Hansard, 1987-01-27

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Member has been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which he has been appointed) for the period stated:- Mr Chng Hee Kok (Radin Mas) - on 27th January, 1987. TAN SOO KHOON Deputy Speaker Parliament of Singapore The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence of Mr Speaker from this day's Sitting. Whereupon Mr Deputy Speaker proceeded to the Table and took the Chair, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to provide the enabling legislation for the implementation from 1st January 1987 of the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme which was announced and debated in the House last August. The objective of the Scheme is to ensure that in future most CPF members will have at least a minimum sum to live on after age 60. I shall highlight the key provisions of the Bill. Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 12 of the principal Act to introduce new subsections (6) to (13) which provide for the main features of the Scheme. The new subsection (12)(6) requires a CPF member who withdraws his savings at age 55 to deposit the minimum sum with an approved bank or in a retirement account with the Board or to purchase an approved annuity plan. From this, under the new subsection (12)(7), he will be able to withdraw a monthly income, starting from age 60. The new subsection (12)(8) excludes three categories of CPF members from the Minimum Sum Scheme. All members who have attained the age of 55 before 1st January 1987 are excluded although they may opt to participate in the Scheme. So are members who have an adequate and assured source of income for the rest of their lives, such as Government pensioners. The third category are those who are suffering from a terminal illness or disease. Non-citizens who have left or are about to leave Singapore permanently are excluded under the existing section 12(2) of the Act. CPF members who wish to pledge their properties or their spouse's properties in lieu of setting aside the minimum sum in cash may do so under the new subsections (12)(9) to (12)(11) as well as section 14 as amended by clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill. There are three methods of doing this, depending on the type of property. For a property sold by the HDB or other housing authorities, the owner need only sign an undertaking to set aside the minimum sum should he later sell the property. For a private property purchased with CPF money, there is already an existing charge to secure the refund of the CPF money to a member's account if he sells the property before he reaches age 55. Clause 7 of the Bill will extend this charge beyond age 55 but only for the value of the minimum sum. The extended charge will be removed if a member opts instead to set aside the minimum sum in cash. Either of these two methods will apply to the vast majority of CPF members who own properties. For them, therefore, there will be minimum inconvenience and no additional cost. However, there will be a few CPF members who may wish to nominate private properties not purchased with CPF money. In such cases, it is unavoidable that a fresh charge will have to be created on their properties, for the value of the minimum sum. However, the procedure will be kept as simple and as inexpensive as possible. The charge will be to protect the member's minimum sum for his benefit. The new subsection (12)(12) protects a CPF member's minimum sum kept in an approved bank, the CPF Board or an approved annuity plan from seizure by the member's creditors for payment of any debts or claims. Where a member has pledged a private property in lieu of the minimum sum in cash, the charge on the property will provide the necessary protection from creditors. In the case of HDB flats, similar protection is provided under sections 43 and 44 of the Housing and Development Act. The minimum sum to be set aside at age 55 is $30,000. This figure will be reviewed every three to five years to compensate for inflation and rising standard of living. Members with low balances need only set aside smaller amounts. From age 60, the member can withdraw $230 per month from his minimum sum account, except in the case of certain approved annuity plans which offer to pay more than $230 per month for a principal sum of $30,000. Upon the member's death, any remaining amount will be paid to his nominees or, if there are no nominees, to his estate. A married couple, who are both CPF members, will need to set aside $45,000 at most, and not $30,000 per spouse. They can withdraw $345 per month. These and other details as announced in August will be spelt out in Regulations. Clause 9 of the Bill introduces a new paragraph (i)(b) into section 45(1) of the Act to enable such Regulations to be made. Sir, the other clause of the Bill which I would like to highlight is clause 5. It introduces two new sections 12C and 12D to enable children to contribute to their parents' Minimum Sum accounts either through transfers from their own CPF accounts or with cash. On the death of the parents, the unexpended portion of the contributions will be transferred back to the CPF accounts of the persons who made the contributions. The details of the CPF "Topping-up Scheme" will be set out in Regulations. A CPF member must have at least $60,000 in his CPF account, including amounts withdrawn for housing and investments but excluding Medisave, before he can transfer any excess to his parent's account. The maximum amount of such topping-up is the difference between $30,000 and the parent's CPF balance at age 55, before withdrawal. For both parents, the maximum amount is the difference between $45,000 and their combined CPF balance at age 55. The topping-up can be done in one lump sum or once a year over a period of up to 10 years from the time the parent turns 55. The amount used for topping-up can only be withdrawn by the parent in monthly instalments from age 60. Such minimum sum accounts can also be opened for parents who are non-CPF members. For parents who have already passed 55, the amount will be reduced, depending on their ages and the topping-up must be done within the next 10 years, ie, by 31st December 1996. The Topping-up Scheme will be implemented from 1st April 1987. Sir, I shall now ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute a brief note (Cols. 1063 - 1066) which will help to clarify the details of the Topping-up Scheme. note - THE CPF MINIMUM SUM ACCOUNT TOPPING-UP SCHEME (Cols. 1063 - 1066) [Copies of note distributed to hon. Members.] Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 11.10 am

