Wong Kan Seng
Singapore
“We all want a better future for our children and the future generations. Amid the debates, let us not lose sight of what we are working for – we are working for the benefit and future of Singaporeans. Not for growth targets, not for foreigners, but for Singaporeans.”
“Mrs Mildred Tan also suggested doing a longitudinal study on the impact of new citizens on Singapore. I am told that there is a periodic study on the perception of integration and rootedness of Singaporeans and PRs. A study is now ongoing too.”
“All they need to do is simply declare that they meet the residential criteria. EASING IN US ECONOMY (Impact on Singapore) 9. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Senior Minister what will be the expected impact on the Singapore economy arising from the US Federal Reserve's announcement on 3rd November 2010 of a "quantitative easing" of the US economy…”
“Well, from the data I have here, 553 registered to vote before the 2006 GE and this is the data I have but Ms Lim may be right. There may be 1,000-odd that Ms Lim had mentioned. From what I am told now, we have 1,325 Singaporean overseas who are eligible to register to vote have registered.”
“But, as I said, there are so many other possibilities that they could come in and there could also be many possibilities that we could have missed and they have entered or left Singapore. LAND SWAP AGREEMENT FOR KTM STATION AND RAILWAY LANDS 2.”
“They are also recruiting people by offering them scholarships. So, we hope more of our companies can do that. Hopefully they come here to work for a while and, if they like our place, they may want to settle down. This is a place which they can think about. POPULATION AND TALENT DIVISION 5. Assoc. Prof.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,192 lines we hold for Wong Kan Seng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 42 of 64.
“For example, in just 12 years, between 1973 and 1985, more than 40 people were assassinated. They were police officers, Government officials and civilians. They were assassinated by the CPM. Now Mr Jeyaretnam would want us to relax or remove the conditions. The Government has said that if Chia renounced communism or disavowed the use of force, then the Restriction Order (RO) can be lifted. But the RO is still necessary to prevent him from re-involving himself in activities prejudicial to the security of Singapore. But over the years the Government has taken a more relaxed approach. The Government decided first to release Chia Thye Poh on a suspension direction in May 1989, and subsequently put him on a Restriction Order subject to various conditions because, unlike other cases, Chia Thye Poh has not disavowed the use of force or renounced the CPM. The Government took the step of releasing Chia Thye Poh in May 1989 to Sentosa because at that time the CPM's strength had been weakened and we knew that they were engaged in peace talks. However, we continue to be very cautious about this. Of course, the peace agreements between the CPM and the Malaysian and Thai authorities have been signed but we must bear in mind that the CPM organisation is still there. Although it is disarmed, it is still intact. So its ability to conduct subversive underground activities and united front activities of the type that Chia Thye Poh was involved in is still a potential problem. Nevertheless, as I said, we have relaxed the conditions and now there are only two conditions imposed on him. He is free to seek employment and he is free to travel abroad. As you have read in the newspapers, he has got his passport and he is going overseas.”
“Is he really a prisoner of conscience, as claimed and adopted by the Amnesty International, and as such a gentle, peace loving person who was detained for his peaceful beliefs, as he and his supporters would have us believe? Mr Jeyaretnam asks why did we not send him to court and try him? I think the answer is quite obvious. The Internal Security Act provides for preventive detention. If he is that innocent, as he claimed, then why did he not appeal to or appear before the Advisory Board that is set up under the ISA? He has not challenged any of the grounds of allegations of his detention before the Advisory Board since his detention in November 1966. He is legally entitled to do so. He can represent himself. He can engage a lawyer, or counsel, to represent him. Why did he not do if he is innocent? Now Mr Jeyaretnam would have us believe that we should convene a tribunal just to hear him. He has all these years to do so and yet he failed to do so. He did not want to do so. The Advisory Board is constituted by no less a person than a High Court Judge, and two prominent citizens. They are independent. They are not employees of the Government. As I said, the ISA provides for preventive detention and we all know that there are security cases where it is not possible to secure witnesses to give evidence in court, because we know the CPM is utterly ruthless. They would intimidate and liquidate their potential witnesses. An open trial of a communist would not be possible because police officers would have to disclose the names of the witnesses and their lives would be in jeopardy. The CPM and their satellite organisations have standing instructions and directives to punish with death those who betrayed the CPM revolution. These had been carried out in Peninsular Malaya.”
