge the Government to take the lead in persuading the local banks to do so.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head N of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, the Singapore dollar has been declining in comparison to the American dollar although it has risen against the basket of currencies. My concern is that if the dollar declines further, and the speculated element sets in, what steps would the Government take to see that the dollar is protected. Of course, there are some people who feel that the dollar should decline further. But I leave it to the Minister's judgement. With your permission, can I take the second cut as well, Sir?”
“Yes, I wish to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $26,855,240 for Head B ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $6,928,900 for Head B ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head N -”
“However, Mr Rai also knows that most of the civil cases that AG currently handles involve matters like debt collection and motor accidents involving Government-owned vehicles. It is uneconomical to assign these cases to the private sector. However, the point is that whenever there is a need to do so, the AG's Chambers will do it. The last point is that, because there is little litigation on private matters, the AG is considering sending Legal Officers for attachment with private law firms to gain experience in civil work. 5.15 pm”
“One initiative is the redrafting of prescribed forms for the sale and purchase of residential and commercial properties under the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act and the Sale of Commercial Properties Act. These forms in plain English have been in use since October 1997. The Chambers were also involved in 1998 in assisting the Law Society in redrafting the Law Society's standard Conditions of Sale of Real Property in plain English. This is an important development of plain English in legal drafting in Singapore. The Law Revision Commission, chaired by the AG, has in its revision of statutes and subsidiary legislation, also taken the opportunity to weed out archaic and obsolete terms used in the existing legislation. The Commission has also simplified such legislation by breaking down long and complex sentences into shorter paragraphs and subsections. Headings have also been used instead of side notes for easier reading. In addition, Members would find it easier to understand a Bill by reading its Explanatory Statement first. The purpose of the Statement is to explain in plain English the intention of each proposed provision in the Bill in a precise manner. I understand that, to further facilitate the understanding of the provisions of the Bill, the Chambers is considering in future preparing a more elaborate Explanatory Statement to a Bill so that it will facilitate easier reading and understanding of the Bill. The other point Mr Rai made is with regard to assigning of cases by the AG's Chambers to civil firms. The position is that the AG's Chambers will assign cases to legal firms whenever there is a need to do so.”
“Sir, I have a plea to the Government. It will be in the interest of both the legal profession and the Attorney-General's Chambers if some work were farmed out to the private sector lawyers who have more expertise in this area. Similarly, I would also urge that promising State Counsels and DPPs be attached to legal firms for a short stint from three to six months. I have in mind people who are involved in legislation and who are dealing with corporate matters. It would be good for them to be attached to some of these big firms where they have good exposure. I must declare my interest as a lawyer, Sir. But I am thinking in the long-term interest of the legal profession as well as the administration of justice, and I would urge the Minister to give this his consideration. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, on Mr Rai's first point on the use of plain English, I am sure Mr Rai would be pleased to know that the AG's Chambers have indeed been using the plain English approach to legal drafting for some time. In fact, the AG has been concerned with this. As early as January 1996, the Singapore Academy of Law (OSAL) held a series of workshops to promote the use of plain English in legal drafting conducted by experts from Australia. In his keynote address at the Opening, the AG emphasised the importance of plain English drafting. He mentioned that he had instructed the legislative draftsmen to adopt plain English in legislative drafting without sacrificing precision. The Chambers have also adopted the policy of drafting legislation in plain English whenever it is feasible to do so.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head B of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, may I urge the Attorney-General's Chambers to use plain language in its legislation. It is important that legislation should be clearly understood by the man-in-the-street. This point was raised in an earlier debate concerning another Bill. Can I move on to the next topic, Sir?”
“I suggest the people who are appointed mediators should be people with experience in life, retired civil servants, and lawyers in active practice. I think the role of the community mediation centre should be enhanced. It has been in operation for some time, and the community is very grateful to this organisation. Sir, I would urge the Government to give a second thought. I have spoken on it earlier.”