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendment Bill. The CPF minimum sum scheme was announced and debated in the House last August. Most of the queries raised by Members during the debate have been clearly explained by the Minister then and need no further elaboration. I hope the Minister can clarify three more points. Firstly, sections 12C and 12D of the amendment Bill do not spell out clearly whether cash payments to top up the parent's minimum sum account are tax exempt. Can the Minister please explain? Secondly, there is no provision in the amendment Bill for children to do a second topping up if the parents live longer than the 20 years estimated under the minimum sum scheme. Thirdly, as mentioned by the Minister during the debate in August 1986, the minimum sum of $30,000 will pay out about $230 per month for 20 years based on the then prevailing bank deposit rate of about 4ª%. Sir, the current deposit rates are as low as 3%. Can the Minister assure the House that our senior citizens affected by the scheme will still receive the $230 for the next 20 years? On that note, Sir, I support the amendment Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to support the Bill. This Bill when passed will enable any person who has sufficient CPF savings of his own to participate in the topping-up scheme to ensure financial independence of his parents after the age of 60. The participation in such a noble scheme would foster greater filial piety and a sense of responsibility for children to support their aged parents. I would like two clarifications from the Hon. Minister on clause 5 of the Bill. (1) Since the transfers could be made either through CPF accounts or with cash, I would urge that these contributions be tax exempted. (2) Whether this topping-up scheme could be further extended to adopted children and siblings of the aged persons. May I also suggest that the CPF Board take appropriate steps to inform or to explain to the CPF contributors that this is a voluntary scheme to enable contributors to help their aged parents and not a legislation to compel or force contributors to pay from their CPF accounts. Sir, I would like to support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I join my colleagues in supporting this Bill. But I would like the Minister to answer a few questions. Firstly, this Bill exempts certain people from the Scheme. Among them are persons suffering from terminal illness or disease. In this instance, may I ask who is to certify the illness or disease? Is it restricted only to doctors in the Government hospitals and clinics? Or are certificates from private medical practitioners also accepted? If the control system is lax, I am afraid CPF members might take advantage. My second point is the charge on any property owned by a CPF member, his spouse or in their joint names. The question is, how long will the charge be on that property? Is it until he reaches, say, 70 years old or 75 years? My third point is the joint account in the names of the member and his spouse. They will receive a certain amount of money every month after age 60. What happens to the account if one of the member dies? Will his account be split and the money divided among the next-of-kin of the deceased? Or will the living party be allowed to continue receiving the same amount every month until the depletion of the fund? Finally, Sir, I wish to suggest that for those account holders who are reaching 55 years old, the CPF could have an advisory or counselling scheme to advise these members on the best way to a very good return, whether to put their money in an insurance scheme, or to leave it with the CPF, or in a bank. Sir, I support the Bill.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill introduced by the Minister for Labour. There is flexibility provided in the Bill. I will air my views on the new sections 12C and 12D in clause 5. All along we have been encouraging the spirit of ethical virtues as an indisputable norm of moral conduct, of which filial piety is the natural and prime duty of our children to their parents. In consonance with this, we shall allow and encourage the children to transfer a certain sum of money from their CPF contributions towards their parents' minimum retirement accounts. I support the appeal by the other two MPs that Government also give them tax relief concessions, in other words, free from income tax for such sums. The second point is that it is only when the parents have passed 55 years and reached 60 before any sum can be obtained from that minimum saving. As the long years pass by, anything can happen. I hope that as long as the children have the opportunity, ie, financially able to contribute that sum of money to top-up the minimum amount of the parents, such transfer should be encouraged and the sum exempted from tax. The reason is that any of the parents may die sooner than expected or some mishap may befall on the children in which event they may not have the opportunity to support their parents. Furthermore, with such flexibility in the Scheme, the parents will, with the financial help from their children, be enabled to buy HDB flats. The third point is this. I hope the Minister will see to it that not only the parents can make use of their own private property as a mortgage or charge for the required minimum, but the children also should be allowed and encouraged tomake use of their property, in addition to cash contribution, as a mortgage or charge to contribute to the parents' minimum CPF retirement accounts.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I just want to seek one clarification from the Minister. Referring to page 1 of the handout, paragraph 2 begins with the sentence, "It is open to all parents above age 55." Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we do have a lot of single persons in Singapore. What about CPF subscribers who are not married? When they reach 55, does this scheme apply to them when they are not married and have no children?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to join the debate by first stating that I believe this Topping-up Scheme proposed by the Minister is indeed very innovative and deserves our support. I would like to seek a few points of clarification from the Minister. First, may I ask the Minister when the parents have already passed the age of 60 when this scheme comes into effect on a date that the Minister would like to set, whether the amount that the children transfer from their CPF accounts into their parents' accounts could be immediately withdrawn by the parents? If this is so, I think this can be a way where children can at least have the immediate benefit of transferring monies from their own CPF accounts to the parents' accounts. However, would the Minister also take note that this can be taken as a back-door way for children to withdraw money from their CPF accounts before reaching their retirement age. Could the Minister con- sider working some kind of scheme whereby it will ensure that the monies actually goes into the parents' accounts? Secondly, if the children put in cash to top-up their parents' CPF accounts, I support the Member for Yuhua's proposal that these monies contributed by the children should enjoy some form of tax relief. The last point I would like to ask the Minister is this. When a husband and wife wish to put money into the CPF accounts of their parents, can they be considered as a joint account so that either the husband's money or the wife's money in the CPF can be transferred to the accounts of the parents of either the husband or the wife?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would also like to join the debate in saying that I support the amendments to the principal legislation. However, regarding the Topping-up Scheme, may I ask the Minister two points for clarification. One is whether this scheme could also be extended to grandparents. The second question is if one or both parents do not have any CPF account right now; upon the implementation of this scheme, can an account be opened for this purpose? In the handout here, the Minister says that the topping-up may also be by cash and the Ministry of Labour is discussing with the Ministry of Finance to provide tax relief for such cash contributions. This, of course, opens up another avenue for tax planning.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would first like to thank all the Members for their support of the Bill. I see that the Topping-up Scheme has aroused quite a bit of interest among Members. The Minimum Sum Scheme was well debated in August. So I propose to be very brief in my explanations and confine more to the questions raised by the Members. I shall take the questions in the order they were raised. Firstly, the question from the Member for Cairnhill. He and also several other Members touched on this point of tax exemption for cash contributions. My Ministry is discussing this with the Ministry of Finance. We strongly support this idea that the cash contributions should be exempt from tax. In other words, the con- tributions should be deductible from the CPF Members' taxable income. There will have to be certain forms of control, of course, to be placed by the Ministry of Finance. I am sure with the strong support from Members, I should be able to persuade the Minister, perhaps during the coming Budget Statement, to tell us his thinking on this point. It is a good move to promote filial piety. The second point raised by the Member for Cairnhill concerns a second topping-up. We have only come to the first topping-up and we are already thinking of a second topping-up. Let me first clarify that the scheme is not meant to be a total solution. With or without this scheme, with or without tax exemption and Government encouragement, it is the duty of all children to look after their parents. So I hope this point will be borne in mind. The scheme itself is not meant to be everything. It is only meant to be a form of encouragement, although a very substantial one. In the case of those who have the ability to contribute the full amount to their parents' account so that the parents have $30,000 to put aside at age 55, and if the parents were to buy an annuity plan with this sum for life, the money should be enough to last them for as long as they live. There are various attractive schemes offered by the approved insurance companies which pay as much as $300 per month for a long period, for as long as the members live. The CPF Board will be publishing a short pamphlet explaining the different schemes that are available to the public. I hope this pamphlet will enable the members when they reach 55 to make a good investment decision on where they want to place their money, either with the CPF Board or with banks, or with insurance companies. The Member for Cairnhill also asked whether, with the current low interest rates, the sum will be enough to last a member for 20 years. In other words, if he puts aside $30,000 at age 55 and it earns interest, would it last 20 years? The answer is yes, provided the average interest rate is at least 4ª% per annum. The calculations have been based on 4ª%. The money is put aside at age 55. It earns interest for as long as it is deposited. The capital and interest will be enough to pay out to the member $230 per month for 20 years. Judging from past experience, I think the interest rates are likely to go up again in future. So I am fairly confident that the average interest rate should be at least 4ª%. If Members are doubtful about this point and they have $30,000 to set aside, the best way, as I have said before, is to put the money into an annuity plan so that they can be sure that they will have this sum to drawdown upon for as long as they live. In fact, the schemes proposed by some insurance companies are so attractive that I