“He again advocated militancy when speaking at the pro-communist Singapore Commercial Houses and Factory Employees' Union meeting on 26th July 1966. He called for the formation of a "worker-peasant" alliance and the launching of a struggle to topple the "reactionary regimes" and he also called that the "Tunku-Lee Kuan Yew blocs". He also urged the audience to emulate the struggle of the Vietnamese people against the Americans in Vietnam. In October 1966, shortly before he was arrested, he and other Barisan Sosialis MPs resigned en mass from Parliament to take the struggle to the streets. He said, "We are going to strengthen our extra-Parliamentary struggle. It takes various forms, street demonstrations, protest meetings, strikes." From 1974 to 1979, while he was still under detention, he carried out his pro-communist activities by subverting some of the prison warders and getting them to distribute to other detainees folded slips containing transcripts of radio broadcasts of the Communist Party of Malaya. Surely, he is not just a friend of the Voice of the Malayan Revolution, the radio station of the CPM? On 31st August 1985, when Mr Jeyaretnam moved the motion of adjournment on Chia Thye Poh, Prof. Jayakumar, as Home Affairs Minister, distributed to Members a list of the communist united front activities in which Chia Thye Poh participated in and a list of speeches and statements made by him which advocated armed struggle. I think Members can look up the Hansard [Vol. 46, Cols. 466 - 486] and the record is there. Chia Thye Poh has never disputed the specific statements attributed to him, even though the Government had repeatedly publicised it. Now he claims that he is innocent and we have Mr Jeyaretnam protesting his innocence.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is not the first time that Mr Jeyaretnam has raised this question. It is as if on cue that at every Parliamentary sitting, whenever there is an occasion, like the bell rings, he will raise this question again. He painted Mr Chia Thye Poh as if he were such an angel, a gentleman, a peace loving person. For the benefit of those Members who were not here in 1985, when my colleague answered this question, I would just like to recount a bit of the background. Chia Thye Poh was arrested and detained in October 1966 for his involvement in the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) and the communist united front activities. There is no question that Chia Thye Poh was a member of the CPM. We have disclosures of his CPM membership from his superiors in 1968 and had confronted him with these evidence. He was specifically instructed by the CPM to penetrate the Barisan Sosialis and engage in communist united front agitation to destabilise the Government. There is no question that he had advocated the use of violence and the use of force in his speeches and statements, and the Government has cited specific instances of these speeches and statements. Let me just quote two examples. At the 8th Annual Conference of the pro-communist Labour Party of Malaya, Perak Division, on 24th April 1966, Chia Thye Poh called for the revival of armed struggle in Singapore and Malaysia and asked the audience to emulate the Vietnamese who had resorted to armed struggle against the United States. As a result of this speech, Chia Thye Poh was prohibited from entering Malaysia permanently by the Malaysian Government in 1966. He is still banned from entering Malaysia.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON DETAINEES UNDER THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT AFTER THEIR RELEASE”
“It is not a moot question that Non-Constituency MPs do not represent any electors. Mr Jeyaretnam himself said so in 1985, that NCMPs do not represent any electors. So it is not a moot question. He has determined that already. Ministries and departments have been given very clear instructions that they only reply to MPs who write on behalf of their constituents, because if they do not do that, then residents will go MP hopping, from one MP to another and, as a result, create, not just more work for the Ministries and departments, but also more confusion to their own cases. POLYCLINIC AT GEK POH VILLE (Setting up) 15. Encik Harun Bin A. Ghani asked the Minister for Health whether his Ministry has any plan to set up a polyclinic for residents of Gek Poh Ville at Jurong West.”
“I have just answered the question. There was no directive given to Ministries and statutory boards not to reply or to reply to the NCMP, because the directive given in 1992 is very clear. Ministries only reply to MPs who write on behalf of their constituents. An NCMP does not represent any constituent and therefore, by logic, naturally the NCMP's letters will not be answered because he does not represent any constituent.”
“That is very interesting. I thought I heard two "noes", and I suppose one of it is Dr Tan's, quite surely, and the other is Mr Low Thia Khiang's. These are recorded. Mr Jeyaretnam has abstained. I suppose he wants to reserve his position just in case one day he may come back as an NMP. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes past Six o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.”
“Right now, the possibilities are these three groupings that I have just mentioned.”
“We are not deciding on this right now, whether it is going to be religious bodies or clan associations. What I am saying is that there are social community organisations and these are broad groupings. Of course, we are just trying this out and the first three groupings are what I have just mentioned.”
“I have not finished yet. Dr Tan wanted to know which are the bodies. I mentioned the professional bodies which will include doctors, lawyers, accountants, architects, engineers and people like them. For industry, it means the Chambers of Commerce, the Manufacturers' Association, the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry, and the like. I also mentioned the labour movement, which means the NTUC. These are just the three categories that we have in mind in the initial experiment of this new selection process. As we gain more experience, we perhaps may look at it again and, in fact, the Constitution did provide for the general categorization. We may go to other social groups like the National Council of Social Service organisations, the culture, the arts, the universities and so on. So we are open to views.”
“It goes on to say in this statement that "the Party wishes it to be understood that this decision is not to be regarded as a precedent for the Party's decision in future cases." That means it is a one-time thing, an exception. Now, we hear the same argument in 1997. In fact, it has become the rule that if the Workers Party loses an election and is one of the highest winners among the losers, it would accept the NCMP seat. That is why Mr Jeyaretnam is here. Just accept it and own up that you have changed your mind. In the same way that you would change your mind if this NMP seat were offered to Tang Liang Hong, or a Workers Party proxy. You could send in a proxy. If we are not vigilant, for all you know, he could be here representing the Workers Party. In that case, you would have another voice in Parliament. So it is just an obsession that he must try to put aside and not to be too caught up with it. This scheme has worked well for us in this Parliament and I think it will continue to work well for us. I can appreciate the sentiments of Dr Tan. I also heard the other Members who spoke up in support of this scheme. But lest Members get away with the impression that the PAP MPs are fully supportive of Dr Tan, after talking to the Prime Minister, I would lift the Whip, and let him vote. I think people would know that it is really an internal party position and, except for one or two Members who may not think that this scheme should be implemented, we will let Dr Tan decide. Maybe, he will have Mr Jeyaretnam join him, for all we know.”
