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 46 of 64.
“The Commission, albeit led by a retired Supreme Court judge, accepted uncorroborated or hearsay testimonies given by dubious witnesses and ignored crucial information and evidence submitted by the Singapore Government to the Philippine government. It is a very long report. So I will just quote you some examples of the absurd allegations made in the report: `... Contemplacion was tortured by Singapore police and prison authorities into admitting her guilt, and that .... (she) was visibly drugged immediately before a scheduled trial ... she was forced by prison personnel to lie down inside a coffin lined with dry ice. some prison personnel tortured Contemplacion by means of electricity conducted to her body through a basin of water ... Josie de Sagun, a niece of Contemplacion, testified that Contemplacion wrote several letters narrating her ordeal in the hands of prison personnel ... including an incident when she was actually raped [and a series of exhibits were given] (Exhibit "xx" Letter of Flor Contemplacion to her niece dated 23rd February 1995; Exhibit "xx-1" Letter dated 7th December 1994; Exhibit "xx-2" Letter dated 20th September 1994; Exhibit "xx-3" Letter dated 8th June, 1994). [All these were mentioned in Part II of the the Gancayco report.]' Sir, these allegations were made by Filipino witnesses who claimed that they were in contact with Contemplacion. But these allegations are all hearsay. The facts are as follows: Contemplacion was given two Electro-Encephalogram (EEG) tests. I think Dr Beng yesterday described it, one of which was ordered by her own psychiatrist, Dr Burke. These tests were not done in the prison. So how could anybody have witnessed this thing being done in the prison? They were done at the Tan Tock Seng Hospital.”
“The Court of Appeal allowed her to adduce fresh evidence after Dr Terrence Burke, a psychiatrist in private practice, came forward voluntarily. He rang up the Court and said, "I want to help in this case." He asked the Court to re-examine Flor Contemplacion's mental state. The Court of Appeal did this. In other words, the Court of Appeal allowed fresh evidence to be adduced, without asking the DPP to reply, and notwithstanding the fact that Flor Contemplacion's previous counsel at the first trial already had her examined by a Dr Fong, a private sector psychiatrist, and Dr Fong found that there was nothing wrong with Flor Contemplacion. In other words, Sir, the Court of Appeal went out of its way to give Flor Contemplacion an opportunity to prove diminished responsibility. At the reconvened and second trial at the High Court, Contemplacion elected to testify. She admitted to the killings and she described in detail how she did them. The trial judge then reaffirmed the conviction and sentence. The second appeal at the Court of Appeal was unanimously dismissed. Sir, this whole process showed the transparency and integrity of our courts. The Court of Appeal was humane, objective and fair in allowing a retrial in order for fresh evidence to be adduced within the judicial process. The Judiciary paid for the legal costs of the four counsel to defend Contemplacion and also the fees of the two psychiatrists. All the records of the proceedings of the court were given to the Philippine government for transmission to the Gancayco Commission. But the Commission ignored them.”
“She came to Singapore on 25th March 1992, that means even before this case happened, and was given one week's social visit pass. She was arrested three months later 25th June and charged for overstaying and fined $850. She did not pay the fine and so she went to prison and probably that is where she met Contemplacion. Sir, in the aftermath of Flor Contemplacion's execution, many lies, allegations and speculations have surfaced. Some were about the handling by Police of the murder investigation and Flor Contemplacion's treatment in prison. Most of these arose in the frenzy of protests among the Filipinos and in the wild and irresponsible reports of the Philippine media. Philippine President Ramos decided to set up the now famous, some may call it infamous, Gancayco Commission which after hearing unsubstantiated, uncorroborated and outrageous statements from dubious sources and witnesses and, without basis, concluded that Flor Contemplacion could not have committed the murders; and that she "apparently was a victim of grave injustice" and that her repeated admissions of guilt were made involuntarily and under compulsion. Sir, the facts are that Flor Contemplacion had two trials at the High Court and her case was heard before the Criminal Court of Appeal on two occasions. She was given due process of the law. She admitted to both the murders and led the Police to recover the stolen goods. She was represented by two counsel at the trial, but declined to testify on her own behalf when the judge called upon her to do so, after the prosecution had proven a prima facie case against her. So the judge sentenced her to death. At the Court of Appeal hearing, she was represented by two new counsel.”
“He said that he did not believe Virginia Parumog's story because it was highly improbable that Flor Contemplacion could have denied the killing to Parumog and had not told anyone else. The AG's opinion was that Virginia Parumog's claims were hearsay evidence and he saw no reason why the execution should not proceed as planned. On the next day on 18th March, the Government issued a statement to point out the falsehoods in Parumog's affidavit. The established facts (and these are the facts) are that when the Police arrived at the scene of the murder, Flor Contemplacion was not there at all. Nicholas Huang's father also does not know the existence of Flor Contemplacion, and it was Nicholas Huang's mother who called the Police, not Nicholas Huang's father. I have already explained how CID managed to trace Flor Contemplacion as a suspect. Virginia Parumog's "new evidence", to me, therefore, was purely hearsay. One could laugh at the absurdity of this cock and bull story had it not been for the fact that two lives had been lost. If Flor Contemplacion had indeed told Virginia Parumog what I just described, why had she not told it to the Good Shepherd nun, Sister Gerard, who visited her 68 times throughout her imprisonment, or to the Philippine Embassy staff who visited her nine times? Why? Why had Contemplacion not claimed innocence during the trials, during the appeals or in her petition for clemency? If Mr Wong Sing Keong had indeed killed Della Maga and Flor Contemplacion had witnessed the act, would he really ask Contemplacion to stay in the house when he called the Police? Would Flor Contemplacion not have run away at the sight of a murderer? I think these are very clear. Some may ask who is this Virginia Parumog.”