think even those members who need not set aside the sum under the scheme should seriously consider whether they should plan on putting aside some money on their own because the insurance companies are able to provide this risk-sharing aspect and the member can be sure that he will have a sum to draw on monthly for as long as he lives. The returns are fairly good, I think, judging from the schemes put up by the insurance companies. Coming now to the points from the Member for Pasir Panjang. I have already touched on the point about tax exemption. Concerning adopted children, the answer is yes; if the children are legally adopted; they will be allowed to enjoy the benefits of the scheme. In other words, they can either contribute cash, which hopefully will be tax-exempt in the future, to their parents' CPF accounts, or they can transfer from their own CPF to their parents' accounts, provided of course the member himself has at least $60,000 in his own account. We must have this cut-off because we need to protect the member himself to make sure he has enough for his own needs before he is allowed to transfer CPF to his parents' account. That is the reason for the $60,000 floor which is placed on the contributor's CPF account. Can siblings also transfer CPF to their siblings' accounts? The scheme as conceived is meant to promote filial piety, in other words, children to look after their parents. The Bill, as currently drafted, does not provide for siblings to contribute to their siblings' accounts or, for that matter, other relatives to contribute to, say, an aged person. My own assessment is that there are probably very few siblings or other relatives who are willing to contribute cash or CPF to another sibling or relative's account. So this is going to be a rather uncommon situation. Anyway, for the time being I would prefer to just try out the scheme as it stands and not widen the scope any further. We must realize that the CPF scheme is basically for the member's own benefit. It is going to be designed so that it is only enough for his own needs. We have already made a concession here for those who can afford it. But we should not widen this transfer too widely, otherwise it will defeat the purpose of the CPF scheme. The other point made by the Member for Pasir Panjang is that the scheme should be a voluntary one. Indeed my note says so, that this is purely voluntary. There is no compulsion on the part of anybody to contribute to his parent's account. Coming now to the questions from the Member for Tanah Merah. He asked whether a person suffering from terminal illness and who is exempted from the Minimum Sum Scheme will be examined by a private doctor or a Government doctor. The answer is that he will have to be certified to be suffering from a terminal illness or disease by a doctor appointed by the CPF Board. We must make sure there is no abuse in this case. I think it is only fair and just and humane that we allow people who are about to die within a year or two to enjoy the full benefits of their savings instead of trying to lock up the amount for their kin. That is why I have specifically exempted this group of people from having to put money aside under the Minimum Sum Scheme. However, there are other categories of people, for example, who may suffer from physical inability, be physically incapacitated or mentally incapacitated after they have passed the age of 55. In those cases, they may still live for quite a long time. The scheme will still apply to them. The Member's other question concerned the charge on properties. This applies only in the case of private properties because for HDB flats we have simplified the procedure so much that there is no charge really. It is only an undertaking by the member that if he sells the HDB flat, the minimum sum must be put aside. Under the Housing and Development Act, in fact, the property cannot be mortgaged to anybody. A charge cannot be imposed without the consent of the HDB. In the case of HDB properties, sales must be done through HDB. We can depend on HDB to administer and collect this minimum sum for us and so we are able to keep the procedure very simple. In the case of properties bought with CPF, as I have explained, there is already a charge on the property to secure the return of his CPF money to his account if he should decide to sell the property before age 55. We have simply extended the charge to cover the property in respect of the minimum sum beyond age 55. Similarly, for other properties not purchased with CPF money, we will have to apply a new charge through the simplest possible procedure and at minimum cost. This charge must last for as long as the person lives because the idea is to protect that minimum sum for his own benefit so that it cannot be seized by creditors. The charge will be in place for as long as the person lives. In the case of private properties not purchased with CPF money which a member chooses to pledge in lieu of the minimum sum in cash, the CPF Board will keep the procedure very simple. There will be no need to appoint private lawyers to go through the process. The CPF Board will go through the search, certification and registration process on its own so there will be minimum expense involved. I think it is in the region of maybe $50. There was a complaint in the press recently on this point and I think the CPF Board has already clarified it. The Member for Tanah Merah came up with a good suggestion that we should provide advisory or counselling services to members when they reach 55. As I have explained, we will be producing a pamphlet to illustrate all the different schemes which are available now for them to choose as to where they want to put their money. These are offered by nine insurance companies and 23 banks, as alternatives. They can, of course, leave their money with the CPF Board which will be the safest form of investment. They have to make up their minds as to how they want to invest their minimum sum. If they put the money somewhere else, there could be a slightly higher risk which they should be aware of but the returns are likely to be better. The alternatives are there. Members should make up their own minds on this matter and there will be a pamphlet and guidance from the CPF Board to explain the different alternatives. Coming now to the questions from the Member for Yuhua. She also supported tax exemption and I thank her for her support. Her second question is: why do we have to wait until the parent is 55 before we allow the children to top up his or her account? The main reason is an administrative one because we have to wait until the parent is 55 to know how much he or she has in the CPF account. We would only allow the topping-up to be the difference between his own balance and $30,000. So long as this topping-up amount is kept with the CPF Board, whether in the children's account or the parent's account, it does not really make much difference in terms of earnings. The parent can only withdraw from the sum from age 60 in any case. If, therefore, we try and allow the transfer at an age when the parent is younger than 55 years, we have to look at the procedures. It may mean that we have to project the member's CPF balance until age 55 and also make some adjustment at age 55. It could be rather complicated. However, I will ask my officers to examine the suggestion and see whether there is any merit in it, especially in the case of, say, a daughter who is about to get married and she needs to help the parent to keep the flat. This, of course, involves the HDB also. If HDB is prepared to relax its rules and allow the daughter to keep her CPF for payment of the existing flat jointly owned with her parents and live with her spouse in the a flat, then there is really no problem. But if for some reason the HDB thinks it is not wise to allow it and they want to promote a nuclear family, for example, maybe the topping-up could be one possibility, but we will need to study it further. Her third question was whether children can pledge their properties to enable the parents to withdraw their entire CPF savings at age 55. The answer is yes, provided the property is in the joint name of the children and the parents. We must make sure there is a joint ownership so that there is protection for the parent; otherwise the scheme could lead to abuse. We cannot be sure that the child will look after the parent. If the child wants to nominate his property for the parent's sake, he must make it a joint property and the parent's name must be included in the property. The Member for Delta asked about single persons. Unfortunately, a single person has no children. He could have children really but he missed out. Perhaps he should get married or he should find other means of support with his own savings. Under the present scheme as drafted, which is meant for children to support their parents, unfortunately there is no means to help these single persons. As I have said, I am reluctant at this point to widen the scheme further to cover other relatives. The Member for Thomson raised a few points. He asked whether the amount used for topping-up is immediately withdrawable. The answer is, it can be withdrawn by the parent from age 60. For example, if you have a parent who is already 65 and you open a minimum sum account for him, the parent will be able to withdraw the money straightaway. But that account will be in the parent's name so as to make sure that the money is for his own use. Hopefully, this will provide some protection and minimize abuses. The parent will have to consent to the withdrawals and the money is meant for him. In the case of a husband and wife, ie, whether they can be considered jointly, I am not very clear about this point. Does the Member for Thomson mean that we look at the joint account of both the husband and wife and so long as the amount is above $60,000 we allow them the transfer, or in what sense? We have in any case to study this a bit further. The thought has not crossed my mind yet. But as of now we are looking at each individual member. He must have at least $60,000 before he can make contributions to a parent, and the maximum he can contribute is $30,000 minus the parent's balance at age 55. If several children wish to contribute to one parent, the maximum in any case is only $30,000 minus his balance at age 55. In the case of both aged parents who are still alive, the ceiling is $45,000. This is in keeping with the Minimum Sum Scheme because parents living together can live on a smaller amount of $45,000 instead of $30,000 each. The Member for Jalan Kayu raised two questions. One concerns grandparents. As I have explained, at the moment the scheme is only for children and parents. Whenever there is a new scheme announced, the tendency is to widen the scheme further and further. We must guard against that. For the time being, I would draw the line at children and parents, and let us keep the CPF scheme to its original purpose, which is mainly for the member's own needs. He asked about the case where one or both parents are non-CPF members. In my statement and in my clarification, I have said that even if the parent is a non- CPF member the children can still open an account for him, the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme account, and proceed to top it up. That point is clear. It covers not only those who will be reaching 55 but those who are already above 55. The scope of the scheme has, in fact, been very much widened. We estimate that there are some 300,000 parents who are already above 55 years old. But we will have to look at their past CPF records. Our records fortunately are complete and so we know, say, some 10 years back when they withdrew the money, how much they had in their CPF balance. The difference can be topped up. Sir, I think I have covered all the points.