“I am very glad that Mr Jeyaretnam brought this up and he said the situation has changed. Let us throw our mind back to 1984. In 1984, Mr M. P. D. Nair stood against Mr Heng Chiang Meng in Jalan Kayu. Mr M. P. D. Nair scored 48.8% of the votes, and Mr Heng Chiang Meng scored 51.2%. That was quite a substantial minority. Yet the Workers Party decided that it would not allow Mr M. P. D. Nair to accept that seat. In fact, here I have a September 1984 copy of The Hammer. That was before the election. It says: "Singapore does not need NCMP" and gave many reasons, eg, it is a second-class MP. And whoever wrote this article told the readers, "Do not be tricked. What Singapore needs is more men like Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam in Parliament, and not PAP stooges." If NCMPs are PAP stooges, I do not know what is Mr Jeyaretnam doing here, if he is not a PAP stooge. It goes on to say in this article that they would not accept the NCMP scheme. Then in 1988, in the same publication of The Hammer, a different issue, again it ran through the arguments about why the Workers Party rejected the NCMP scheme in principle. I do not want to go through the reasons here because I think Mr Jeyaretnam himself is quite familiar with them. Of course, they tried to find a way out and gave this argument that "the Party was not unmindful of the fact that the Workers Party's candidates in Eunos GRC have as much a moral authority to represent the voters of Eunos GRC as the PAP candidates". Have they? They fought an election and they lost. But, for some reasons, I think Dr Lee Siew Choh wanted very dearly to get back into Parliament after many years and insisted on coming back, the Party had no choice but to let him come in.”
“No? Then why are you here? I really find it difficult to fathom this.”
“That may be so. But in this first-past-the-post system, one vote is a majority and you have lost, and that's it. Accept it, and be gracious about it, and not be so pathetic by bringing this up every now and then to remind yourself that you have lost this election, and lost sorely. I suppose he endorses the virtues of Mr Tang Liang Hong as he had said that that is the kind of dissenting view that we should have in Parliament. I was wondering why, when the Workers Party was debating as to who should accept the NCMP seat, the Workers Party did not nominate Tang to the Returning Officer so that he can be here instead of Mr Jeyaretnam. Why is that? Because I believe Mr Jeyaretnam very much wanted to be an NCMP.”
“He kept griping about the Workers Party's loss of Cheng San. Like what Dr Tan said, this is not the place to debate it. But let us accept this. An election is an election, conducted fairly, openly and that the people have chosen. He said 50,000 people turned up at his rally but they eventually voted with their feet. That is not our fault. They came and heard the Workers Party team and said, "That is not the kind of people we want in Parliament." Therefore, they have rejected it resoundingly.”
“Sometimes, there can be useful contributions that we should accept. We must have an open mind and not just close our minds to changes. I am glad to hear Mr Sin Boon Ann say that before he came in here he was against this scheme. And having read about the performance of the NMPs, he now feels that it is a good suggestion to have NMPs. Dr Tan is worried about sectional groups, ie, religious, racial or interest groups, or as proxies of other people, finding their way into Parliament. If we open our eyes, put our ears on the ground and be more observant on the kind of the people who may apply to be NMPs, we should be able to keep them out. If not, in one term, we will find them out. We have the example of Tang Liang Hong in 1992. I think some of our own MPs who know of him felt that he really is not the type of people who should deserve a place in this Parliament. Therefore, they expressed their views quite strongly and eventually Tang Liang Hong did not come in. It has been proven by the last election result that indeed that kind of person is not what we want in Parliament. So I hope Dr Tan would be rest assured that we would be very vigilant in making sure that people like that would not come in. I know that, as part of the procedure, the Speaker, as Chairman of the Special Select Committee, will circulate the names of those who have applied, including their CV, etc., and he will ask for comments from the Members whether they have any views on the suitability of these people who want to be NMPs. So please give us your views, Dr Tan, if you know of any individual who may, by accident, slip in under this proxy arrangement. I am really not quite clear what Mr Jeyaretnam's position really is, whether he is opposed to this scheme.”
