Tang See Chim
Singapore
“In this Bill, Sir, 4 1/2 pages of the Bill out of 20 1/2 pages are devoted to the definition of terms used in the Bill and almost every other clause defines one term or another. Finally, Sir, what about the agent of the corrupt person, the go-between, the abettor of the crime?”
“Sir, maybe it was a misplaced metaphor. Maybe I should say a skunk smells just as evil by any other name. This is exactly the position. There is no point your telling us that conditions have now returned to normal when manufacturers are asked to pay a higher rental. They have to compete.”
“Sir, the Minister said that he has not increased rent but he just revalued the value of the land. This is exactly the same as increasing rent. I mean you call a rose a rose. You increase the rent whether you call it the rent or call it the base value of the property. To the manufacturer, it is still the same.”
“The Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that the rent demanded by the JTC is comparable to that for private premises outside. But I think the JTC has almost a monopoly on industrial property. I just do not see how the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could make such a comparison.”
“Sir, the difference is that once they get the entry visa, they will be allowed permanent residence in the United Kingdom. Whereas here, we may allow them to enter for two weeks and after that we will turf them out. Also, may I just take up this further point.”
“Sir, I just want to take up with the Minister on the regulations he read out from the booklet. Indeed, if all those conditions are met, the person will be given an entry clearance and then he will be able to enter the United Kingdom.”
The complete record
Every one of 698 lines we hold for Tang See Chim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 14.
“The Water Works Department, after extensive investigations, recommended a three-phased project costing in total some $140,000. The first and second phases each cost $46,000. After due consideration, the Citizens' Consultative Committee in Choa Chu Kang, with my support, recommended the implementation of phase two which could be done independently of the other two phases at a cost of $46,000. This recommendation was rejected by the Projects Committee allegedly on the ground that it was not economical. On the other hand, there was a project for street lighting of Tengah Village, also in my constituency, costing some $16,000; this project was supported neither by the Citizens' Consultative Committee of Choa Chu Kang nor by me, but it was approved by the Projects Committee and has now been implemented. This state of affairs is causing a great deal of confusion and no small amount of dismay in the minds of Members of Parliament and members of Citizens' Consultative Committees. Members of Parliament are largely concerned with deciding on the priorities of competing needs in their constituencies, guided by the advice of their Citizens' Consultative Committees. Generally, therefore, Members of Parliament should have a large say on the priorities of projects for their constituencies and their recommendations should be respected, in this connection, perhaps the Projects Committee should consider the procedure of asking the Member of Parliament concerned to appear before it when the Committee decides on the projects affecting the particular M.P.'s constituency. I was rather surprised that the Choa Chu Kang project for bringing water to Yew Tee Village was rejected by the Projects Committee because it was not economical.”
“It has never been explained why such a new Committee becomes necessary at this particular juncture, or what are its precise functions in the administration of the urban and rural services projects. All we know is that it appears to have the last say in the approving of projects. With the creation of this Projects Committee, all projects will now take a, longer time to get approved. Before the creation of the Projects Committee, the final decision rested with the Urban and Rural Services Committee. With the creation of the Projects Committee, projects approved by the Urban and Rural Services Committee will now have to be approved again by the Projects Committee before they can be implemented. Is this additional level of decision really necessary? To my mind, it is not. It only wastes the time of members of both the Committees and delays the implementation of urban and, rural services projects. No doubt hon. Members of this House will also wish to know on what criterion the Projects Committee bases its decision in approving or in rejecting projects. Before the creation of the Projects Committee, when the Urban and Rural Services Committee had the final say, members of the U.R.S.C. (meaning the Urban and Rural Services Committee) made site visits to acquaint themselves with the conditions of the particular constituency in which projects were to be implemented. The Projects Committee does not make such visits. It is known to have cut down projects arbitrarily and to have approved and implemented projects against the recommendation of the Member of Parliament concerned. Let me give the House two examples from my own constituency. In Yew Tee Village in the Choa Chu Kang constituency, there is no piped water and the wells get dry during the dry season.”