“04 am, a Virginia Custodio Parumog, not Emilia Frenilla, turned up at the Tanglin Police Station to lodge a report and handed in an affidavit which she had filed in Manila on 15th March 1995. Why did Emilia Frenilla not turn up as the lawyer had said that she would? Why was there a change in person at the last minute? Was it an attempt to throw us off balance so that we would have to scramble to check on this new person's story so that a respite could be given? Well, I leave Members to draw their own conclusions on why we had been misled. Nevertheless, Sir, we took this turn of event very seriously. What did Virginia Parumog say in her affidavit? It is a long affidavit, three pages, and I do not want to bore Members with it. I will just try to paraphrase what she said. She claimed that Contemplacion had told her in prison that on the day of the murder, Flor visited Della Maga and a while later, Della Maga found Nicholas Huang drowned in a pail of water. Della immediately phoned her employer, Wong Sing Keong, who returned home and, on seeing his dead son, became very angry and he strangled Della Maga. Mr Wong Sing Keong then told Flor to stay in the house, in other words, to wait, while he called the Police. When the Police arrived, Wong Sing Keong spoke to the Police and then Flor Contemplacion was arrested. That was in the affidavit of this woman, Virginia Parumog. On receiving this affidavit, Tanglin Police contacted Mr Chan Seng Onn, the Deputy Head of the Crime Division, who had been working very closely with Mr Foenander on this case, at about 4.50 am for his immediate assessment of Virginia Parumog's affidavit. The AG himself was also told about it. He carefully considered the contents of the affidavit and rang me up at 5.30 in the morning.”
“She was employed by Mr Wong Kuang Kiong, the uncle of Nicholas Huang, from 17th July 1991 till 23rd September 1991. In other words, she was not even in Singapore when the murders were committed on 4th May 1991. But President Ramos was misinformed when he wrote in his appeal that "Mrs Frenilla used to work in Singapore and personally knows Contemplacion." Mrs Frenilla had run away from her employer and sought refuge in the Philippine Embassy because she claimed that Nicholas Huang's parents, Mr and Mrs Wong Sing Keong, had planned to kill her. If these were true, I wonder why she or even the Philippine Embassy, where she sought refuge, on her behalf, did not report this to the Police so that the matter can be fully investigated. Sir, the second attempt to delay Flor Contemplacion's execution was even more dramatic, as I hinted earlier on. On 16th March, one day before the execution, the President's Office received a letter from the law firm of Palakrishnan and Partners asking for a respite. The letter said, and I quote: `We have received instructions that Mrs Emilia Frenilla is now on her way to Singapore and is expected to arrive this evening. She is ready to offer herself for interview by the Singapore Police in relation to this new evidence [the evidence that I had just mentioned].' As a result, all the Police stations were alerted to look out for her so that she could be attended to by the CID Investigating Officer the moment she stepped into Singapore. But the Police investigator waited and waited. Nothing happened until 3.32 am of 17th March when Police received a `999' call saying that a female Filipino would be going to the Tanglin Police Station to lodge a report. So of course, Tanglin Police Station waited for her too. At about 4.”
“30 am, Flor had left her house at Blk 101 Cardiff Grove with her permission to deliver a parcel to her niece. At about 6.35 pm, Flor was then brought from the Veerasamy Road's flat to CID for questioning. She gave an alibi stating she had gone to No. 422 East Coast Road Dong Long Mansion to deliver the parcel to her niece but when she arrived there was no one in the house. She claimed she handed the parcel to her niece when she returned. The Police brought Flor to No. 422 East Coast Road Dong Long Mansion and established that the occupant of the house was at home the whole morning and Flor did not go there. The Police also checked the house next door which Flor claimed to have handed the parcel to a neighbour. However, it was not occupied. When Flor's alibi was found to be untrue, the Police strongly suspected her involvement in the murders as there was no reason for her to lie about where she went that morning. On 5 May 1991 at about 1.55 pm, Flor confessed to the crime and led the Police to her employer's house at Blk 101 Cardiff Grove to recover a Konica camera, seven watches, a Zippo lighter, a pearl necklace, a pair of sunglasses and various cosmetic items belonging to Della. On 9 May 1991, she led the Police to her employer's parents' flat at Blk 633 Veerasamy Road to recover more exhibits. The Police had kept an open mind during the investigation. When Flor was brought back to CID for questioning, she gave her alibi and, as per normal practice, the Police checked this alibi and found it untrue.' So Emilia Frenilla's "new evidence" was clearly pure fabrication or speculation. It was simply an attempt to delay the execution of Flor Contemplacion. Let me give Members some background on Mrs Emilia Frenilla.”