“Sir, I thank Members for speaking up on this topic. I think the merits and demerits of the scheme had been well canvassed when the Bill was first debated in the Second Reading in 1990; then it went to Select Committee; and it came back again for the Third Reading. But then there were still some Members who were not certain whether we should have this scheme. So the Prime Minister promised that at the next Parliament, we would lift the Whip and allow Members to vote freely and we could decide again whether we should have NMPs. After having experienced six years of NMPs, including the first two in 1990, we all can recognise the contributions of the NMPs. I accept that some are more active than others; some are more articulate than others. But I do not think that it is just a matter of rhetoric nor that those who are more active just want to score points. I think they have made a very useful contribution and the fact that they have got some publicity and therefore might have overshadowed some of our own MPs, I think, is unfortunate. We have to find a way to correct that. If you make interesting speeches and useful suggestions, I have no doubt that the press will cover you, regardless of whether you are NMP, opposition or elected MPs. So we should not fear people who come in here and say things which may not be what we had wanted to say or dare to say. We should let them speak up and, as some of our Members and even the Prime Minister have said, it creates space for some of these people to express their views. I can fully understand the passion that Dr Tan had in making his speech because, as I said, he won the elections. So did all of us. We all won the elections. But we also agree that there is indeed room for other people to come in here and give us some of their views.”
“" So far, three batches of NMPs had been appointed and they generally came from these key functional areas I just mentioned. After having operated this NMP scheme for more than six years, we should fine-tune and improve the selection process. Therefore, I intend to propose to the Special Select Committee that apart from inviting members of the public to nominate suitable and interested individuals for the Special Select Committee's consideration, we can invite the leaders of certain key functional groups to nominate their members for consideration. Initially, in this improved process, we can approach the following three key sectors to nominate their members for consideration by the Special Select Committee. They are: (a) business and industry; (b) the professions, and (c) the labour movement. Members will note that many of the former NMPs came from these key sectors, though they were not specifically nominated by the organisations which make up these functional areas. What is new about this approach is that we will formally and systematically request these organisations to get together and nominate some individuals from among their membership for the consideration of the Special Select Committee. The detailed procedures will be worked out later and be considered by the Special Select Committee. To conclude, Sir, in view of the merits and usefulness of the NMP scheme, I urge Members to support this motion. Question proposed.”
“Anyway, with a lone voice in wilderness, and in his moment of delusion, he has vowed that he wants "complete change". I think I read somewhere that he told the Foreign Correspondents' Association on 27th January 1997 that he and Mr Low Thia Khiang do not have much power, hence it is very difficult for them to make any proposals in Parliament. In just five months he has changed his mind. We all will hold our breath with expectation to see what "complete change" he can bring about as an NCMP in this Session. All we could remember of him during his six years in Parliament in the first half of the 1980s was that he had to be disciplined six times by the Committee of Privileges. It is an unenviable record. If there were to be a prize for the MP who was the subject of Committee of Privileges hearings for the most number of times, it will surely go to Mr Jeyaretnam. I hope he will not have the dubious honour of receiving that prize again, in this Session. Sir, to make up for the decline in the number of elected opposition MPs, I will, when the Bill is ready, move an amendment to the Constitution to increase the number of NMPs from six to nine so that Parliament can give vent to views which may not be canvassed by the PAP or opposition Members. They will help to fill the void left by the loss of two elected Opposition MPs. When the Constitution was first amended to provide for NMPs, it is stated that "persons to be nominated shall be persons who have rendered distinguished public service, or who have distinguished themselves in the field of arts and letters, culture, the sciences, business, industry, the professions, social or community service or the labour movement.”
“They did not play to the gallery. They asked many questions, moved motions and took part in the debates on a wide variety of subjects. If there were to be a prize for the MP who asked the most number of questions, Members will no doubt give this prize to Dr Kanwaljit Soin who, I am told, asked a total of 287 questions during her sojourn in Parliament. Depending on the merits of the issues, the NMPs have, at times, been dissenting and critical, sometimes supportive and other times constructive in their views. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon, for instance, had even persuaded this House to pass the Maintenance of Parents Bill submitted by him. If there were to be a prize for innovation for Members, we would award it to him. But he was also highly critical in his views, eg, when the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act was amended. Although Dr Kanwaljit Soin did not get the approval of this House for her Family Violence Bill, many of her suggestions were incorporated in the amendments to the Women's Charter subsequently. Indeed, Sir, some will even say that the performance of the NMPs outshone that of the two SDP Members who are no longer in this House. Sir, there are now only two elected opposition MPs in this House. As opposition Members they will generally take an adversarial position in the debates, though sometimes they have been constructive. We also have a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament who was reported in the Straits Times on 24th May 1997 as having said that he is "not going to be one of the `constructive opposition MPs' who are just smiling and want cosmetic changes." There are only two elected opposition MPs here, so his criticism must surely apply to his Assistant Secretary General, Mr Low Thia Khiang.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 1(1) of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, resolves that there shall be nominated Members during the term of this Parliament. The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore provides for the appointment of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs). Even so, at the beginning of each Parliament Session, Parliament must resolve to have NMPs before they can be appointed. The first two NMPs, Dr Maurice Choo Hock Heng and Mr Leong Chee Whye, were appointed in November 1990, but they were in Parliament only up till July 1991, as the Seventh Parliament was dissolved early. Members of the House were not able to adequately assess the usefulness of the NMP scheme, even though two NMPs had spoken up on a wide range of issues. Hence, in the last Parliament, we debated at length the merits and usefulness of the NMP scheme again and eventually, Parliament resolved to have NMPs in the Eighth Parliament. So 10 individuals were appointed as NMPs in the last Session of Parliament. Two of them, Dr Kanwaljit Soin and Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon, served two terms. Having seen the performance of the NMPs, I am of the view that the NMPs have acquitted themselves very well. They have fully justified the privilege conferred upon them by Members of this House. The NMP scheme has proven to be viable and credible. All the NMPs were very active. I do not think I am giving away any secrets if I say that some of them were so active that they made many civil servants and office holders worked very hard. The NMPs have helped to raise the quality of debates in this Chamber. Their non-partisan and independent views showed that they were not "yes-men or women" of the PAP.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 95, appoints the following as Members of the Committee of Selection: Mr Goh Chee Wee Prof. S. Jayakumar Dr Lee Boon Yang Mr Lim Hng Kiang Encik Sidek bin Saniff Mr Wong Kan Seng Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon. Sir, at the beginning of every Parliament session, it is the practice of Parliament to appoint a Committee of Selection so that the Committee of Selection can meet to appoint Members to the other Sessional Committees of Parliament. Sir, I beg to move. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 96, appoints the following as Members of the Committee of Selection:- Mr Goh Chee Wee Prof. S. Jayakumar Dr Lee Boon Yang Mr Lim Hng Kiang Encik Sidek bin Saniff Mr Wong Kan Seng Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon. NOMINATED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (Motion) 4.55 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we have had enough of this discussion. This is a very important subject. I am sure we have more to say about this later, but I think we should not prolong this unnecessarily.”