“But one per cent of the total Development Budget for urban and rural services can, by no stretch of the imagination, be called extravagant. Indeed, in the debate last year Members appeared to lament the smallness of the sum appropriated for urban and rural services. If, in spite of this and in spite of the fact that the sum was approved by Parliament, it is further cut down, there must be cogent reasons for this and we wish to know the reasons. Under the Development Budget, a total sum of $2,715,000 is allocated under 15 items. These items range from agricultural and kampong roads to roadside trees and shrubs; and to each of these particular items, a definite sum is allocated. I wish to know whether these allocations have been rigidly observed or whether the Urban and Rural Services Committee or the Projects Committee have the discretion of altering the allocations so as to take account of the requirements of the constituencies as a whole. As far as I can see, Mr Speaker, Sir, the urban and rural services projects have been effectively carried out by the Urban and Rural Services Committee. It is true, no doubt, that now and again there are complaints of delay. But, in my opinion, such delays are bound to happen in view of the vast programme for which the Committee is responsible. In this respect, Sir, I wish to thank the Committee for carrying out the projects so efficiently. Recently, however, there is a change in the administrative structure of the Urban and Rural Services Committee. There is created over and above the Committee another Committee called the Projects Committee.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the aim of urban and rural services is to make Singapore a nicer place to live in, especially in the rural areas where modern amenities like piped water and electricity are lacking. The administration of these services is in the hands of the Urban and Rural Services Committee which have been effective in carrying out the projects and, to a very large degree, have made life in the rural areas more tolerable by the bringing of modern amenities to the rural folks and by the building of bridges and repairing of roads. In the Development Budget for the year 1967, a total sum of $2,715,000 was approved by Parliament for urban and rural services. This sum, however, is very small compared to the total Development Budget of some $249 million, i.e., the sum appropriated for urban and rural services was only just over one per cent of the total Development Budget. Yet in spite of this, the sum approved was further cut down sometime in the middle of this year to some $1,900,000. No reason was given for the cut and no doubt hon. Members will wish to know why the sum was cut down after it was approved by Parliament. We all appreciate that there are competing needs for funds in the development of Singapore. But one per cent of the total Development -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was talking about the contract for the reclamation that we are going to approve, if it is at all to be approved, this afternoon and not about the contract that is now being carried out by the Japanese at Bedok. Surely I realise that that contract has already been awarded and it is not up to us now to say whether they should engage more labour or use more machinery. Mr Speaker: Mr Barker.”
“Will the Minister inform us whether the contract for this reclamation has already been awarded to the Japanese firm, or is it going to be awarded only after the reclamation has been approved by this House and only then a call for tender will be made?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that Singapore is a very small island and that the only way to increase its size is to reclaim the fore-shore and the sea-bed. In this respect, I heartily support the motion of the Minister to reclaim the foreshore and sea-bed from the location of the Singapore Swimming Club at Tanjong Rhu to the Esplanade as delineated on the plan which is at present deposited at the Land Office. Mr Speaker, Sir, while we appreciate that using modern machinery to reclaim land is very efficient as evidenced by the present reclamation at Bedok, I was wondering whether, in view of our large pool of unemployed labour, the Minister could consider the possibility of employing more manual labour in reclamation rather than having it all done by machinery - capital-intensive - just conveyor belts, cutters and special machines for filling. Ordinarily it is no doubt more efficient and much quicker, possibly even less expensive, to do it by machinery, but there are special circumstances in Singapore and I would commend to the Minister for his attention my suggestion on using more labour.”
“Does the Minister agree that $1½ million in one and a half years' time is, in fact, worth less than $1½ million now? So the settlement would, in fact, be less than $2.7 million. On the question of suspension, I realise that the word "suspension" may be a technical term. But can the Minister assure the House that future tenders by Gammon will not be accepted? It means that we can settle but it does not mean that we are required to do business again.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am rather disturbed by the Minister's statement that the suspension of Gammon has been lifted and that there is a possibility of future work being done by them. No doubt they have been asked what measures they are taking to prevent further frauds, and it is interesting to hear their reply about "men of proved ability". But I was wondering whether they were men of proved integrity too. I wonder whether the Minister will consider not accepting tenders from Gammon any longer since, as far as I can see, there is no dearth of piling firms in the Republic. There is a further question I would like to ask the Minister, and that is whether the balance of $1½ million to be paid over three instalments attracts interest, and if so, at what per cent, and if not, why not?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when will this Bill be introduced?”