“The CID investigating officer established from Nicholas Huang's doctors that the boy had no history of epilepsy. The Wong brothers also did not speak Malay or English in their conversation with each other. They speak to each other in Hakka or in Mandarin which Mrs Frenilla definitely could not understand or speak. Nicholas Huang's father did not know of the existence of Flor Contemplacion or any person by that name, much less fabricate a story to implicate her for the two deaths. The CID investigated and identified Flor Contemplacion as a suspect through entries found in the personal diary of Della Maga. How did the CID track down Flor Contemplacion? Director, CID informed me this is how they did it: `Nicholas Huang's mother called `999' at 1.35 pm on 4 May 1991 after discovering her son's death. When the Police arrived, they noted that there was no forced entry to the flat and things had been stolen from the flat. Information gathered from a Filipino maid at Blk 147 Gangsa Road, revealed that at about 10.00 am, on the same day, she had visited Della. During that visit, Della told her that she was expecting a friend to visit her. The Police then embarked on tracing this friend since she could be the last person to have seen Della alive. Nicholas Huang's parents were questioned about Della's friends but they were not able to offer any clue except that they had ever sent Della to Veerasamy Road to visit another maid who had gone back to the Philippines. By then the Police had secured Della's diary and on running through the diary found Flor Contemplacion's name with the address at Veerasamy Road written on it. Following this, the Police then visited a unit at Veerasamy Road and discovered through Flor's employer that between 9.15 am and 11.”
“It will also show how unjust the Opposition parties - the SDP and Worker's Party - despite what they have just said this afternoon, have been in criticising the Government's handling of the case, and how they have tried to undermine the integrity of our criminal justice system - our Courts, our Prison and our Police - by their implicit agreement with the Gancayco Commission that there might have been a miscarriage of justice in the prosecution of Flor Contemplacion. Sir, first, let me deal with the "new evidence" from a Mrs Emilia Frenilla, whom President Ramos referred to in his appeal of 11th March 1995. MFA received the appeal on 12th March 1995, five days before the execution. Prof. Jayakumar had informed Members yesterday how we - the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the AG's Chambers - already had a copy of the Malacanang Palace statement of 9th March 1995 detailing this "new evidence". The CID and the AG were already looking into the veracity of the "new evidence" a few days before we received the appeal from the President. Sir, what is this "new evidence"? Mrs Emilia Frenilla had claimed in her affidavit that she overheard her employer, Wong Kuang Kiong talking to Nicholas Huang's father, in English and Malay, about the murder of Della Maga; that Nicholas Huang drowned in a pail of water as a result of an epileptic attack; and that it was Nicholas Huang's father who killed Della Maga in anger and then framed Flor Contemplacion for the murder. Sir, the "new evidence" was thoroughly investigated by Mr Errol Foenander, the Head of the Crime Division of the AG's Chambers and assisted by Mr Sunny Fok, the OC of the Special Investigation Section of CID.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday, Prof. Jayakumar has described the many dimensions and phases of the Flor Contemplacion episode. He explained in great detail the decision-making process that he and I took in deliberating the merits of President Ramos' two appeals on behalf of Flor Contemplacion, and why we were unable to recommend a stay of execution to the Cabinet. I think some Members may have missed the important fact that President Ramos' appeal of 11th March 1995 was not his first appeal. His first appeal was on 18th January 1995, two months before the execution of 17th March 1995. The AG studied the appeal very carefully together with Flor Contemplacion's own petition to the President and submitted his views to the Cabinet on 6th February 1995. Cabinet only deliberated the AG's views on 15th February 1995. In other words, the Government had taken some time to consider the appeal as well as the petition before we decided to reject them. I will now address the issue of the "new evidence" referred to by President Ramos in his letter of 11th March 1995, the "new evidence" brought up very dramatically by another Filipino called Virginia Custodio Parumog to the notice of the Tanglin Police Station at 4.04 am on 17th March 1995, just a few hours before Flor Contemplacion's execution, and the findings of the Gancayco Commission. At the end of this speech, Members will know how much painstaking efforts had been made by the various Government agencies in investigating every complaint and allegation spouted forth by the Filipinos.”
“Nowhere have you supported it either. Mr Ling How Doong: But the point is that you do not support the negative. The facts are all there. When we do not criticise, that means we support it. It is not that we have not written anything. It is not that we are completely silent, then you can say silence means something. But we did write something and yet we could not bring this issue out. We had never challenged the hanging of Contemplacion. Neither did we ask that there ought to be a stay of execution. We have not done anything of that sort. But the mere fact that we have never asked it is an indication that we completely believe in our judiciarl system.”
“Sir, maybe Mr Ling could just be honest enough and admit that he did not write the letter. He did not draft and issue the statement and all these were done by his Secretary-General who had put him on the spot. Because he said, "We took the Gancayco Commission at face value", which means there is something to be believed. Then he said, "We give President Ramos the benefit of the doubt", which means there must be some truth. And then on the other hand, he says, "It is all absurd and bizarre." And he upholds the institution of Singapore, that it is fair, and so on. Which version does he want to believe? Which version is his true position? Which is his Secretary-General's position? Maybe he should be honest enough to tell us that the letter and the statement were actually not his. He just signed as the leader of the Party. Somebody else had drafted it. Say so.”