“Sir, I do not want to belabour the point. Singapore would like to do business with everybody, including our closest neighbour. So if our closest neighbour says, "Yes, we would like to have such a union with you.", in fact, if Mr Chiam can persuade them, and if there is a slightest inkling that they are prepared to even talk about it, we are prepared to do so. That is the basis on which we proceed, that is, both sides must be able to agree on the right terms, then we can do business. But we cannot tell Singaporean businessmen where to go. It is up to them. If they think it is better to go to China, India, or Indonesia rather than Malaysia, it is also their decision. Of course, some have also decided that it is better to go to a place nearer home like Malaysia. But it is also their decision. We have got nothing to do with that.”
“That is entirely true. In fact, that was not the point I was trying to make. What Mr Chiam was saying just now was that when we were in Malaysia, the economy boomed. It did not boom, we had minus 2.7%, and the reason was that we did not have control of our industry and our inability to attract investors. Even in the case of an economic union now, as Mr Chiam would like to propose, you cannot take one hand to clap. You need two. If the Malaysian government agrees, if the terms are right, Mr Chiam can persuade them as to what terms he would like to have, then maybe you can discuss. But we all know that Singapore's market is now way beyond just between Malaysia and Singapore. We invest, we trade, with the rest of the world. We have ASEAN Free Trade union, and all these have stood us well. Why do you want to singularly base our economic growth on just a bilateral economic partnership?”
“Mr Speaker, I want to check out some figures. I thought maybe I should use this occasion to bring his memory back to 1964/1965 when we were part of Malaysia. When we were in Malaysia, Singapore only had control of education and labour. Finance, trade and industry were under the central government. So any industry wanting to invest in Singapore - in fact, we had the idea of awarding pioneer status to investors when they invested in Singapore - had to be approved by the central government. Our agencies worked very hard and, if I remember the figure correctly, we managed to attract nine investors to come to Singapore. But we had to ask the central government for approval and these nine investors went to Kuala Lumpur. Seven were disapproved to come to Singapore; two were approved to come to Singapore; one eventually did not come. So, that is all for you, Mr Chiam, if your memory did not serve you right. This is a brief history for you to understand that when we were in Malaysia, all these decisions on investments were under the control of the central government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose that Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng, Member for Marine Parade and Mayor of the Marine Parade Community Development Council, be elected as Deputy Speaker of this Parliament.”
“Indeed, I hope that all Members will participate actively in the proceedings of this House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Members of this House, may I extend to you our congratulations on your re-election as Speaker. This re-election signifies our continued confidence in you as Speaker of this House. During the last Parliament, you have guided our proceedings smoothly and efficiently. You have been fair and firm to all Members. You have also ensured that order and decorum were observed. I am sure all the Members here will continue to give you our full support so that the business of this House is conducted with dignity. We are also priviledged to have Mr Eugene Yap as our Deputy Speaker again when he is duly re-elected next week. Sir, we have been elected by the people to look after their interest. As I have said in this House about six months ago, a high standard of personal integrity and honesty is expected of Members of Parliament. We must perform our duties seriously, and not abuse the privileges conferred upon us. If you recall, Sir, in the Fifth and Sixth Parliament, the Committee of Privileges had to be convened on several occasions to discipline a Member who had breached parliamentary privileges. In the Eighth Parliament, the Committee of Privileges had to look into the breach of privileges by some strangers. We hope that no Member or stranger will give us cause to convene the Committee of Privileges in this Ninth Parliament. I have no doubt, Sir, that you will not hesitate to take any Member to task if he abuses parliamentary privileges. Finally, on behalf of the senior Members, may I also extend a very warm welcome to the new Members who have just joined this House. They will find this an enriching and rewarding experience. We look forward to their maiden speeches.”