“Does the Minister agree that there is always a time lag between the increase in price and the relaxation of quota restrictions during which the consuming public will suffer and the manufacturers will benefit? Will the Minister, in such circumstances, consider introducing more stringent regulations to penalise unscrupulous local manufacturers who take advantage of the special protection given to them by the Government to exploit the consuming public?”
“Does the Minister agree that in regard to petroleum there is no such thing as a free market in Singapore? The price is fixed by the oil companies themselves.”
“Sir, should there be available Singapore citizens who can take over these posts, would the Minister consider replacing the non-citizens with local citizens?”
“Sir, what does the Minister propose to do about the 47 Division I officers who do not wish to apply for Singapore citizenship?”
“It is to be hoped that with the establishment of the National Archives and Records Centre, an adequate budget for staff and services will be provided to ensure that this new department will not be hampered in its first year of existence and that there will also be provision for training future staff. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is to be congratulated on the introduction of this Bill which will help to remedy the long neglect of our unique historical archives in Singapore. I am glad the Government is bringing in amendments to provide for archives as well, for archives are fundamentally different from a records centre. The setting up of the National Archives and Records Centre will not only be of tremendous benefit to local and overseas scholars and research workers engaged in studies into the history of Singapore, but also to those scholars and research workers of neighbouring South-East Asian countries as well. In addition, the National Archives and Records Centre will help to improve administrative efficiency in our Government departments by enabling more office space to be used through the disposal of unwanted Government records which are of no historical importance, and by ensuring a good system of records management which will reduce paper work, enable files to be located speedily, and speed up Government actions in all spheres. It is important that early consideration be given to provide a suitable building for the National Archives and Records Centre in keeping with its status as the repository of the nation's history. I understand the old records are at present kept in the National Library and the removal of these records from the National Library will also alleviate the burden of space in the National Library brought about by the unprecedented increase in library services to the public over the last few years.”
“Would the Minister consider setting up an Egg Buying Board as a measure to maintain the stability of egg prices?”
“Sir, in answer to Question No. 4, the Parliamentary Secretary did say that in practice it might not work out. Could he please give us details as to what safeguards there are to ensure that the interests of seconded officers are not jeopardised?”
“Sir, in view of the answer by the Parliamentary Secretary, what is he going to do to safeguard the interest of those permanent officers who are seconded?”
“' The operative words are "is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding". Does the very entrance of a Magistrate into the court house constitute a sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding? These are the thoughts I have on this amendment Bill - thoughts that came to my mind in what little time I had during the tea-break to do research. I am glad that my colleague, the Member for Bukit Panjang, agrees with me and appears to have the same thoughts. I commend these thoughts to the Minister for his consideration. Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know that the purpose of this amendment is to prevent a recurrence of the disgraceful spectacle that took place in our lower Court in June this year. This is a necessary measure and I am sure that nobody either inside or outside this House will disagree with it. Consequently, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this amendment Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the purpose of this amendment Bill is to increase the power of the Subordinate Courts to punish offenders for contempt committed in the face of the court. Section 368 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which this Bill now seeks to amend, confers special powers on the Courts, other than the High Court, to deal summarily with five kinds of contempt under the Penal Code. These five kinds of contempt have been briefly referred to by my colleague, the Member for Bukit Panjang, and I need not go into them. However, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to section 228 of the Penal Code which provides for the punishment of intentional insults to a public servant sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding. If the Minister's intention is to prevent a recurrence of what took place in one of our Courts in June this year, section 228 of the Penal Code may have to be looked into and, if necessary, amended. What happened in the Ninth Magistrate's Court in June this year was, as I gather from the Press, that the accused persons deliberately insulted the Magistrate by turning their backs towards him when he entered the court room to start the proceedings. If that was what happened, the present wording of section 228 may give rise to legal arguments as to whether such insults were offered while the Magistrate was sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding. The words of section 228 of the Penal Code are: `Whoever intentionally offers any insult or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand dollars, or with both.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister say that the reluctance of the farmers is due mainly to economic considerations? Will the Ministry lower the cost of the injections, so that reluctance would disappear?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister of State aware that every month there is a considerable number of illegal immigrants coming into this country, and what measures is he going to take to prevent this?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is it the policy of the Defence Ministry that the sole bread-winner of a household would not be called up?”