“He knows the contents but he did not write it himself. Fair enough. And he said that it is not nice to tell President Ramos that he disagreed and so on. But let me just quote one line here - this is the letter signed by Mr Ling to President Ramos. Paragraph 2 says: `We have been following the development of the events regarding the hanging of Flor Contemplacion with great concern.' Next sentence: `We understand that the fact-finding Commission that you appointed has found that the late Ms Contemplacion has suffered injustice in Singapore. We have also noted that you are prepared to sever ties with Singapore.' Nowhere in this paragraph, following the sentence about Mrs Contemplacion having suffered injustice, has he repudiated this finding. In other words, even in a letter like this, supposedly to be nice to Mr Ramos, he did not say he did not believe that she suffered injustice. I think he should say so. Because if it is his position that the findings are absurd, bizarre, he can put it in a nice way to President Ramos that he did not believe this report and he did not like it. Even if he does not want to say so to President Ramos, why did he not say this in the press statement that his Secretary-General issued in Singapore, and I suppose he met the press. None of the press reports that I have here repudiated the Gancayco Commission report. None of it carries the SDP's position on the report that it is absurd and bizarre. Why did he not say so?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since Mr Ling did not want to read this letter, maybe he did not draft the letter himself.”
“I have just heard Mr Ling say that he found the Gancayco Commission "absurd, bizarre", etc. If he had said so in his press statements, I have got two press statements here, including this letter to Mr Ramos, [Copies of statements handed to Mr Ling How Doong] could he show me where he has said these words?”
“The cause of the explosive sound is unknown. Although the Police received some calls enquiring about the sound, no specific information was received as to its location. At around the time of the sound, the SCDF also did not receive calls on gas incidents, fires or other incidents which might possibly be associated with an explosion. There was no report of loss of life, injury or damage to property caused by this inexplicable occurrence. SEMBAWANG HOT SPRING 3. Mr Cheo Chai Chen asked the Minister for Defence what is being earmarked for that plot of land encompassing the Sembawang hot spring and what is the present state of the hot spring.”
“The total value of heroin and other hard drugs seized from drug dealers from 1985 to 1994 is approximately $228 million. After the court trial is completed, the judge would order the disposal of the drugs seized. CNB would then bring the drugs under escort for destruction at the Ulu Pandan incinerator plant. The destruction would be witnessed by 2 CNB officers and an officer from the incinerator plant. EXPLOSION ON 4TH APRIL 1995 2. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Home Affairs what caused the loud explosion between 9 am and 10 am on 4th April 1995 in districts 9 and 10 as well as in the eastern and other parts of Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on item 5 on the Order Paper be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 45 to enable Members to speak without being subject to the limits for speeches, as this is an important subject for thorough airing of the episode.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have come to the end of two weeks of Parliamentary business that included the debate on the Budget Statement and the Committee of Supply. I know that we have from time to time taxed your patience and, with your indulgence, we have concluded this sitting very successfully. Once again, on behalf of the Members here, I wish to thank you very much for your patience.”
“Mr Ram's long career in the Legal Service has seen him serve in the AG's Chambers, the Legal Aid Bureau and the Legal Department of the Ministry of Defence. Apart from his work, Mr Ram has also found time to contribute as a volunteer in many organisations, such as Hin Seng Chinese Mutual Benefit Association, the Kong Ngan Athletic Association in Serangoon South School, the Sri Sivam Temple. He is also a Superintendent in the Volunteer Special Constabulary. On behalf of this House, I welcome him as our Clerk of Parliament and we look forward to working with him in helping to ensure the smooth running of Parliamentary business. Once again, all our best wishes to Mr Lopez for his well-earned retirement. [Applause.] ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO THE CHAIR”
“By the time Mr Lopez retires, again, he has served first in the Legislative Council (Legco), the Legislative Assembly and, later on, our Parliament for almost 40 years, or 39 years to be exact. He has been part of Singapore's Parliamentary history with an institutional memory of the struggles of Singapore, first, against the colonialists and then against the communists and the communalists, as enacted in the many debates that took place in this Parliament between the different political parties. In his quiet, unassuming and ever-obliging ways, Mr Lopez has helped me to smoothly discharge my duties as the Leader of the House. I have, on many occasions, had to consult him and sought his advice on Parliamentary procedures and practices. Although he will now formally retire on 31st March 1995, he will remain for a few more months to help his successor and to help us organise the AIPO Conference in September this year, as he is the Secretary-General of the AIPO Secretariat. Mr Lopez has deservedly earned his retirement but I know he will keep himself very busy. He will certainly have more time for his other pursuits or interests, for example, playing golf. On behalf of this House and all the Members present here, both the PAP MPs and the Opposition, I wish him all the best in his retirement and many, many years of good health. Our new Clerk of Parliament will be Mr Periowsamy Otharam, who is here in the Strangers' Gallery, but he is no stranger to me. I know Mr Periowsamy Otharam as P O Ram when I first met him when I was in the Ministry of Defence. Mr Ram is a senior Legal Officer with the AG's Chambers and has been in the Legal Service for more than 25 years.”