“Sir, it is very strange that Mr Low abstained from the voting, although it is perfectly within his right to do so. During the Committee of Privileges hearing, he did tell the whole Committee that he agreed with the logic and the conclusion of the Report. Resolved, "That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report contained in Parl. 6 of 1996 and resolves - (1) that Parliament impose on Dr Chee Soon Juan a fine of $25,000; (2) that Parliament impose on Mr Wong Hong Toy a fine of $13,000; (3) that Parliament impose on Mr S. Kunalen a fine of $8,000; and (4) that Parliament impose on Mr Kwan Yue Keng a fine of $5,000 for their contempt of Parliament. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes to Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. Annex 1 (Cols. 1031 - 1032)”
“Sir, I thank all the Members who have spoken in support of this motion. I also sympathise with Mr Chiam for being drawn into today's debate, even though he chose not to speak. And by the silence of Mr Low Thia Khiang, we heard him loudly. As pointed out by Dr Ow, the only amendments that Mr Low made in the Committee of Privileges Report were minor and that he proposed to lower the fines, although the Committee did not agree. In fact, he did tell the Committee that he agreed fully with the logic and the conclusion of the Committee of Privileges Report. There is nothing more for me to add. I just urge the House to accept the motion.”
“We can understand why a naughty and naive 4-year old boy would deny that he was stealing candy from a candy jar, even though he was caught red-handed by his mother with his hand still in the jar. In fact, if Members remember, and I think Dr Vasoo certainly remembers, when Chee Soon Juan was caught secretly taping a conversation he was having with Dr Vasoo, he flatly denied it, claiming that the tape recording was for his class, even though the tape recorder was still running and this part of the exchange was captured on tape. I managed to get a copy of that transcript from Dr Vasoo. Let me read this out. This was a conversation, I believe, which took place in 1992 before Dr Chee put himself up as a candidate of the SDP. I think he went to tell Dr Vasoo that he was going to be a candidate. So he held a tape recorder in his hand, probably outside the room, and said "testing, testing" to make sure that it worked. Then he went into the room and the process of telling Dr Vasoo what he wanted to do and Dr Vasoo's advice to him. And this is how it goes from the start of the conversation: `Dr Chee: I've to give you my, I apply for visit passport. I was hoping, lah, see if I can apply or not. (Pause) No, I tell you Vasoo, I tell you, I came in basically because I hope. No, no, you listen to me, OK? Vasoo.”
“During the Committee of Privileges hearings, such evasion and prevarication continued. Chee Soon Juan Let me talk about Chee Soon Juan. Chee Soon Juan's behaviour was most illustrative. When pressed on the obvious contradictions between the SDP team's statements during the Select Committee hearing, and its written defence for the Committee of Privileges hearing, Chee Soon Juan based his "explanations" on a strangely convenient coincidence of typographical errors, confusion and selective amnesia. Or he simply stubbornly stood his ground even though he was wrong, and his answers contradicted themselves. Let me cite you an example. At the Select Committee on Health Care Subsidy hearing on 12th August, BG George Yeo asked Chee Soon Juan: `I would like to ask Dr Chee whether he knows the difference between a time series in current dollars and a time series in 1985 dollars.' Chee Soon Juan's answer was, "Yes." (This is in paragraph 1489 of the Minutes of Evidence.) Then on 24th October this year, at the Committee of Privileges hearing, Mr Davinder Singh asked Chee: `Dr Chee, you know the difference between a time series in current dollars and a time series in 1985 dollars?' His answer this time was, "No, I do not." (This is in paragraph 674 of the Minutes of Evidence.) When Mr Davinder Singh pointed out to him that he gave inconsistent answers to the same question asked on two separate occasions, he denied that the answers were inconsistent! With such direct evidence staring in his face, he continued to lie. In fact, it is a perjury before the Committee of Privileges since he was under oath. So even when he was caught lying, committing perjury, he would flatly deny it.”
“Sad to say, the four SDP representors - Chee Soon Juan, Wong Hong Toy, S Kunalen and Kwan Yue Keng - disgracefully misconducted themselves during the Select Committee hearings on Health Care Subsidies. The proceedings in the Select Committee and the Committee of Privileges have exposed the true character of these SDP members whom, I believe, also aspire to become Members of this Chamber. In fact, all, except Kunalen, have contested in elections before and lost. Kunalen too would want to try his luck in the coming elections. How could these aspirants mock the proceedings of the Select Committee and yet eagerly want to be Members of this august Chamber? How did Chee Soon Juan and the other SDP research team members show contempt of Parliament? The Committee of Privileges Report sets out clearly how the four SDP representors are guilty of contempt of Parliament, how they have perjured themselves, how they have lied, how they have prevaricated and misconducted themselves before the Select Committee and the Committee of Privileges. Sir, let me briefly highlight some of these misdeeds. First, Chee Soon Juan deliberately fabricated data and combined figures from different sources to present false pictures of Singapore's national and Government health expenditures with intent to deceive the Select Committee. Second, when questioned about these inconsistencies during the Select Committee hearing, neither Chee nor any of the other SDP members admitted their errors, nor did they tell the truth, even though they all affirmed to speak the truth. Instead, they told half-truths, gave evasive answers and misconducted themselves. Two of them even committed perjury before the Select Committee and the Committee of Privileges.”