“I understand from the Minister of State that the sole bread-winner of a household would not be called up. Can he explain? The Member for Punggol's question was whether a trainee teacher, who was also the sole bread-winner, would be called up. I should have thought that such a person would not be called up, according to the Minister of State's previous answer. Mr Wee Toon Boon: The position is that exemption would be given on economic grounds, but the appeals of those affected would have to be considered by the Advisory Board. Therefore, those who are affected and who consider themselves that on economic grounds they could not be drafted into national service, would have to make an appear to the Advisory Board according to the National Service Ordinance, and the Advisory Board would duly consider their appeals. As I have said, this matter has to be considered by the Advisory Board.”
“What sanction would there be then should a local manufacturer breach this gentleman's agreement?”
“Does it mean that the present position is that no local manufacturers can increase the prices of their products unless the increase is sanctioned by the committee that is in existence?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would the Minister for Finance consider setting up a committee whose sanction is necessary if any local manufacturer wishes to increase the price of his products?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to give us the reasons why the provisions for audit in any trust scheme should be left out.”
“As you please, Mr Speaker, Sir. My point is that it is rather unfortunate that the Government does not take this opportunity to incorporate other amendments into the Legal Profession Act -amendments which have, in fact, been recommended by the sub-committee appointed by the Advocates and Solicitors Society to consider and make recommendations on the Legal Profession Act. Apart from this, Mr Speaker, Sir, I accept the premise that purchasers and vendors should be separately represented. It is, therefore, logical that this amendment should come about, and I support it. 6.13 p.m.”
“This does not speak well for the profession and does not inspire confidence -”
“As I have said, this sub-committee recommended various amendments and I wish particularly to draw attention to sections 54 and 55 of the Legal Profession Act. Section 54 provides for the election of eight members of seven years' standing and two members of less than seven years' standing to the Advocates and Solicitors Society. Section 55 provides that members of the Advocates and Solicitors Society of seven years' standing can only vote for candidates of similar standing, and that members of under seven years' standing are similarly restricted to voting only for candidates of under seven years' standing. Section 55 is particularly unfortunate. It injects an element of inequality into an otherwise ancient and honourable society where all members are equal and are considered as brothers in the law. The sub-committee of the Advocates and Solicitors Society recommended that this section be now repealed and that there should be only one electoral roll, and I am glad of this recommendation. It is unfortunate that the Government has not seen fit to incorporate this amendment into the present amending Bill. Section 54, as I have said, provides for eight members of seven years' standing as against two of less than seven years' standing. The sub-committee of the Advocates and Solicitors Society now recommends that the number of seniors, as we call them, should be reduced to six. This section is not particularly a democratic section, seeing that members of the Society of seven years' standing form a minority of the legal profession. But apart from the fact that it is not quite democratic, it gives the impression that lawyers of less than seven years' standing are not capable of handling their own affairs.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, the present Bill seeks to amend only section 82 of the Legal Profession Act on the question of solicitors in the same firm doing work for both the purchaser and the vendor in a sale of immovable property developed by a housing developer under a housing development. If we accept the premise - and I do accept the premise - that both vendor and purchaser in a sale of immovable property should be represented separately, I think that this is a logical amendment to section 82 of the Legal Profession Act. I think the Minister for Law and National Development is quite right in saying that had the Bar Committee, as it was then called, taken more pains over the Legal Profession Bill which was sent to it for consideration before that Bill was passed in December last year, this amending Bill would probably not have been necessary. Possibly as an afterthought, the present Singapore Advocates and Solicitors Society had appointed a sub-committee to review the Legal Profession Act. This sub-committee reported some time ago and made suggestions on amendments to a great many sections of this Act. I am not too sure whether the present amending Bill is the result of the recommendations of this sub-committee, but in its report to the Advocates and Solicitors Society, section 82 was recommended to be amended in exactly the same terms. It is a great pity that other amendments recommended by this sub-committee had not been taken into account by the Government. The explanation may be that there was no time. The Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill was, in fact, read the First time on the 24th May, 1967, whereas the sub-committee did not report to the Advocates and Solicitors Society until quite recently.”