“Sir, we have just heard the Speaker announcing that Mr Abilio Lopez, Clerk of Parliament, will be retiring on 31st March 1995 after more than 54 years of distinguished service, much longer than I have been in this world. Mr Lopez first joined the General Clerical Service as a Clerk on 1st February 1941, just a year before Singapore fell to the Japanese. After the Japanese surrendered, Mr Lopez worked with the British Military Administration and then the Colonial Secretary's Office before his posting to the Legislative Council and then the Legislative Assembly. After completing his Degree in July 1954 at the University of Malaya in Singapore on a Departmental Scholarship, he performed the duties of Second Assistant Clerk. He was confirmed in that appointment in April 1956 and within a year of that, promoted to Assistant Clerk. Mr Lopez, as we have heard from Mr Speaker, has been the Clerk of Parliament since 1st January 1967. Although he reached his compulsory retirement age on 29th August 1977, he remained as the Clerk of Parliament for another 18 years. Not many people know what a Clerk of Parliament does, including me, when I was a young Administrative Officer in the civil service, until my Permanent Secretary enlightened me. Our understanding of the term "Clerk" normally refers to someone who does the filing of papers, typewriting, recording entries, and so on. But a Clerk of Parliament does not do any of that. He is the head of all the permanent staff of Parliament. He is the expert in procedures and practices of Parliamentary proceedings. He gives advice to MPs on order and procedures in Parliament. His role is vital in ensuring the smooth administration of Parliamentary business and the running of the Parliament administration.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That, pursuant to Article 42 (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Deputy Speaker shall be paid a monthly allowance equal to 16 per cent of the monthly salary and allowances (excluding the annual fixed bonus) payable to the Speaker. Sir, this motion in my name is also self-explanatory and the reason has just been explained. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, pursuant to Article 42 (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Deputy Speaker shall be paid a monthly allowance equal to 16 per cent of the monthly salary and allowances (excluding the annual fixed bonus) payable to the Speaker. RETIREMENT OF MR ABILIO LOPEZ, CLERK OF PARLIAMENT”
“As to the extent of the revision, it is being worked out. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Speaker shall be paid: (1) a monthly salary and allowances equal to 40 per cent of the salary and allowances of Staff Grave IV + 1% as specified in the Senior Administrative Officers' Scheme of Service; and (2) a non-pensionable annual fixed bonus of four months of his salary and allowances. REMUNERATION OF DEPUTY SPEAKER”
“Sir, I beg to move, That, pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the Speaker shall be paid: (1) a monthly salary and allowances equal to 40 per cent of the salary and allowances of Staff Grave IV + 1% as specified in the Senior Administrative Officers' Scheme of Service; and (2) a non-pensionable annual fixed bonus of four months of his salary and allowances. Sir, our present Speaker's salary has been pegged at 40% of the Speaker's full salary and the Deputy Speaker was given an allowance of 16% of Mr Tan's salary since 1st April 1989. This is because Mr Tan prefers to perform his duty as Speaker on a part-time basis. As salaries for office-holders and senior public officers will be reviewed and possibly revised every year, depending on the salary changes in the benchmark earnings of private sector professionals listed in the White Paper on "Competitive Salaries for Competent and Honest Government: Benchmark for Ministers and Senior Public Officers", it is more convenient to have this motion which states the formula which I have just moved. This will obviate the need to move a motion every time the salaries of office-holders and senior public officers are changed. Sir, I must emphasise that this motion today does not mean that the Speaker's salary will be changed immediately. The status quo remains. The Speaker's salary will only be revised on 1st July 1995 when salaries of office-holders and senior public officers are revised as announced by the PMO on 8th March 1995. At that time, 1st July 1995, the Speaker's salary and the Deputy Speaker's allowance will be adjusted accordingly. I may also want to add that the revision to be effected on 1st July 1995 will also apply to the allowance for MPs.”
“I think that is non sequitur, ie, this argument about him getting 70% support and, therefore, with 70% support of the residents, he should run all the activities in the constituency. What the Government wants the PA grassroots organisations to do is to help to explain its policies and carry out the activities for the people. Who do you think will do the job better? Is it the Opposition MP who will stand in the way? Or is it an adviser appointed by the Government? My belief and experience have always been that the latter is better. As to his reply to me concerning the S&C charges and so on, I think he should look through the records on what was actually said to the PCF in Potong Pasir. Before the PCF in Potong Pasir received the letter, it knew about it from the newspapers and only when it protested that he subsequently said, "Okay, if you want a discount, I shall give you a discount." It was not conveyed that way right from the start, as far as I could remember. That is the case.”
“That if he wants to do all the things that he wants us to do now as the Government, then when he is in Government, he can do it.”
“He made it difficult for them to carry on. That is my understanding. Firstly, whether I am right or wrong, I think the records speak for themselves. Secondly, Mr Chiam wants to change all that because he thinks that the Opposition and the grassroots organisations can work together. Whereas we are saying that we are elected to govern and like any other democratically elected government, we are empowered to set up any agency to help promote and propagate its policies and explain them to the people. When Mr Chiam wants to change all that, he can, when he becomes the Government.”
“Mr Chiam said that it is not because there are not enough vacancies in the PCF centre in Potong Pasir. But I understand that the PCF centre in Potong Pasir had to close down because Mr Chiam's Town Council raised the S&C fees.”
“I think our CCCs are enriched by the experience from a wide cross-section of people who can contribute to the CCCs. Some of them may not live in the constituency, well, we cannot help it. Mr Cheo Chai Chen( In Mandarin): Sir, just now, the Minister for Community Development said that the Opposition Members cannot help to explain the Government's policy to the people.”
“No, I did not say that it is based on political reasons. I said that there are certain priorities. First priority will be that if you are the sibling of another child who is already studying there. That must be the first priority, like our school admission system. Secondly, if the parents have been very active in the constituency, then I think you also deserve some priority. Because "very active" means they volunteer their service and I think we should give some recognition to people who volunteer. And then the rest of it will be open to all the children. Back to Mr Cheo's question about MPs automatically becoming advisers. I said no, it is not automatic, unless they are able to help explain the Government's policy. I do not think his party would allow him to do that. Would it? Members of grassroots organisations should not be members of a political party? Is it right for us to say that volunteers cannot be members of a political party? If we do that, are we not denying them the democratic right to join any party, to be associated with anybody? Are we not breaching the rights in the Constitution? I do not think I can do that. I think I will continue to allow members of grassroots organisations to belong to members of any political party. CCC members should be residents. Yes, as far as possible, we try to get the residents. If we cannot find enough of them, if the advisers can find others to help them, I do not think we should deny capable Singaporeans of helping in the CCCs just because they do not live in the constituency. If we do that, then I think the constituency will be the poorer for it because the constituency will not be able to benefit from the advice, the help and assistance from whatever ability that this member can bring to the constituency.”