“Sir, since Singapore became independent 31 years ago, the Committee of Privileges have sat only six times; once in 1982 and five times from 1986 to 1987. On all these occasions, the hearings were called primarily because of the misdemeanour of a past Member of this House, J B Jeyaretnam. Some may argue that the PAP uses the Committee of Privileges as a political weapon against its opponents. These people should note the fact that the Member for Potong Pasir, who has been in this House for more than a decade, has never been the subject of a Committee of Privileges hearing. It is a person's conduct, not his or her political affiliation, which determines whether he or she appears before the Committee of Privileges. Sir, some others may also argue that strangers, ie, non-MPs, should be given more leeway in saying what they please or writing what they want to the Select Committee. After all, they could say that these people do not have any parliamentary experience. But the lack of parliamentary experience is no excuse for abusing the privileges of and acting in contempt of Parliament. The rules of Parliament and its Committees' proceedings, the expected decorum and the conduct of persons appearing before Parliament and its Committees are there for them to note. All Singaporeans are entitled to give their views to Select Committees whenever such views are sought. It is their right as citizens. But when they write to or appear before a Select Committee, they are duty bound to be truthful in their written submissions and oral evidence. There should be no abuse of this right. Many individuals have come before Parliament's Select Committees over the years to give oral evidence. They have not been the subject of Committee of Privileges hearings.”
“These four representors had committed further contempt when they gave oral evidence before the Select Committee by lying, committing perjury, prevaricating and misconducting themselves. Mr Speaker, Sir, whether the person cited for contempt of Parliament is a Member or a stranger, Parliament derives no pleasure in having to convene the Committee of Privileges. This is because whenever the Committee of Privileges are called to do their job, it means that somebody has violated the dignity of Parliament and breached its privileges. The Committee of Privileges have to look into the complaint because it is our duty to uphold the dignity and authority of Parliament. Indeed, when Parliament debated the Report of the Select Committee on Verification of Health Care Subsidy on 28th October 1996, some Members stressed the need to protect the honour and integrity of this House. Sir, we have been entrusted by the people of Singapore to look after their interests. This is a heavy responsibility which demands high standards of personal integrity and complete honesty from each Member of this House, and from all those who aspire to serve in it. We must carry out the business of this House seriously and solemnly. Only then can we retain the trust and confidence of Singaporeans. Unless we exercise the greatest care and seriousness in examining all matters of public interest and insist that only accurate information be used in the conduct of business in this House, we would be misplacing the trust and the confidence reposed on us by the people. There can be no compromise here. This House must embody, in the persons of its Members, the soundness of values, morals and ethics, which not only permeates the work that we do, but also inspires and motivates all Singaporeans.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name. *The motion reads as follows: That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report contained in Parl. 6 of 1996 and resolves -- (1) that Parliament impose on Dr Chee Soon Juan a fine of $25,000; (2) that Parliament impose on Mr Wong Hong Toy a fine of $13,000; (3) that Parliament impose on Mr S. Kunalen a fine of $8,000; and (4) that Parliament impose on Mr Kwan Yue Keng a fine of $5,000 for their contempt of Parliament. The last occasion when I rose before this House to ask Members to accept the recommendations of the Committee of Privileges (COP) was on 20th May 1987. On that day, Parliament considered and accepted the 3rd, 4th and 5th Reports of the Committee of Privileges recommendations concerning the breaches of privileges by Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, a former Member. In fact, J.B. Jeyaretnam made Parliamentary history when he was cited for and found guilty of contempt of Parliament on six separate occasions during his very brief sojourn in this House. I thought that after 20th May 1987, when that former Member was disciplined three times in one day in this House, the Committee of Privileges would not need to meet again. But alas, that was not to be. On 27th August 1996, Mr Speaker, Sir, you informed this House that you had received a letter from the Minister for Health complaining against four representors of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) for acting in contempt of Parliament by fabricating data, presenting false or untrue documents in their written submission of 12th April 1996 with intent to deceive the Select Committee on Verification of Health Care Subsidy of Government Polyclinics and Public Hospitals.”
“Since 1990, 17 drug offenders have fallen from high-rise flats when trying to evade arrest during raids by drug enforcement officers at the premises. 16 have died. One who fell on 8th March 1996 is still in hospital. CNB officers are trained to act with discretion during these raids and will try to persuade the drug offenders to open the door. One officer is also deployed to cover the rear windows to prevent any escape. Unfortunately, despite these measures, drug offenders act desperately in their attempts to evade arrest.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion* is to approve the recommendations of the Committee of Privileges. The Committee of Privileges had to sit because of a complaint from the Minister for Health as a result of a written submission by the SDP research team and its Secretary-General. Since this Committee of Privileges Report concerns the four SDP members, it is important that the SDP MPs be present. Unfortunately, all three of the SDP MPs are in court today over some other matters. Since they are not here, I propose to adjourn this particular motion to 11th December 1996. *The motion reads as follows: That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Report contained in Parl. 6 of 1996 and resolves - (1) that Parliament impose on Dr Chee Soon Juan a fine of $25,000; (2) that Parliament impose on Mr Wong Hong Toy a fine of $13,000; (3) that Parliament impose on Mr S. Kunalen a fine of $8,000; and (4) that Parliament impose on Mr Kwan Yue Keng a fine of $5,000 for their contempt of Parliament.”