“It is just a question of making provisions to deal with the special circumstances that are obtaining in Singapore at this particular moment. The Minister has also explained to us the legal meaning of "non-bailable". It does not mean that a person so charged under this particular section of the Penal Code cannot get bail at all. It only means that instead of the automatic right to bail the person charged would have to make out a case for bail. This does not infringe on the fundamental liberty of the subject and in no way detracts from the subject's fundamental right to a fair trial and equality before the law. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. 4.44 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst I generally am, not in favour of Bills being introduced on a Certificate of Urgency, I must support the Minister for Law and National Development in this case. In view of the recent increasing demonstrations and unlawful activities by anti-nationalist elements, I readily appreciate that urgent provisions are required to deal with these agitators and demonstrators. Just this morning we read in the newspapers of the disturbances both outside and inside a Magistrate's Court. We: have heard in this House this very afternoon the statement of the Minister of State of Defence that since January this year unlawful assemblies and demonstrations have increased month by month. We have also heard from the Minister introducing the Bill that there was evidence that some of the demonstrators charged under the Penal Code while on bail were again committing the same offences. And, Mr Speaker, Sir, in my constituency of Choa Chua Kang, a brand-new community centre built by the people in my constituency out of their own money was tarred and painted on with slogans by anti-nationalist elements. This lack of respect for public property and for law and order requires urgent measures to deal with it. The changes proposed in the Bill are nothing unusual, Mr Speaker, Sir. In what little time I had, I did a little research and found that originally under the Criminal Procedure Code offences under section 143 of the Penal Code and cognate offences were bailable. In 1957, however, these offences were made non-bailable by amending Ordinance 29 of 1957. But in 1960, these same offences were again made bailable by Ordinance 18 of 1960. Therefore, there is nothing new in this amending Bill at all.”
“Would you like to give way, Mr Teo? Mr Teo Hup Teck resumed his seat.”
“I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir,I want to correct the Parliamentary Secretary. The machinery recommended by Justice is the very office of Ombudsman. He has said that the machinery to supplement a Member's right is not Ombudsman, but according to the very passage he has quoted, the machinery that this Report recommends is, in fact, the very establishment of the office of Ombudsman.”
“May I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture through you, Mr Speaker? He has accused me of deliberately or otherwise not quoting to this House the conclusions and recommendations of A Report by Justice which I have here. I must thank him for his quotation to the House, because it does, in fact, support my contention that the office of Ombudsman should be established in Singapore. May I clarify? He has said that ---”
“The Member for Choa Chu Kang - I must congratulate him on doing considerable research - has said that recently the British Government has adopted the idea of a Parliamentary Commissioner. But he has deliberately or otherwise omitted to inform the House of the recommendation of the committee on this particular question. Mr Speaker. Sir, I am referring to the Report by Justice, "The Citizen and the Administration" - you have got it there? [Asking Mr Tang See Chim] Mr Speaker: I do not have it, Mr Fong. When you ask, "You have got it there?", you mean, have I got it?”