“No doubt the PCF is a charitable organisation. Therefore, when it admits children, it tries to admit all the children, if possible. If it cannot, then there must be certain priority set. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less. Mr Low Thia Khiang rose -”
“They do? Then Mr Chiam must understand that the PCF is run by the PAP. It is the PAP Community Foundation kindergarten. So obviously the PAP Community Foundation kindergarten has to take care of all the children in the constituency. When we have too many children going for an inadequate number of places, then there must be a certain priority to be given to the children. And depending on the vacancies, if certain children cannot find a place, it cannot be helped. But I am not saying that they would not be able to find a place. They can find a place. They can go to the People's Association kindergartens. There is nothing to stop any Opposition Member from sending their children to the People's Association kindergartens, which I believe Mr Low has done. So we are quite open. The PA is very neutral, as far as admitting children of citizens into their kindergartens is concerned.”
“I also do not quite understand why he said that the PCF rejects children of members of Opposition parties.”
“I am not saying that Mr Chiam should not or cannot do it. I think it is fair. He is quite right. In fact, publicising the news of the adviser is not new. Many constituencies have done it, including mine. So I think it is quite a fair game for the RCs, CCCs and the MCs to keep the residents informed of things that are happening in the constituency, including news concerning their MPs or advisers. That is fair enough, does he not think so?”
“In other words, Mr Chiam does admit that even for a town council, where he is the Chairman, and all of us are either Chairman or members of town councils, we do from time to time make use of the town council to publicise activities of the candidate or the MP. Mr Chiam See Tong: If they can do it, we can do it.”
“But if Mr Chiam objects to RC notice boards being used to purvey or communicate news, activities or articles concerning the residents, their MP, or their adviser, then does he object to the town council doing the same thing? Can he tell me?”
“It must definitely be so because the job of RCs is to inform the residents about Government policies and the goings-on in the country. So when there is news about the upgrading of the Kim Keat flats, which is a neighbouring constituency to Potong Pasir, I am sure the residents in Potong Pasir will be very interested to know what is going on in the neighbouring constituency. So when this news was publicised and the Prime Minister went to open this new upgrading project, he made an observation which was very valid: that if Mr Andy Gan was indeed in Potong Pasir and able to do this for the residents, the Prime Minister would be very happy to go and open the new project if it happens in Potong Pasir. But it is not the PAP candidate's news or the adviser's news that is being communicated to the residents. I am also told that even news concerning the SDP was also publicised in the RC notice boards. One was an article concerning the SDP entitled "SDP - their appearance and their reality", written by Ng Wei Joo, who found out what was brewing within the SDP and its leadership. They put it up so that people would know the kind of problem that their MP, who is an SDP MP, is facing in his own party. I think they have every reason to be informed. There is nothing wrong with that either. I am also told that residents were also informed about what Dr Richard Hu, our Finance Minister, has said about the Budget. What is in it for them in the Budget. If the residents have missed the chance to read this in the papers because they are too busy, they can read it in the notice board. Again, there is nothing wrong with that.”
“I thank Mr Chiam for enlightening me as to what was bugging him. If he says that Mr Andy Gan should not be walking about, then Mr Andy Gan must actually move out of Potong Pasir. Mr Andy Gan himself stays in Potong Pasir. So he has to walk around Potong Pasir. There is nothing wrong with that. Unless he wants him to live outside of Potong Pasir, but even then there is nothing to prevent a citizen from walking anywhere in Singapore. If he is the adviser of the constituency, all the more he should walk around to understand the needs of the constituents and what he can do for them. When he is able to do something for them, he will understand and appreciate the concerns and problems that the constituents face. It is perfectly legitimate as an adviser. If he did not do that, I would say that was a dereliction of duty. I am glad to hear Mr Chiam saying that Mr Andy Gan has been very active. Mr Chiam says that the RC notice boards have been used to promote the news concerning the adviser. What did Mr Andy Gan put up? I anticipate that Mr Chiam may raise this question. So I asked what the RCs in Potong Pasir have actually done. They said that there is one article dated 24th December 1994 which they put up. Mr Andy Gan was interviewed by the Straits Times. This was an interview about what Mr Gan would do and his views about the constituency, his concerns, and the problems and difficulties he faces in an Opposition town council. I think that was a very good interview that he gave. But RC notice boards are not just used to communicate or inform members about the activities of the adviser. They are also used to inform residents of important events, policies and things that are of concern to them.”
“But we have not compelled anyone in these grassroots organisations to say that they must help a PAP man. We have not given such a policy directive. If the grassroots organisations and the members and volunteers feel that they want to help the adviser, by all means. There is nothing wrong in that. I do not know what Mr Chiam meant by his observation that this has been done. Maybe he has some examples of how the grassroots organisations have helped to promote the interest of the prospective PAP candidate. Has he got any example?”