“Sir, I am continuing with Mr Jeyaretnam's question on the Court of Appeal. I have got a different proposition, Sir. I am one of those who have been very supportive, and I still support, that we have done away with the Privy Council. We have got our own Court of Appeal. It has come of age. I have one complaint. We still have got only three permanent Judges for the Court of Appeal. I would urge that we should increase it to at least five. In important cases, the quorum should be five. I know of the present practice. The Chief Justice could ask other Judges to sit in the Court of Appeal, but that is not very satisfactory. Hong Kong has got more permanent Supreme Court Judges of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal in UK as well. So I suggest to the Government to reconsider the position. It is not going to be a tremendous financial burden on the coffer if we have two more Judges of Appeal. On the question of community mediation, I applaud the Ministry, and I think the work is well received by the public. We are an Asian society. We are not a litigious society and we do not believe in getting involved in litigation. Litigation should be a last resort. I have in mind two proposals for the Government. First, take away all private summonses, ie, those summonses which are instituted by the citizens against other citizens. Also, small summonses involving family members should be dealt by the mediation centre rather than by the court. Because in the court, the parties engage lawyers, there is publicity, there is this situation sometimes, through cross-examination, where people come to very bitter ends. If it is through mediation, people sit in closed door.”
“Sir, I am gratified that our Armed Forces have trained in other countries and I would urge the Minister to explore further possibilities for two reasons: we have limited land space and airspace. Also, it would allow our personnel to benchmark against some of the best armies, as well as airforces and navies in other parts of the world. I think it is important that our personnel are well equipped, and by training in other countries, they learn some of the areas which we do not have here. Sir, with your permission, may I just touch on the question of national defence. I support the Government's move to allocate higher expenditure on defence. We are a peace-loving people but we must always be prepared for the worst. Any suggestion that the United Nations will come to help is a wishful dream and an unrealistic expectation. If our aggressors were to know and realise that our defence is intact, they will have second thoughts about taking us on. Every citizen, and I repeat, every citizen must feel that our defence is our just cause. We must be vigilant at all times. It is no use building all the economic infrastructure and economic growth if we do not have the capability to defend ourselves. And I am glad that the majority of Members in this House have agreed wholeheartedly that national defence must occupy priority at all times. It must be so, Sir. It is, of course, a substantial part of our GDP, but it must be so. Other countries spend much higher than us. Hon. Members, we want to live peacefully with our neighbours and we have no ill will towards any of our neighbours, but we must try to defend ourselves and be prepared at all times.”
“Sir, the integrity of the civil service is guaranteed under the Constitution. An honest Government has set the tone for the civil service. The political leadership and the civil service work hand-in-hand to run the Government and to deliver the goods to the people. It is an important value which has made our civil service an example to emulate for other countries. Sir, meritocracy is a fundamental philosophy and we should adhere to it at all costs. Never allow foreign or local element to endanger this basic philosophy. If we allow quotas for the civil service, we are finished. The best men must come in, Sir. I agree that there should be GRCs and multi-racial representation in Parliament. By the very nature of society, we will choose the best from each community. But to say that you must be in the civil service and promoted because of your race is a dangerous trend. Sir, we have set a very high standard for the civil service and it must be so. As I said earlier, the political leadership and the civil service work hand-in-hand. I have two proposals for the Government. First, we should try to attract some of the best brains from the private sector for a short-term stint in the Administrative Service. Similarly, we should allow our civil servants, not just in the statutory board and Government-linked companies, to go for a short stint in the private sector as well. I think this process will benefit both the economy as well as the Government.”