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 Lee Yock Suan]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 1 -

The citation year will be changed to "1987" and an alteration will also be made in page 1, line 4, to leave out (No. 2) in the short title. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 9 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

11.45 am Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The present Central Sikh Gurdwara Board Act was passed by Parliament on 2nd October 1981. It replaced the Silat Road Gurdwara Ordinance (Cap. 318) and the Queen Street Gurdwara Ordinance (Cap. 311). This was done at the request of the Sikh community so that they could set up a building fund to construct a Central Sikh temple. A new Sikh temple has now been built at the junction of Serangoon Road and Towner Road. The present Central Sikh Gurdwara Board Act, 1981, states that the first Board is to be made up of 25 members,all of whom shall be appointed by the Minister. Subsequent Boards, however, shall consist of 10 members to be appointed by the Minister and 15 members to be elected from among members whose names are on the membership register. The first Board was appointed on 2nd October 1981. When the Board was first appointed, its task was to draw up rules to establish and maintain a membership register, so that elections could be held to elect a new Board, made up of both appointed and elected members, to take over the management of the temples. The Board subsequently put up a set of rules for the Government's approval. But the proposed rules were found to have gone beyond the provisions in the Act and, hence, could not be approved. Following discussions with the Central Sikh Gurdwara Board, the Act will now be amended at the Board's request so that the administration and management of the temples are left entirely to the Sikh community. The Sikh Advisory Board was consulted and the members unanimously agreed with this move. To enable the Sikh community to take over entirely the administration and management of the Central and Silat Road Sikh temples, section 3 of the 1981 Act is to be repealed and a new section enacted to provide for the Board to consist of such number of members who are elected at each biennial general meeting by persons who are on the membership register. To ensure that there is continuity in the management of the temples, the existing members of the Board will continue to hold office until a new Board is elected. The present Board will be given six months from the commencement of the Amendment Act to convene a general meeting of persons who are on the membership register so that they can elect new members to the Board. Section 11 of the Act relating to the removal of members from the Board is to be repealed and a new section enacted to provide for disqualifications for membership of the Board. Under the revised section, any person who has been elected or appointed to the Board will cease to hold office as a member of the Board if he is an undischarged bankrupt or suspends payment to, or makes any arrangement or composition with, his creditors. The member shall also cease to hold office if he has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than six months and has not received a free pardon or a resolution is passed at an extraordinary general meeting calling for his removal from office. Section 16 of the Act is to be amended to remove the requirement that the approval of the Minister must first be obtained for the Board to make rules. It is best left to the Board and its ordinary members to decide on the rules. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is a very straightforward Bill which is unanimously supported by the leaders of the Sikh community. I beg to move. Question proposed.

Sir, I rise to support the amendments to the Bill. The amendments suggested, in fact, are neat and it provides better administration of the functions of the Board and it reduces some of the bureaucratic procedures which might hinder the effectiveness of the Board. So I feel that the amendments suggested give a new lease of life to the Board and it is worthy of support. I support the Bill.

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.

Clause 1 -

The citation year will be changed to "1987". Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 -

The citation year in lines 22, 29 and 34 will be changed to "1987". Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in the name of the Minister for Law as it appears on the Order Paper. *The motion, standing in the name of the Minister for Law, reads as follows: That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by the Government of that portion of foreshore at Changi East containing an area of 40 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "Land Office Reclamation Plan No. 1/87" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, the Changi (North and South Bays) reclamation project which was approved by the House at our sitting on 3rd March 1982, shown coloured yellow on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/87", is now nearing completion. The Ministry of National Development and the Ministry of Communications and Information now propose to reclaim another 40 hectares of foreshore and seabed at Changi South Bay. This is shown coloured pink on the plan. A copy of this plan is displayed in the Library of the House for the information of hon. Members. The proposed project will study the feasibility of using marine clay and sand for reclamation. If proved feasible, this will be extended to other reclamation projects. The reclaimed land will be held in reserve for airport use and/or other suitable developments. Sir, the reclamation is estimated to cost $30 million which will be met from savings available from the Changi (North and South Bays) reclamation project. The Port of Singapore Authority, as agent of the Government for reclamation projects carried out at Changi, will be calling tenders soon. This project will take about two years to complete. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Chapter 270), approves the reclamation by the Government of that portion of foreshore at Changi East containing an area of 40 hectares as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "Land Office Reclamation Plan No. 1/87" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their First Report contained in Paper Parl. 3 of 1987 and resolves -