“That is correct, but that is not recent. Mr Fong Sip Chee: Well, when you compare human history of so many thousands of years. 200 years can be regarded as very recent. In 1809, in Sweden, a Parliamentary Commissioner of Justice - and in their term, it was known as the Justitieombudsman - was appointed. It is only in 1915 that Sweden appointed another form of Parliamentary Commissioner known as the Commissioner of Military Administration --and in their term, they call it the Militieombudsman. Denmark first thought of the idea after the war in 1946. That can be very recent and it was not until 1953 that the recommendation of the Constitutional Committee of 1946 was incorporated in the Constitution for Denmark. It was not until 1955 in March when the first Parliamentary Commissioner for Denmark was appointed. Finland had its Parliamentary Commissioner in 1919. In New Zealand, the National Party put forward the establishment of a Parliamentary Commissioner in its election campaign in 1960. It was only two years later that the Parliamentary Commissioner was appointed. Sir, I have listed out all these just to show that not only the office of the Ombudsman is novel in the Commonwealth, but in general it is still a very new idea provided the Member for Choa Chu Kang can accept that 1809 is recent. Sir, the Ombudsman is a man of high integrity and high administrative ability, and as the Prime Minister had said earlier, you almost have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to look for a suitable candidate to fill a high position Indeed it is difficult to secure the services of a man of that calibre for the office of Ombudsman.”
“Members of Parliament are ineffective in that they cannot have access to departmental files. The same reason goes for the Press. The advantage of the Ombudsman is that, unlike M.P.s and the Press, he is politically neutral and has the power to call for departmental files to get at the full facts of the case. Unlike the courts, he does not require elaborate court procedure and no fee, or at most only a small fee, is charged for his services, so that his action is cheaper and faster when compared with the review by the courts. The creation of the office of Ombudsman not only would safeguard our citizens from the arbitrary decisions of those in authority and from maladministration, but would also serve as a protective shield for the civil service. It will protect them from unfounded allegations and accusations. This will further increase the confidence of the public in our administration. The fact that there is a difference in the development of Singapore and the development of the countries at present having an Ombudsman is, as I see it, no argument. All studies so far show the desirability of introducing such an institution and it is significant that almost all the countries that have conducted studies into this office now accept the principle of having such an office. The latest example is the United Kingdom. We have an efficient and honest civil service. We are rightly proud of it. We should not, however, be content. The creation of the office of Ombudsman will be a step forward. It would be a step towards greater efficiency and incorruptibility of our civil service. Its introduction will be the first in this region and it will be the pride of Singapore. 5.47 p.m.”
“He says: `On the basis of three years' operation of the office [meaning the office of Ombudsman], we in New Zealand can commend the institution to the serious consideration of other members of the Commonwealth. But this commendation is subject to some reservations. In the first place, we do not recommend our system except in our own circumstances. For others we recommend only the idea of an Ombudsman. Constitutional development of this kind must grow out of the needs and experiences of each country.' I am of the opinion that we are in a stage of constitutional and political development when the establishment of such an office would benefit our administration. The office of Ombudsman safeguards the citizens against two ills which are the result of the growth of modern government. These two ills are, to put them shortly, (1) misguided decisions by authorities in the exercise of their discretion; (2) maladministration. As Dicey, one of Britain's great constitutional lawyers, has said, and I quote: "Wherever there is discretion, there is room for arbitrariness." It is quite possible nowadays for an individual's rights to be accidentally crushed by the vast government administrative machinery. Hundreds and thousands of administrative decisions are made by our Government departments each year affecting the life of every citizen. Some of these decisions are bound to be arbitrary and unjustified. Under our present institution of government, there is no easy way for the ordinary citizen to gain redress. Courts are not quite an appropriate forum for the investigation of these complaints. Quite apart from the fact that they are expensive and slow, the courts cannot go behind a Minister's decision and exercise their discretion on his behalf.”