“Sir, women are under-represented in this House would, I think, be an understatement. In many countries, the women are clamouring for adequate representation in Parliament. In India, there is a cry for 30% representation, although it has not come into the statute book as yet. Political parties are vying with each other and, sadly, we have, in the case in India, where women who are elected can neither read nor write. I do not want this situation to happen in Singapore. But I am appealing to the Prime Minister to try to persuade more women to be in this House. I will go one step further and ask the women MPs to persuade at least one MP to stand for the next election. 1.00 pm Sir, women are today in the forefront of every discipline and every aspect of life in Singapore and it should be so. I urge the successful women to come forward and serve the country, maybe as an attraction, Sir. In each GRC, we should have at least one woman MP. And may I suggest to the male MPs in the GRC to give extra help to these women MPs. I will go one step further to urge the Prime Minister to appoint in each GRC a full-time MP who could be a mayor in the GRC and he could look after the local needs of the community. Sir, I have said earlier that women have climbed the ladder of success and nowhere is this example more shining than the Judiciary. When I started in 1971, there was not a single lady member on the bench. Now we have Justice Judith Prakash and Justice Lai Siew Choo. Can we hope to have similar representation in this House, Sir? Sir, with your leave, could I move to the next cut?”
“Would the Minister of State indicate to the House the countries in which Singapore citizens have acquired citizenship? And if the Government knows that they have acquired a foreign citizenship, what steps would the Government take to see that they either give up Singapore citizenship or the other country's citizenship, because I have known of countries where this has happened? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, if the Government comes to know of such people, they will be told to give up their foreign citizenship if they want to retain their Singapore citizenship.”
“Generally, it is important that we should have a legal framework for medical practitioners and other officials to work within the framework of law and it is important that we lay it down. I share Dr Tan Cheng Bock's concern. As a lawyer, I find difficulty in comprehending this piece of legislation. We are moving to plain language, and I hope that our draftsmen will try to make it as easy as possible. If we have difficulty, what about the man-in-the-street, Sir? I know the Attorney-General has been trying his level best to have simple plain English and I would again urge the draftsmen to have mercy on us. Sir, with these words, I support this Bill.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity to speak. Mr Speaker, Sir, having listened to the very moving speech by the Senior Minister of State in which she painted the picture of the AIDS patients, and having heard Mr Bernard Chen who also graphically painted the picture that is emerging, I have no doubt that this House would support this Amendment Bill. Sir, we have moved from the days when we had malaria as an infectious disease. In fact, the first legislation was introduced in 1915 when Singapore was largely a seaport. Today, she has become one of the largest airports in this part of the world. We are getting people from all over the world and our citizens are also travelling. It is therefore important that we should legislate and take care. Mr Speaker, Sir, what is required is social education. We have to inform the public at large the need to take preventive measures. Sir, section 10A, which is a new piece of legislation, lays down that any person who supplies any material information which he knows to be false or misleading may be fined up to $20,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both. I think the existing Penal Code does not have the severity which this Bill introduces. I support this amendment because the Penal Code provisions are really inadequate. And it is very important for us to have enough deterrents. But when I move to section 20C, Sir, I am a bit apprehensive. From $10,000, we are increasing to $50,000. This is too drastic and I hope the Senior Minister of State will explain to the House the necessity of taking such a large quantum move. Sir, Members have spoken on the other details and I do not want to belabour the points.”
“Would the Minister consider, in view of the changed circumstances, whether it is still a risk to let him come in? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: He has not applied. If he applies, we can consider it. But in terms of what he has done in 1966, the reason for the ban is fully justifiable.”
“May I ask the Minister whether Abdul Razak applied to the Government to review the Order? Has he himself applied? The second question is whether the Government would consider, in view of the changed circumstances, allowing him entry on conditions? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: After the ban was made in 1966, in fact, he was allowed in Singapore on four occasions for various reasons. He did apply to ask for the ban to be lifted, but the Government in 1984 turned it down.”
“Sir, would the Minister consider, like the taxi drivers who were individual operators and the system has benefited because of amalgamation, that it would be a good idea to encourage these Scheme B bus operators to form a company even if they are not coming on their own?”
“ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION CONTROL BILL Order for Second Reading read. 1.40 pm”
“Indeed, I think the key, as Mr Rai has pointed out, is to select the right people for the job, and this is provided for in the Constitution where the Chairman is the Chairman of the Public Service Commission and the members are the Chairman of the Public Accountants Board and a member nominated by the Chairman of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. So that is the key. Once you have the right people with the right experience and the right standing to make the assessment, no doubt there will be some element of subjectivity, but it will be a considered judgement of all three members looking at facts which are essentially furnished in the form by the applicant. So the point, Sir, is that this clause will further help the Committee in exercising considered judgement. Mr Tay is right in that it is an exception to the law of defamation. But, as I have pointed out, this is not the first time we are doing it. There are also other laws, although the laws are more narrow in confining only to defamation. In this case, yes, the clause is wide enough to cover situations, like negligent mis-statements. If you look at the functions of the Committee, the possibility of it being liable or being caught in a situation where it has given a negligent statement is quite unlikely. So the main thrust, as I see it, will be the possibility of defamation suits which, in any case, because the Committee will continue to exercise considered judgement, will again be not likely. 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.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this amendment. As a result of the Elected President, we have this piece of legislation and the rationale behind this amendment is indeed worthy of support of this House. It is not a blanket immunity, as the Minister pointed out. If there is malice, the members have to face the consequences. And I think it is important that the Committee which deals with a very important post in the land should be free to assess the suitability of the candidates. I am glad, and I am sure, the Government will do it again. The most important thing is to appoint suitable people, people of integrity who will examine the suitability of the candidates, because there is a provision in the Constitution. There may be candidates who may not automatically qualify but who have to be certified by this body, and in this case I rise to support the amendment. I was rather taken aback why this was not included earlier when the Act was first enacted. But I see that since 1991, there have been various amendments and I think the House should unanimously support the move by the Minister. Because, if we have to have a committee that must function within the constitutional framework, it is very important that the Committee must be free to come to a decision. As I have said earlier, the Committee has got certain limitation. With this, I support the Bill. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank both Mr Rai and Mr Tay for supporting the Bill.”
“I know I am not going to be happy at the end of the day but I am still asking the Minister to consider abolishing estate duty itself gradually. I am not asking him to do it now but eventually I hope he would consider that”
“I rise to support the Bill. The new amendment would allow the Commissioner of Estate Duty flexibility in issuing notices of assessments in such form as he may determine. Similarly, the Estate Duty affidavit which has been in circulation for a long time would also be updated. I applaud the exemption of gifts and donations to be made to Institutions of a Public Character (IPC) as well as to the Government and I hope that the media will give enough publicity so that more donations could be made. Mr Speaker, Sir, I find clause 8 which amends section 44 of the Act very progressive. However, my complaint is why the Minister chose only a figure of $50,000 instead of $100,000. I think another method could have been adopted. Instead of setting the limit at $50,000, we could have empowered the Minister to vary the figure. As it now stands, he has to come back to this House whenever he has to make any amendment. Sir, Singapore must be Asia's largest shareholding country and this is why I am appealing to the Minister to reconsider the position. I also hope the Minister would consider introducing legislation where small estates below $100,000 need not go to court. It could be administered either by the Public Trustee or even institutions like banks and solicitors. The amendment to the Sixth Schedule is to be welcomed. However, I have one plea for the Minister, and that is, he should give outright exemption for interest for the first six months and thereafter the interest should be added in accordance with the current prime rate. I am aware of the fact that the Commissioner is quite generous in exempting interest but I am puzzled that the upper limit of 12% is indeed high. May I urge the Minister to reconsider the position. I have got another request.”