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am a member of the Committee of Privileges. When it was recommended that the punishment imposed upon him be approved by Parliament, I thought that we would be here only to discuss the punishment itself. As I said there, I note the Leader of the House is going through the whole case all over again on its merits. We are discussing matters in relation to Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam. And as I said there, it would appear to me that it does not look right. We are talking a lot of things about a man who is not present. It just does not look right to me because he has got no chance to answer. The Leader of the House, in fact, said that it is a pity that Mr Jeyaretnam has not apologized. I do not know. If he were here now, I do not know whether he will apologize. He may have just apologized. So we are saying a lot of things in his absence which is just not right. I had the impression that this matter would be brought to this House just to discuss the punishment, ie, whether to accept the recommendation of the Committee or whether to set it aside, or whether to increase it or substitute it for some other form of sentence. Perhaps I could be guided on this point whether we are going on the right order of things.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I refer the Member to Standing Order No. 95(7)(e), which he should be aware of, because he is a member of the Committee of Privileges. He should have read all the sections relating to this Committee. It says here: 'The Leader of the House shall, upon receiving notice from the Clerk that copies of a report from the Committee have been made available to Members, give notice of a motion expressing the opinion of Parliament in regard to the report.' And that is what I have done.

The sentence?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Report made by the Committee of Privileges regarding Mr Jeyaretnam's abuse of privileges of Parliament in his allegations of Executive interference in the Judiciary. Sir, fighting is an exceptional necessity. It is true in war as well as in peace. The only difference is that in peace we use every available law or legislation to fight the problem or to fight the most potent enemy like untruth. Whether in time of war or in time of crisis, expressing something out of fear, false repetition, hearsay, gossip or rumours can be dangerous because, if true, they may give a wrong impression, a wrong signal; the timid will be frightened; the brave will have some misgivings. But if such rumours are false, they may cause needless fear or unnecessary alarm. Sir, false news, unfounded rumours will be ammunition to the enemy or those who are envious of us. It will encourage them to strengthen their position. Their stand as well as their posture will be markedly different. In peace-time, untruths can be equally dangerous - politically and economically. Even our very social fabric can be threatened or damaged. So we must check untruth. We must checkmate it. Not to do so is to fall directly into the grip of the unscrupulous. That can cause irreparable damage to property and life. The decision made to fine the former Member for Anson a sum of $1,000 - it should be more, if possible, or maybe the $25,000 later on in the Second Report - is fair and justified, humane and balanced. Whether one is managing one's home or governing a nation, balance or fair play or justice must be seen and adhered to. Singaporeans should know by now that we have all along tried our very best to look after the affairs of the state or the affairs of the nation with our utmost care.

On a point of clarification. Does the Member realize that the $1,000 is the maximum allowed under the law?

I know about that. Maybe we should have reviewed it earlier. The findings of the Committee and the deliberations of this august Chamber will be for all to see and judge. This is the hallmark of this Government. We will be strong but not arrogant. We will not abuse authority but we will be firm. Any wrongdoing will be nipped in the bud. There is no two-way about it. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many a time the unscrupulous and the wicked will try to appeal for the highest sympathies with most honourable motives to deceive and use anybody at all as an instrument for defeating justice. We should be very careful and very cautious about this. We must protect our people against any form of deception. And we have firmness when dealing the strictest justice without fear or favour. To do otherwise is to betray the trust thrust upon us. As trustees, we must defeat all attempts made to mislead the people. This is a sacred trust. Sir, the gravity of the accusations made by the former MP for Anson we have, if anything, to my mind, been lenient. I believe ultimately, as always, humanity still wins the day as it must. 12.40 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to make a few observations. First of all, I totally disagree with what the Member for Potong Pasir has just mentioned. The Leader of the House, in moving the motion, said that this House doth adopt the First Report of the Committee of Privileges, particularly when the Member for Potong Pasir said, if I got him right, that we are saying a lot of things about the former Member for Anson who is not present and it is just not right. I thought, Sir, that is already covered in this thick volume which the Leader of the House took us through. Since it is a motion that this House adopts the Report, it naturally follows that a debate can take place and I for one, having gone through part of the Report, heard very clearly in this House too, when the Leader took us through, that every opportunity was given to the former Member for Anson to defend himself. As a result, the Committee's findings are presented to Parliament and that the Leader of the House has asked that this House doth accept the Report and its findings. In that respect, Sir, I beg to support the motion.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, some people think that although Mr Jeyaretnam has lost his seat in this House, yet Parliament is still discussing about what he had done in this House before. They say this is like hitting an underdog, meaning that we should not be doing this. I would not argue whether Mr Jeyaretnam is an "underdog" or "dog-in-deep-waters". I would only talk about whether underdogs or "dogs-in-deep-waters" should be hit. To those who sympathize with Mr Jeyaretnam, his present situation makes him out to be exactly like an "underdog" or a "dog-in-deep-waters" and these people regard things in the light of and with the feelings for such a "fallen dog" or an "underdog". But we should not forget what a modern Chinese literary master, Lu Xun, had taught in his article "Fair Play" where he talked about this question whether a "dog fallen in deep waters" should be hit or not. According to him, it all depends on how this dog has fallen into the water. Sometimes a fallen dog could be hit and should be hit. For instance, if the dog is very fierce and bites you without provocation or without any reason and you strenuously try to defend yourself and personally beat it down into the water, then you could also use a bamboo pole to hit it as much as you like; yet it is not too much ---

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have to interrupt on a point of clarification. Is it correct for the Member to refer to Mr Jeyaretnam as a dog?

On what point are you raising? Is the Member giving way?

No, Sir.

He is not giving way.

( In Mandarin): It is very reasonable to hit a biting dog in the water with a bamboo rod. According to Lu Xun's view, any dog that bites people should be hit, whether it is on land or in the water. He is of the opinion that a dog does not know morality or ethical virtues and also a dog can swim. If it happens that the dog is beaten and has fallen into the water, it could still struggle to climb out of the water. It could also shake its body and if you are not careful the water is splashed onto your body. Then the dog will put its tail in between its hind legs and run away. In spite of that, its nature will not change. Honest people would think that if a dog has fallen into the water it will, after it has come out of the water, be repentant and will change its character or nature and would not bite people anymore. But this kind of thinking is very wrong. What I have quoted is the experienced talk of Lu Xun. It is worthy for us to learn the lesson from him. As regards the predicament of Mr Jeyaretnam today, we should not forget that it has all been caused by himself. He has got himself to blame. His serious allegations regarding the judiciary, the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, etc have been proved, in the end, to be baseless and without foundation whatsoever. Because there was no foundation or basis for his allegations, he could not stand on his legs, just like choosing to stand on a river where there is no bridge across it. But he chose to stand on it. Of course, naturally he would fall into the water.This cannot be compared with an innocent person who by accident falls into the water. That is to say, a dog which accidentally falls into the water cannot be compared with a dog which has bitten somebody and because of the beating it falls into the river. The two cannot be compared in the same breath. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I feel that the findings of the Committee of Privileges are just and correct, as it has provided ample opportunity for Mr Jeyaretnam to defend himself. However, truth is not on the side of Mr Jeyaretnam. The punishment recommended by the Committee is correct and justified. The abuse of privilege is a serious offence. But as it had been committed before the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act has been amended, the highest penalty that can be imposed now is only $1,000. This does not reflect the seriousness of his offence. Even after the Act is amended, the highest penalty, a fine of $50,000, is still not enough to compensate for the serious damage and harm done to the good image and reputation of the Judiciary which is one of the three main pillars of our democracy, just as the Committee of Privileges has pointed out in its Report, the damage is incalculable. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

The Question is, "That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their First Report contained in Paper Parl. 3 of 1987 and resolves -

To the contrary say No.