“(2) Refer as many Bills as possible to Select Committees, thereby giving affected outside interests an opportunity to make representations. (3) Lengthen the period between the First Reading and Second Reading of any Bill so as to give Members of Parliament more time to study them. In this connection, to refrain from introducing Bills on a Certificate of Urgency. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I now come to the second recommendation of the Commission, and that is the creation of the office of Ombudsman? The Government has rejected the Commission's recommendation without giving any substantial reasons for doing so. The Government's only reason is that the time is not opportune and that the introduction of such an office should be deferred until the results of the experiment in New Zealand and elsewhere are known. Here may I refer to the reason given by the Prime Minister in this Chamber this very afternoon? The Prime Minister's reason appears to disclose a lack of confidence in our civil service. The Prime Minister, having said what he did say in this Chamber, I think the efficiency and fairness of our civil service can only be vindicated by the establishment of such an office. I am afraid I do not consider the reason given by the Minister for Law and National Development and the reason given by the Prime Minister good reasons. New Zealand has had an Ombudsman since 1962 and by all accounts the office is a great success. Here, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I quote part of a speech by the Honourable J. R. Marshall, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Industry and Commerce and Minister of Oversea Trade of New Zealand, to the 11th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, at page 213 in the Conference Report?”
“I say this because it is not quite clear whether only those who have held office would be appointed to membership or those who are, in fact, currently holding these offices, because reading from the Report, it says here,"... from those who hold or have held high offices". Furthermore, it is not clear from the Minister's Statement whether the present incumbents of the posts of Permanent Secretaries or only retired ones are being appointed to membership of the Council. If the present incumbents are appointed, then it would blur the distinction between the Executive and the Legislature and will detract from the responsibility of the civil servants towards the Minister and weaken the Minister's control of the civil servants. If only retired Permanent Secretaries are appointed to membership, then they may be too old and senile to discharge their responsibilities effectively. All in all, I have the feeling that the Commission have not given sufficiently deep thought to the problem of the creation of a Council of State. They seem to be influenced by a basic distrust of democratically elected representatives of the people. Hence, their recommendation of an appointed Council of State without considering the wide implications of its creation in the democratic framework. I am of the opinion that the appointment of such a Council would not remedy the particular political situation we are facing at present. Its remedy lies, in the final analysis, in an educated and enlightened electorate. As a temporary measure to meet the situation, perhaps the Government may consider the following proposals: (1) Appoint Ministerial committees composing of experts to advise the Ministers in the initiating and framing of legislation.”
“This sub-paragraph reads as follows: `(v) the disqualifications for membership shall be - (a) membership of any political party at the time of appointment;'. This disqualification will discourage people from joining political parties and will act as a brake on the recruitment of talent into political parties. Members of Parliament are at our present political development necessarily members of political parties and the calibre of Members of Parliament depends on the talent on which political parties can draw. This disqualification will put a dead hand on the recruitment of persons and will not improve the calibre of Members of Parliament about which the Commission seems to complain. The Government's idea about permanent membership, too, appears not to have been well thought out. With regard to this category of membership, the Minister's Statement on 21st December, 1966, reads, and here again I quote. This is in Volume 25, No. 14 of Hansard, col. 1055, towards the bottom of the page: '(i) Permanent members: This would consist of men of distinction who will be chosen from those who hold or have held high offices, e.g. Cabinet Ministers, former Chief Ministers, the Chief Justice, the Speaker, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Puisne Judges, the Attorney-General and former Permanent Secretaries. There would be no age limit;'. I cannot quarrel with former Cabinet Ministers or even the Chairman of the Public Service Commission being members of the Council, but involving Judges in politics may be something which any democracy may want to avoid.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, just before the suspension, I was saying that it is a basic principle of parliamentary democracy that Parliament should be supreme and that Parliament, it is said, can do anything except change a man into a woman and a woman into a man. So it ought to be. Parliament is responsible to none but the electorate. But it is always sensitive to public opinion, the influence of public opinion being exercised through the elected Members of Parliament. Any check on Parliament, therefore, should come from within Parliament and not from outside it. In proposing the setting up of a Council of State outside the framework of Parliament to check on any legislation proposed in Parliament, the Commission is recommending something which is against the basic principle of parliamentary democracy. If it is said that the proposed Council is only an advisory body and is not meant to be legally effective in checking the will of Parliament, then the recommendation of the Commission becomes a huge academic exercise from which nobody benefits. In short, this particular recommendation of the Commission is not legally effective in safeguarding the rights and interests of the citizens. The acceptance by the Government of the principle of creating such a body, in my opinion, is a mistake, a mistake which would involve the spending of a tremendous amount of the taxpayers' money without any resultant benefit to them. May I now say a few words on the composition of the Council of State? The qualifications and disqualifications for membership are set out in paragraph 59 of the Report. I want to comment only on paragraph 59, sub-paragraph (v) , item (a) .”