“I am obliged to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity. I am in support of the Bill. The Minister has been very thorough and convincing. I will be very short. Sir, the Civil Law Act is one of the cornerstones of our legal system and the number of amendments that has been proposed will help us in the administration of justice. In our system, we practise the rule of law and the separation of power - Judiciary, Executive and Legislature. The function of the Judiciary is to interpret the law while it is the function of Parliament to enact laws. I congratulate the Minister for introducing this Bill. It is timely. I am especially happy that the rule in Bain's case is being laid to rest. It has outlived its usefulness. It just goes to show that the law cannot be static. It is a living institution. It must undergo change from time to time. And in this regard, I am asking the Minister whether, besides the Law Reform Committee of the Singapore Academy of Law, the Ministry has any unit which monitors changes of law that are required in our system. Sir, to administer outmoded law would do grave injustice to the parties. The Minister has been very, very thorough in showing us the various amendments he is going to introduce, which are going to help us, and I hope other Ministries would also do likewise. I support the Bill. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the Ministry of Law itself also monitors what laws need to be amended. 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. TRADE MARKS BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Chin's concern that even on hypothetical questions, he is the man who can foresee what are the problems that are going to face him. He could pose even hypothetical questions, so that the public at large will know what is the legal position. I think it will be a wise thing for us to do this now than to wait for things to happen and then introduce legislation. Sir, as a practising member of the Bar, I would urge the Minister - I am supportive of the amendment - to please go slow. The perception and the signal we must send to the public is that we are interested in justice and we are not, in the name of efficiency, going to change the system to the disadvantage of the litigant. Sir, with that, I support the Bill.”
“They would consider the merit of the case because time and legal expenses are involved and only when they think there is some merit, then only they will go to court. So I am asking the Minister to increase it by all means, but not 10 times, perhaps $20,000 (4 times) and come back to this House sometime in the future, if need be, as the previous speaker, Mr Simon Tay, has spoken. As a practising member of the Bar, Sir, I am proud of the judicial system. In the last seven years, despite some criticisms from some quarters outside, I can say in this House that we have the most independent and capable judicial system anywhere in the world, and world bodies have reckoned this. But in the name of efficiency, we should not undermine the system to such an extent that the right to appeal is questioned. Sir, I have also a related question which, of course, is not part of this debate, but I will pursue it, with your permission. The Court of Appeal is presently made up of only three permanent Judges. May I urge the Minister to consider in future to increase this to five permanent Judges. I know the Chief Justice from time to time appoints one of the senior Judges of the Supreme Court, but I think this arrangement is not practical. Even Hong Kong, Sir, I am told, has got more Court of Appeal Judges. With more Appellate Judges, there would be more views and our judicial system will benefit. Sir, now I come to another issue which I think deserves mention - the right of appeal. The Attorney-General is the highest officer of the land and I am glad the Minister has brought this amendment. He should have the discretion. He should have the right to appeal in the public interest. And I share Prof.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to you for giving me this opportunity. Sir, two previous speakers, Mr Ravindran and Mr Simon Tay, have touched on the question of section 34, ie, the power of the President. I totally agree with them, and may I add my own view. As the matter now stands, it is this Parliament that decides the question of jurisdiction. And I see no need for this power to be given either to the President or to the Chief Justice. This is a very important constitutional issue. Question of jurisdiction should be within the hands of this Parliament and this Parliament alone. And I would urge the Minister to reconsider the position. As Mr Simon Tay has said, even if the Minister advises, I still think that this House should be the final body to decide. Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. However, I must say that I have reservation that the quantum that is being asked in this Bill is indeed very high. As the matter stands now, anything below $5,000, you require leave. Now we are being asked to raise this limit to $50,000, which is 10 times. I am aware that leave will be granted if there is merit. But then it would lead to legal expenses and involve time. The Minister has not given this House any figure to indicate that because of this provision, there is a backlog in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Justice must be seen to be done and I think justice will be done if there is less restraint on the part of the litigant to seek justice. And I would like to assure this House, Mr Speaker, Sir, that members of the legal profession, who would normally advise on question of appeal, are very cautious.