I abstain.

The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I was not a Member of the Committee of Privileges but I have been informed and I have read the Report of the Committee of Privileges. I did not note any abstention or dissenting vote when these two recommendations were made by the Committee of Privileges. So I would like to ask the Member for Potong Pasir what is his position on this.

As far as I was aware, I was absent from one of the meetings, and in a subsequent meeting I was shown that there was a recommendation in respect of item No. 5. But as regards item No. 1, I could not remember when it was recommended. Perhaps we should have a look at the records.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can I be of some assistance? This Report, the draft Report of the Chairman, namely, the Speaker of the House, was made available to Members of the Committee of Privileges and they had it with them before the last meeting held on 19th January, which was a Monday. At that last meeting on Monday, 19th January, the Member for Potong Pasir was present. The Report of that meeting is set out in the last two pages of this volume (Parl. 3 of 1987), pages E12 and E13. If Members refer to it, they will find that the Member for Potong Pasir was present. And on page E13, the decision is that the Committee agreed and resolved that its Report be agreed to. I also have with me, Sir, the Official Report of the transcript of that meeting. I was a Member of the Committee and I recall (and the transcript bears out) - that the Chairman at the outset of the Committee meeting made it clear that there would not be a minority report and if any Member of the Committee wished to indicate disagreement with the Report or any paragraph of the Report, then the Member must call for a division. And I read from the transcript the words of the Chairman: 'I would like to inform Members that there is no minority report and that no Official Report of the proceedings of the Committee on the Report will be published. If any Member wishes to indicate his dissent in the Report or in a paragraph of the Report, the course for him to take would be to call for a division. For instance, if a Member is against the full Report, then he would call for a division on the Question, "That the Chairman's Report be read a Second time, paragraph by paragraph." Again, if a Member wishes to voice his disagreement with a particular paragraph, he would claim a division on the Question, "That that paragraph stand part of the Report." I hope I have made myself clear.' Those are the Chairman's introductory remarks. Then the Chairman went through the Report, paragraph by paragraph, and it was unanimously accepted by the Members of the Committee and no Member, including the Member for Potong Pasir, sought a division on either paragraph or on the Report as a whole. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Leader of the House is surprised. I am also surprised that, after having indicated assent and had not called for a division in the Committee, the Member now here abstains.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I understand it, we are not debating now on the Report itself. We have come here to approve or not to approve the amount as being recommended at the Committee level. This debate ---

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what is the question before the House? The Question is whether we accept the motion of the Leader of the House to accept the Report. Then we must ask, "What is the Report proposing?" That is covered in page 24 because the Committee of Privileges has made two recommendations in paragraph 6.

3. The first recommendation is: '(a) that Parliament find Mr Jeyaretnam guilty of the offence of abuse of privilege; (b) that Parliament impose upon him a fine of $1000 which is the maximum fine under the Act...'. These are the recommendations of the Committee of Privileges unanimously agreed to, and that is the issue before the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I have said, I do not know whether or not the Minister was reading from the other Report. Which Report are we reading from?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I can help. We are reading from this thick Report (indicating Parl. 3 of 1987). Paragraph 6.3, page 24, which sets out the recommendation of the Committee of Privileges. Has the Member for Potong Pasir got the page? Page 24, paragraph 6.

3. It reads: 'Now that the Committee have found that Mr Jeyaretnam is guilty of abuse of privilege the Committee accordingly recommend:-

Order. It appears that there is nothing in the Standing Orders to prohibit Mr Chiam from abstaining in spite of the stand that he has taken in Committee. At any rate, the Ayes have it. Resolved, That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their First Report contained in Paper Parl. 3 of 1987 and resolves -

Order. I suspend the sitting now and will take the Chair again at 2.30 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.58 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Second Report contained in Paper Parl. 4 of 1987 and resolves -

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, again, I am a Member of the Committee of Privileges. I would like to say that I was against the recommendation for the punishment of a fine $5,000 per letter written by Mr Jeyaretnam. In all, if this punishment is agreed to by the House, Mr Jeyaretnam would suffer a fine of $25,000. What I recommend to the House is just to admonish him. There is such a provision in the law where the Committee could mete out this punishment. So it is not outside the powers of the Committee of Privileges or of Parliament. Again, I would like to make a comment that normally in court where a defendant or an accused person is convicted and sentenced, he must be present. No court will convict a person if he is absent from the court. As far as I know, it is never done. An hon. Member: This is not a court.