“' Sir, it is the basic principle of parliamentary democracy that Parliament should be supreme. Parliament, it is said, can do anything except change a man into a woman and a woman into a man.”
“The third reason is based on factors that can only be considered as transient. Let me take the third reason first. This is that we have at present no responsible or effective Opposition in Parliament. It is true that we have not had an Opposition for the last year and a half. But in terms of a nation's constitutional development, a period of a year and a half, nay, 15 years, can only be considered as a transient phase. This is, therefore, a transient phase in our political development. Yet it is on this very transient phase of our development that the Commission has now made recommendations which will have lasting effects. The next general elections are just round the corner. They must he held by September 1968. No one can predict what will be the position after the general elections. Are we to abolish the Council of State on an Opposition Party being returned to Parliament then? Or are we to leave it to carry on with the functions now prescribed for it by the Commission, thereby usurping the functions of the Opposition? The very process of the Council discharging any function which should be within the exclusive province of an Opposition in Parliament renders the Opposition ineffective; the very thing which the Commission assiduously seeks to overcome. The second reason prescribed by the Commission for the creation of the Council of State is, in my opinion, against established democratic principles. The Commission envisages that the Council should be able - and I quote this from paragraph 16, Mr Speaker, Sir: `to serve as an additional check on new legislation and this would be particularly useful on matters of great public importance and on matters which might affect the minorities.”
“(c) To put forward, where it considers necessary in the public interest to do so, constructive and well-informed criticisms or amendment of measures proposed in Parliament especially where there is no responsible or effective Opposition in Parliament. The Government has accepted, in principle, the creation of this body, but it does not agree with the Commission on the suggested composition and functions of the Council. Further, the Government has rejected the Commission's recommendation that debates in the Council should be in public. The Government is of the view that the Council's sittings should, instead, be in private and the reason for this is - I quote the Minister (Vol. 25, No. 14 of Hansard, 21st December, 1966, col. 1055) - the reason is: `to ensure that discussions taking place are frank and constructive and not held with an eye on the Press or publicity or with a view to scoring a political point.' The first point I want to make about this recommendation for the creation of a Council of State is that it is not legally effective in protecting the minority rights. The rationale of this recommendation is that the Council should be able in its debates to focus the attention of the public on any matter originating from Parliament which may adversely affect the interests of the minority group. The reason for this is found in paragraph 16 of the Report. By rejecting the suggestion that the Council's debates should be in public, the Government has taken away the very basis for the creation of such a body. The second and third reasons advanced by the Commission in the creation of the Council of State are, in my opinion, wrong reasons. The second reason is against established democratic principles.”
“No reasons were given by the Government for the rejection of the first and third methods of entrenchment. All the provisions of the Constitution recommended to he entrenched by the Commission will be entrenched according to the second method - the Minister's Statement of the 21st December, 1966. The second method is legally effective and any provisions when so entrenched will not be alterable except by a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament. The first method recommended by the Commission is not effective. Its only function is to draw attention to any Bill seeking to alter the Constitution by labelling it as such. The third method is, in fact, the most effective method of entrenchment. Any provision entrenched under this method is almost irremovable. This irremovability, however, applies only to those who are prepared to observe the provisions of the Constitution. It would not prevent those who are not prepared to operate the Constitution within the democratic framework, from resorting to extra-constitutional means and scrapping the Constitution altogether. May I now come to the first recommendation of the Commission? That is the creation of a non-elected advisory body to be called the Council of State. The Commission gave three reasons for this recommendation. These reasons are: (a) To focus the attention of the public on any matters originating from Parliament which may adversely affect the interests of any minority group. (b) To serve as an additional check on new legislation, and this would be particularly useful on matters of great public importance and on matters which might affect the minority.”