“There has been a total of 5 documented cases of children who died and 45 cases of children who suffered serious injuries from abuse or neglect between January 1993 and June 1996. No statistics are available prior to January 1993. DOMESTIC USAGE OF WATER 5. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether he will provide the number and percentage of domestic users who use the following units of water per month categorised by type of dwelling: (i) 1 to 20 cubic metres; (ii) 20 to 40 cubic metres; and (iii) 40 to 60 cubic metres.”
“Yes. 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. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. RECLAMATION (SOUTHERN ISLANDS)”
“Yes, 20 counting places. They will not be centralised. They will all be decentralised. In one centre where they would do the counting, that one centre could accommodate six counting places. For every counting place, the counting agent would be there to make sure that he can observe the counting. So you do not need to have every candidate in a GRC appointing one counting agent, otherwise there will be multiples of counting agents in one counting place. So let me explain that again. There will be many counting places in a GRC and they will be widely distributed. They would not be centralised as in the old process.”
“Again, Mr Low did not probably quite understand this. When you have a GRC and, say, there are 20 polling stations, there could be 20 counting places.”
“You will know how many boxes there would be and again here you can be assured that there would be no hanky-panky. The whole process is transparent.”
“Yes, but then they are divided. In this new process, there are many counting places and every polling station can be a counting place. If there are, say, in a single-member constituency, four polling stations, there will be four counting places. And if the counting places are different, there can be four counting agents to observe the process. So that is more than enough. In any case, the counting agent is not there to do the counting. He is there to watch the process. He is not there to do the counting. So long as there is one counting agent watching the process in that particular counting place, that will be adequate. We do not want to have a situation where in the polling and counting place each group of candidates sends in a number of polling or counting agents corresponding to the number of candidates. It would be like a market. We just want to restrict the number so that only one polling agent or counting agent is present in the polling place or counting place. On carton boxes, certainly they must be secure enough. They must be designed such that there will be no hanky-panky, as Mr Low suggests. As the Member knows, we have conducted elections for more than nine occasions since 1959, and nobody has alleged any hanky-panky business in the counting or voting process. So the Members can be assured that the carton boxes will certainly be secure. How would the candidates know that all the boxes have arrived? Before counting actually begins, the ARO, who is present there to supervise the counting, will tell the counting agent or the candidate present, "Here, these are the boxes and counting will begin." In other words, an announcement would be made before counting actually takes place.”
“There are only two points for me to answer. Dr John Chen and Dr Vasoo support the Bill and they ask for an increase in the minimum number to be returned by a GRC from a quarter now to more than that. The Prime Minister has already said that we have to study all these changes we are making and in time, when it is necessary, we will review and put these changes into the law. Whether we should reduce the current proposal of eight single-member constituencies to less than that, I think we will have to wait for the future. But right now there is no intention of doing that. For both Mr Cheo's and Mr Low's question on the polling agent and counting agent, they might not have fully understood the process. No doubt, we say here that there will only be one polling agent per group of GRC candidates. It means that at any one time we can have one polling agent there. If that polling agent wants to take his meal, another polling agent can go there and take his place. So there will still be one polling agent. But the current law provides that if you have a GRC of four, then a GRC candidate can send in one person and the other three can also send in three other polling agents into the same polling station. So in that polling station, you can have four polling agents. This is not necessary. All you need is only one polling agent at a time. So there is no need to worry. You can still find enough place for your polling agents if they want to help, but only one can be present at that polling centre or station at a time. Similarly for the counting. In the current process, all the votes are counted by the electoral division and there is only one counting agent per candidate.”
“Sir, for example, if an organisation wants to have a gambling pasar malam, a session for gambling, that definitely will not be the kind of activity that we envisage. But if an activity that helps to bring people together, provides them with a place to go to and brings the people together so that they know each other better, that will be within the spirit of this Bill. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment, read a Third time and passed. ECONOMIC EXPANSION INCENTIVES (RELIEF FROM INCOME TAX) (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 2.20 pm”
“Sir, there are many kinds of activities that we cannot anticipate. That is why this clause is worded this way, ie, to carry out such activities as they further the objects of the Act. If pasar malam happens to help foster community bonding and gets the grassroots leaders to work together with the residents and if it provides them with an opportunity to get together, it will fall under the ambit of this Amendment Bill. Mr Low Thia Khiang: A further clarification, Sir. What would be the principle in considering activities which would deem to be fostering community bonding? Are there any criteria or standards to decide on such activities, or just any activity as you wish?”
“Sir, I thought I have answered all these questions. He did not quite understand it. Let me repeat it one more time. These community organisations and grassroots organisations serve everyone in the constituency. It does not need the Opposition MP to be the advisor.”