“Sir, I am answering the questions by the two MPs because they both raised questions about the RCs, the CCCs and the CCMCs, the role of the adviser, who should appoint the adviser and who should be the adviser, and how these community organisations should serve the residents. Since I have been tasked to look after the People's Association by the Prime Minister, I will deal with these questions. In fact, these questions are not new. These questions have been raised ad nauseam. These questions have been raised a few years ago and I have given answers to all the questions. Since the questions are the same, the answers would be the same. I do not see how the MPs can change my answers because they have been raised in the last few years. Just to recapitulate, to remind Mr Chiam and Mr Cheo, why we have these grassroots organisations. I think Mr Chiam also recognises the purpose of these grassroots organisations. They are to help Government promote social cohesion, racial harmony and act as a bridge between the people and the Government. That being the case, if we have an Opposition MP there as the adviser, would he be the bridge in helping to facilitate communication, transmission and explanation of policies between the Government and the people? I do not think so. I think that Opposition MP Adviser would be an obstacle rather than a facilitator. For that reason, I say that Opposition MPs cannot be appointed as the adviser of the CCCs, RCs or the MCs. Mr Chiam says that he had noticed that these organisations have been helping to promote prospective PAP candidates. If they indeed do so, I see nothing wrong in that because if they find that that adviser is worthy of support and they want to help him, so be it.”
“Our broadcasters are aware of their responsibility to promote family values. They have been careful in their scheduling of programmes. For example, programmes for adult audiences, like horror movies, are scheduled in the late part of the evenings and judiciously spaced out.”
“Subdividing Indians and others into different categories is a practice since the first identity cards were issued by the colonial government. Registration officers recorded a person's race based on what the applicant declared. There is no policy to distinguish "Sri Lankans" from "Ceylonese" or "Punjabi" or other categories of Indians in the new NRIC programme. Sub-divisions are not unique to Indians. In fact, there are many sub-groups under the "Malay" category e.g. Javanese, Boyanese, Minangkabau, Dayaks, and Ibans. It is true that the term "Sri Lankan" is also a nationality. The fact remains that persons coming from Sri Lanka are now known as Sri Lankans and not Ceylonese. The National Registration Department has been approving requests to change one's race from "Sri Lankan" back to "Ceylonese". TELEVISION PROGRAMMES 5. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Information and the Arts if he will consider regulating television programmes so that up to 10.00 pm each night, we only receive family sensitive programmes and trailers without unacceptable violence, sex or other negative family values BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: The Singapore Broadcasting Authority sets guidelines for the broadcast of programmes suitable for the family. The SBA's current watershed separating family-type programmes and other programmes is 9.30 pm. Up to 9.30 pm, TV fare must be wholesome and suitable for the whole family. No PG programmes will be allowed within family-viewing hours as such programmes may require parental guidance. When PG-rated movies, including trailers are shown, they must be shown with indicators. Such indicators are also required on TV programmes publicised in the newspapers and other publications so that parents can guide their children's viewing choice.”
“Sir, foreigners who come to Singapore and commit a crime will eventually serve their sentence, be punished and repatriated and they would be on our black list. In other words, we know who they are. And when we spot them, they will not be allowed to re-enter. But we know that some do sneak in through other ways, for example, having a new passport, having a new name, etc, and sometimes it is not easy to detect every case. But the Police and Immigration Department will do their best to detect them. We have to think about how to do this without loading too much onto the system. But we know that many who try to come in have been detected and are sent back. On the question of new riders wanting to ride a bigger bike, I think it is not possible because all new riders are required to take a class 2B licence, which is a light motorcycle licence, and it is only until they have passed the class 2B and have been on the road for a period before they are allowed to take on a class 2A and a class 2 licence. So those who want a heavier bike, because they think it can go faster, will of course have to go through the early stages of getting a class 2B licence.”
“We have been talking to some of them, SINDA, for example, to interest them to set up these half-way houses to help the addicts to cope with the re-entry into society after their release from the DRC. Sir, the Government's tough measures to deal with drug abusers will be tempered with preventive efforts to educate the young. There will also be concerted rehabilitative efforts through half-way houses to help addicts who really want to turn over a new leaf, but the Government alone cannot tackle this problem. I look forward to the continued support of the community and the self-help groups to help us resolve this problem. There are the other issues on the expenditure of manpower, tests for new citizens, child sex tourism and rape management which I will ask my Parliamentary Secretary to answer.”
“This is very encouraging and I would like to see more such Malay organisations coming forward to set up half-way houses to help the Malay addicts. Because, as I have informed Members, the Malay addict population in our DRCs comprises 54% of the DRC population. I would therefore like to urge those Malay organisations, which are still considering whether to set up half-way houses, such as AMP and Mendaki, to put aside their reservations and come and help us combat this problem of drug abuse among the Malay community. We will do as much as we can to help them set up the half-way houses. Our leading organisation, SCORE, will provide the assistance to help them get the management expertise, the professional training as well as financial support to cope with the task of setting up these half-way houses. Since I am talking about drug addicts, I think I should also inform the House that there is an over-representation of Indians in the drug addict population. It is well known that the Malays constitute a significant percentage of drug addicts in our DRCs. I have just mentioned 54%. But what is not so well known is that the Indian population in our DRCs is also very significant. It is 15%, which means it is more than double the number of Indians in our population. But what is more alarming is that 18% of the new addicts admitted to the DRCs for the first time in the last two years (1993 and 1994) were Indians. That means it is also an increasing number. If the trend continues, then there will be more and more Indians in our DRCs. Therefore, I think the Indian community as well as Indian community organisations must come forward and help us to fight this problem.”