Parliament is a court, the highest court in the land. It is regrettable that we are straying away from this practice because it is only fair for the defendant to have a say. I would say that if the sentence is passed or agreed to by Parliament, it is manifestly excessive, $5,000 for one newsletter written in the heat and the pressure and stress of the five-day hearings of the Committee of Privileges under the glare of the spotlight and it was an open public hearing. He had to rush home, gather his thoughts, put it down in writing, get it printed and distributed. I do not know how many copies were really distributed and what damage could have resulted. I think this was left out. Normally, when a sentence or punishment is meted out, it is just either punishment for the offence or sometimes it is as a form of deterrence so that the person will not repeat the offence and to make sure that others do not commit the same offence. But in this case, if Parliament imposes a $25,000 fine on him, it would appear to be a form of deterrence rather than just punishment for the offence. Now, Mr Jeyaretnam is already out of Parliament. I cannot imagine him wanting to report on any of the sittings of Parliament and even on Parliament itself and distribute it to the public. I just cannot imagine that. I do not think he will ever do that. So there is no question of repeating the offence of writing newsletters for as long as he is not a Member. As regards deterrence, I think that is definitely out. For punishment, there must be gravity. What is the gravity? Has he really undermined the system? Has he really created such a national problem? Or is he a security threat to the country? Or is he somebody that has to be punished severely because of some very serious danger to the Parliamentary system in Singapore? What is it actually? They say, "Of course, it is contempt or a breach of privilege of Parliament." A breach of privilege of Parliament can rank from just calling a fellow Member a dog perhaps. We can call that a breach of privilege of Parliament. But in his case they say there is distortion, there is misrepresentation of what he wrote. But again we have to look at the surrounding circumstances. He was not reporting word for word. He had an impression and he reported on it. And for that he is being punished $5,000 for each newsletter written. I think we have to be objective. Let us not lose sight of the offence and what consequences it would bring. So I would urge Members here to give it close scrutiny and to know exactly what they are voting for. If they feel that the punishment is too excessive, then I would say, "Do not be afraid to speak up."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is natural to expect those who seek to become representatives of the people to be persons who place the interests of the people first and foremost. Any person, once elected by the people, must always seek the truth and speak the truth. Without adhering to this fundamental principle, public debate degenerates into a game of deception. How can the public interest be served then? From what the Member for Potong Pasir has said, the debate may be on how much we value the truth. Thus the motion before us is whether the fine of $5,000 per offence is too severe or not severe enough. I think it is worse if we, as a Parliament, do not exercise our responsibility to punish a duly elected Member of Parliament who misrepresents what actually happens in any of our proceedings. It is even more serious when these are proceedings of the highest body in the country, Parliament and its Committees. Can we afford to allow this to happen? If we, as Members of Parliament, do not set the example, then how can we enforce the law? How can we uphold the system? If we allow Parliament to be misrepresented, then the logical consequence is the erosion of public confidence in Parliament. Can we afford the erosion of public confidence in the highest body of the land? If people do not have faith in Parliament, it would not be possible to conduct public affairs and all systems will break down. That is why the action of the former Member for Anson must be dealt with promptly and firmly. There is no other authority in the land that can keep this House in order. It is for us, the Members of this House, to keep our House in order. When any Member has breached Parliamentary privilege and misrepresented proceedings of Parliament or its Committees, it is our unpleasant duty to take disciplinary action. I concur with the Committee of Privileges' findings and support the motion, and urge my fellow Members to do likewise.

( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, permit me to respond to the Second Report tabled by the Leader of the House. We witnessed this morning the recommendation contained in the First Report of the Committee of Privileges that the former Member for Anson was found guilty of contempt of the Committee of Privileges and of Parliament. The essence of his offence lies in his allegation that the administration of the Judiciary is tarnished thereby raising doubts about the sanctity of our laws. He casts aspersions that the Judiciary is being manipulated, influenced and interfered with. However, we all know that the Committee of Privileges in its First Report has totally repudiated all these smears made by the ex Member for Anson as untruths. We are now debating the Second Report of the Committee of Privileges which accuses Mr Jeyaretnam of wilful distortion and misrepresentation of the proceedings of Parliament in his five newsletters addressed to his constituents. The Second Report has vehemently rejected his unfounded allegations. My reaction to both these Reports is that the former Member for Anson was robust enough to challenge our judicial system as well as the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges. I liken him to a bulldozer that crushes anything in its path without realizing that in the process the bulldozer itself might be damaged. The two Reports have now clearly proven that he, Mr Jeyaretnam, like the bulldozer, has become a casualty as a result of his own recklessness. But more importantly, we should attempt to evaluate the quality and personality of the Opposition in this House. Do we need an Opposition of the quality and personality of the former Member for Anson? Do we need an Opposition of the quality and personality that distorts truthful reports? Do we need an Opposition that cannot offer constructive contributions to the proceedings of our Parliament? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there may perhaps be quarters that applaud and consider the former Member for Anson as a political hero. Maybe some regard him as a political hero who can rock the stability of this Government. But we have seen what has been exposed by the two Reports that he is masquerading as a political hero, a political hero masquerading in the name of justice, a political hero masquerading in the name of the sanctity of justice, and a political hero who ostensibly wishes to uphold the pillar of justice. The two reports have clearly unmasked his pretensions and, further, arising out of these reports has emerged a pattern of politics that is blurred and obscured. But what is more important to me is that these reports form an object lesson to our people, especially the voters of Singapore. Do we need an Opposition which, since its entry into Parliament, I think, want to snare the Government but eventually got itself trapped? This brings to memory a folklore in Malay literature. We all know the story of Pak Pandir who was always doing a good turn to others. But because of his ignorance and stupidity, he got himself entangled and finally destroyed. I liken the brand of politics as practised by the Opposition to that of the modern Pak Pandir. Why do I say that this is the brand of politics of the modern Pak Pandir? If Mr Jeyaretnam is a person of modern politics, certainly we must have heard from him cogent arguments. If he represents a man of modern politics, he must possess rational thinking. Again, if he is a man of modern politics, we must have discerned the progressive elements in his arguments, but the two Reports have shown that the arguments he had advanced so far were intended to destroy our present political system. His arguments are retrogressive, lacking in substance. This is what I mean when I say that he depicts the modern Pak Pandir, except that in the course of embarking in politics of this nature the humorous aspects which are present in the folklore of Pak Pandir are absent. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, nobody can prevent the Opposition from continuing to indulge in this kind of politicking. This reminds me of yet another folklore character, Lunchai, who jumped into the river with his pumpkin. If there are people who have a penchant to indulge in the politics of modern Pak Pandir, let them jump into the sea with their pumpkins.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I say a few words? I have listened to the Member for Potong Pasir and I noted that most of his comments were devoted to the question of penalty. But at the same time he also did comment that in his view Mr Jeyaretnam spoke in the heat of the moment and all the surrounding circumstances should be taken into account. This puzzles me because I wonder whether he was also disagreeing with the finding of the Committee of Privileges that Mr Jeyaretnam was guilty. As a member of the Committee, I recall that the hon. Member for Potong Pasir did, during the Committee hearings, express his views on the question of penalty. But on the rest of the Report, including paragraph 32, where there is a finding of guilt by the Committee, the Member for Potong Pasir did not express dissent nor did he ask for a division. I would take it that this afternoon he is not really disagreeing with the finding of guilt. If so, I think he should make it very clear. Secondly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, he spoke about the opportunity to be heard. The fact is that the Committee did invite Mr Jeyaretnam to give his views on the complaint of the Leader of the House. He did send in his written representations and these were considered by the Committee. Finally, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir suggested that the most appropriate penalty would be not a fine but for Mr Jeyaretnam to be reprimanded under the provisions of the Act. If one looks at section 20 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, as amended, section 20 provides for four different types of penalties. First, committal to prison. Second, a fine not exceeding $50,000. Third, suspension. I think that if Mr Jeyaretnam was still a Member of the House, the Committee may well have taken the view that these contempts were so serious as to even warrant consideration of a penalty of suspension. But he was no longer a Member of the House. That is why the Committee considered a fine to be appropriate. As regards reprimand, section 20(1)(d) says that Parliament may "direct that he be reprimanded or admonished in his place (ie, in his place in this Chamber) by the Speaker." But the Member for Potong Pasir must know that the previous Member for Anson lost his right to the seat and this penalty does not arise any more. Mr Chiam See Tong rose -

You have already spoken once on the motion, Mr Chiam. Mr Chiam See Tong resumed his seat.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I suggest that after I have made two points, the Member for Potong Pasir be given the opportunity to say what he wants.