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he has got any plans for skills training for the foreign workers, because they form quite a substantial workforce and some of them are educated but they are not equipped in English language?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the DPM what is the rationale for not allowing reduction of the maid levy? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, we do consider pump-priming measures. Our June package did include some pump-priming measures. They are still in effect and we will consider whether we need to do some more next year. I think we have to consider this carefully because pump-priming measures are not the same as cost-cutting measures. They stimulate different parts of the economy. We need to help the manufacturing sector, the export services sector, maybe even the financial and banking sector, telecommunications, transport. These will not directly be helped by pump priming. Because if we pump prime, most of the money will go into infrastructure, that means construction, and we cannot have the rest of the economy minus 5% and construction plus 50%, and claim that we have a balanced economy. We will be out of kilter. So we will pump prime but the projects have to be justified. We cannot build white elephant monuments. We will identify worthwhile projects which make sense for the long term. If we have some more, they will be done in next year's budget. Income tax rebate, why not now? The answer is that you are not paying tax now. You have already paid tax for last year in Year of Assessment 1998 and the tax for Year of Assessment 1999 is not yet due. We will announce the income tax rebate in good time for that purpose during the Budget because it is really a Budget item. And again, it is not a cost item. On the maid levy, as Mr Rai has asked, we have promised a full and satisfying explanation tomorrow.”
“Sir, many tenants of Colombo Court have requested that they be given some time. May I ask the Minister whether some time could be given to them, because 31st March is actually too short a period for them?”
“It is very important for the Stock Exchange of Singapore to see that this provision is regulated in such a way that there is no abuse. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Sir, I am in support of the Bill. I shall confine myself to the buy-back scheme. As Members have mentioned earlier, other jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia and New Zealand, have similar provisions. This is to be welcomed as Singapore is behind time. However, there are certain concerns which I would like the Minister to address. Both Mr Leong Horn Kee and Mr Ong Kian Min have mentioned about the 10% limitation. I am aware that the Minister may, by Gazette notification, increase this limitation, but I wonder why the 10% was picked up. Sir, the other issue that has to be resolved - I think Mrs Lim Hwee Hua has also raised this point - is this question of taxation, which is very important. Whether there is going to be tax liability, I think both the public and the companies at large must know beforehand what is the Minister's stand on taxation. Sir, as the price of shares is sensitive information, the regulation must be drafted in such a way that members of the public are protected, especially now that there is a depressed market in Singapore, any buy-back scheme must ensure that the minority interests are protected. Sir, there is another issue which I would like to raise. Although at a company's general meeting, notices are to be given, it would be prudent to have a proper advertisement in the newspapers to announce any scheme of this nature, so that the public as well as the members of the company will be in a position to respond to this. In this case, I refer to new section 76C. Sir, the other issue which I would like to find out from the Minister is this. The role which the Stock Exchange would be playing is very important. So far, I think it is to the credit of our Stock Exchange scheme that we have a fairly open and transparent market.”
“I think a fairer solution would be to have an independent panel and that panel can decide what is a fair compensation. Because not only you must not be judged in your own course, there is also another principle of law that justice must not only be done but seen to be done. I have no doubt whatsoever that the HDB will act bona fide. But the public, the majority of Singaporeans in HDB flats, must be assured that the compensation they are going to be paid is a fair compensation. And I share the view of my learned friend, Mr Chiam, to have an independent panel. There is already an existing provision for a Land Acquisition Tribunal. Or you may set up another tribunal. So for a member of the public, I think there would be very unhappy circumstances to have a clause where you raise an objection and the Minister considers and gives his decisions, and it is final. The Minister cannot be judged in his own course. And in order to provide for the right of the HDB flat owners, the Minister may want to consider some other solution. Sir, it may be a bit too late at this stage to have the Bill amended but, nevertheless, I would urge the Minister to consider the position of setting up some panels or at least there should be mechanism in the HDB itself where members of the public could sit in this panel and they could see that a fair hearing and a fair consideration are given to the property that is being acquired. With these reservations, Sir, I support the Bill.”