“My Ministry is stepping up its efforts at preventive drug education, especially in our schools, to educate our students on the dangers of drug abuse. A national campaign will be launched in June this year to raise public awareness of this drug problem. We are also upgrading the after-care support for DRC inmates who are responsive to our rehabilitative efforts in the DRC so as to prevent them from relapsing. The Naltrexone programme is one such measure that we will eventually give to as many ex-drug addicts as possible. But looking at the results of the first two batches of drug addicts on the Naltrexone programme, the results seem to be very promising. Indeed, the relapse rate of these ex-addicts on Naltrexone programme has gone down significantly. We are now trying out on more ex-drug addicts. The Prison Department will also be launching a half-way house scheme in April this year to allow inmates to stay in selected half-way houses towards the end of their treatment in the DRC so as to facilitate their re-entry into society. SCORE, our rehabilitative enterprise, is also planning to employ full time aftercare officers to counsel and guide these ex-addicts after their release from the DRC. I am happy to inform Dr Beng and Mr Zulkifli that since the drug abuse situation among the Malay community was highlighted at the national seminar last October, a number of Muslim community organisations have indeed come forward to suggest that they are prepared to run half-way houses. Some of these are Perwanit, Jamiyah and the United Indian-Muslim Association. In fact, a new half-way house for female Muslim addicts will be set up by Taman Bacaan. It will be operational from 1st May 1995. This is in addition to the existing two Muslim half-way houses.”
“This calls for a drastic change in the way we treat drug addicts. We need to take a tougher and a more drastic stand against drug addicts to deter them from relapsing. We must also discourage new addicts from joining them. Drug addicts must be made to realise that they are not blameless victims who cannot help themselves. They must be held responsible for their addiction. Indeed, it is their families and society as a whole who are the real victims if they remain addicted to drugs. My Ministry is now in the process of finalising the details of the tougher approach that we intend to take against these drug addicts. We will be introducing amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act in Parliament later this year to put this new approach into effect. I am now serving notice to all drug addicts that if they did not kick their drug habit early they will face very severe consequences, such as the penal-like DRC regime for even first-timer addicts and the prospect of imprisonment and caning for those who relapse. I am also considering locking away recalcitrant addicts on preventive detention for a very long period of time. I repeat, recalcitrant addicts will be detained for many, many years. This will help them stay away from drugs. It will save them from the clutches of the drug pushers and, more importantly, it will prevent them from contaminating others in the community. Such drastic measures are necessary if we want to bring down the relapse rate as well as to deter others from taking the first step down this slippery road to drug abuse. The package of tough measures will be complemented by more intensive, preventive and rehabilitation measures.”
“Similarly, Mr Zulkifli is concerned whether we are giving enough help to half-way houses which may be short of expertise and so on. Before I answer these questions, let me update the House on the extent of the drug problem in Singapore today. Although the drug situation in Singapore remains relatively under control compared to many other countries, our average daily DRC population has increased by 62% over the last five years, from 5,350 in 1990 to 8,700 last year. Despite intensive efforts by the police department to rehabilitate them, the relapse rate of these drug addicts has continued to rise. The overall relapse rate now stands at 81% last year compared to 70% in 1992. Consequently, the majority of these addicts admitted to the DRCs are now repeat cases. But at the same time, the number of new addicts admitted to the DRCs each year for the first time has also increased from 912 in 1992 to 1,488 last year. This is an increase of 63%. All these figures show that indeed we do have a problem, and a serious problem which I mentioned last year, and we will definitely have to do something about it. If no new and tough enforcement and rehabilitation measures are introduced, then I fear the drug addict population will continue to rise. What then happens? When that happens, we will need to put in more resources, such as employing more Prison Officers and building more DRCs to house these drug addicts. Currently, the Government is already spending $50 million a year in operating cost in its drug programme and this amount will increase if the rising trend in drug abuse is not checked. In addition to the financial cost to the Government, drug addicts also impose a high social cost on society. We must make a more concerted effort to try to break this problem once and for all.”
“Under the law, a hit-and-run motorist is liable to be charged for failing to stop after an accident, for failing to report an accident within 24 hours, and for failing to render assistance after an accident. In other words, he can be charged on three counts. If convicted, he could be fined up to $1,000 or jailed up to three months for each of these three offences. The punishment may appear to be light compared to the potential damage, and this could include the loss of life caused by this irresponsible behaviour. In serious accidents, especially in secluded or quiet areas, it is important for the other party to stop and render help to the person being hit or to call for help. As to whether we should enhance the penalty, I think we must also make sure that by enhancing the penalty, we do not deter more people from reporting a hit-and-run accident. Nevertheless, I have asked the Traffic Police to study this. Besides toughening the law, I must say that it is equally important that the Police are able to track down and arrest the culprits. If the culprits know that there is certainty of detection, then the chances of them wanting to run away would be less. So the Police will welcome any public responses, in particular, when they notice a hit-and-run accident they should report such an accident to the Police. They should note down the vehicle number of the person who hits and runs and ensure that the information gets to the Police as soon as possible so that they can apprehend the culprit. Dr Beng asked about the drug situation and what we are doing, in particular, how we are helping the drug addicts and how we are helping the half-way houses, and the progress of the Naltrexone programme.”