Thank you.

The Member has raised a number of points which my colleague has answered. I just would like to touch on two points. The Member asked whether this offence is serious enough to warrant the recommendation of a $5,000 fine for each of the contempts committed against the Committee. We cannot allow Parlia- mentary proceedings to be treated with contempt, without any respect. We have had many examples of the former Member for Anson treating the proceedings of the Committee as well as this Parliament without the respect that is due to Parliament. Regarding the specific offence of publishing distorted proceedings of a Committee, it is because it is a serious offence that there is a specific provision in the law that there cannot be wilful distortion of anything that a Member says in Parliament or of any proceedings of Parliament or any Committee of Parliament. It is a serious offence, and that is why it is specifically dealt with in the law, and I think that the penalty should not only be punitive but also a deterrent not only to the former Member for Anson but also to others - that they cannot treat Parliamentary proceedings with contempt. Secondly, the Member has made the point, and he made the point again this morning, that it is not fair to discuss the conduct of anybody in Parliament because that person is not here; it is against the rules of natural justice and this never happens in court. Parliament can, of course, choose if it wants to, ie, Parliament as a whole, hear a witness or deal with an offence with Parliament constituting itself into a Committee of the whole House. But there is specific provision in the Standing Orders for Parliament to form this Committee of Privileges to deal with these offences and for people against whom complaints are made to appear before the Committee or to make representations before the Committee. The Committee can hear them, cross-examine them, and then find whether that person is guilty or not guilty and make its recommendation to Parliament as a whole. That is what has happened in this particular case. In the Report that we discussed this morning, the Member had full opportunity. In this Second Report, the Member was asked to explain and he explained and the Committee could have heard him. I do not know whether the Member for Potong Pasir wanted to hear Mr Jeyaretnam. I do not have the record of the proceedings. I assume he did not. Well, Mr Jeyaretnam made his representations. The Committee considered and came to the conclusion that his explanation did not justify what he did, and found him guilty and has recommended accordingly. I think the fine is not excessive. It is, in fact, only one-tenth of what Parliament can impose; it should be punitive as well as a deterrent.

I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point brought up by the Minister is whether or not I agreed with the findings of the Committee that he is guilty. The fact that I had suggested a form of punishment, what does it mean? Can you punish a person without finding him guilty? You are a lawyer. You are a Professor of Law; so I cannot understand why you asked me this question. Again, there are prominent lawyers in this House. There is a practice or custom - or now it is probably made law - that a person who he is about to be found guilty and punished is normally required to be present. This practice was started not only recently. It goes back to English history, probably 300 or 400 years ago. There must be a reason for it. Probably there might be a last minute plea or whatever you want to take note which might change the whole course of this debate here. The English have in their wisdom this procedure because of certain things that may happen at the last moment. You are going to find a person guilty and he is not present here. The world will be laughing at us.

Point of clarification, Sir.

Are you giving way, Mr Chiam?

All right, I give way.

Could he produce authorities such as Erskine May to show us that this is so in Parliamentary practice in the United Kingdom or elsewhere?

I think we are all intelligent people. We are all people of wisdom. Now out of the blue, you want me to produce authorities from Erskine May. I have been reading Erskine May and I have looked at all the footnotes. I do not think we have all those authorities in this Library. Do we have it here? Some hon. Members: Yes.

I have never made research here but I am not sure whether you have authorities in our Library.

The Librarian will only be too happy to oblige.

If you like a copy of Erskine May, the Clerk will produce it for you.

I do not want Erskine May now. I have looked at Erskine May and there are many, many footnotes and references to all the decided cases.

Very confusing.

My point is that we are setting a precedent here and you are going to find a person guilty and to punish him with a fine in his absence. This goes against the grain of every trained lawyer in this House.

Untrained lawyers too!

I know of the trained lawyers but I do not know who are the untrained ones. Anyway, my point is made. It is up to the House whether to take my point or not. If we are going to find a person guilty, he should be present and maybe even given a chance to mitigate or given a lesser sentence. As regards the law, I think there is a provision which says that a stranger can be admonished. This is rather conflicting because when the offence was committed, he was a Member and now he is a stranger to this House. It is a question of interpretation. So we have a moot point there. One point the Leader brought up which I think he wants me to answer is about conduct. Did you want me to answer a point?

No.

Well, thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to speak a second time.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to pursue this point because it will not be fair if we give the impression that we have gone against precedents or rules of natural justice. The Member for Potong Pasir said that we are going against all precedents in imposing a fine on a person who is not here. We would like him to quote the precedents so that we will know exactly where we stand. Erskine May is there. How can we break precedents unless he quotes us precedents? If the Member can quote us any precedent, then maybe he has got a case we can reconsider.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I also point out that it is very convenient to say, when at a loss for argument, that the point is a moot point. The question is: was the contempt by Mr Jeyaretnam committed when he was a stranger, or was it committed when he was a Member of Parliament? If it was committed when he was a Member of Parliament, section 20 applies. If it was committed when he was a stranger, then section 20(3) applies. Quite clearly, it was committed when he was a Member of Parliament.

He is not sitting here now, is he?

Are you going to quote precedents? I will allow you to take the Floor again.

Precedent on what?

The point that the Leader of the House has raised.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since we are quite early in the stage of our proceedings today, perhaps we can take a ten-minute adjournment for the Member for Potong Pasir to come up with a precedent if he wants to avail himself of the time.

I think that is a good suggestion.

It is a very good suggestion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. We would like to know whether he can quote precedents either in the UK or anywhere else where, after the Committee of Privileges has considered a matter and come to a conclusion and makes a recommendation to Parliament, Parliament is required to have the Member against whom a complaint has been made to be present when Parliament debates and accepts the recommendation of the Committee.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I just be allowed to answer that. The precedent which I referred to is a precedent in court, and I said that Parliament was the highest court of the land. I never said Parliament as Parliament. I would say now that I have not looked at Erskine May and come across this kind of precedent. But the important point here is that we ourselves are setting a precedent for future Parliaments to follow.

I will suspend the Sitting now and will take the Chair again at 3.30 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.15 pm until 3.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm

Debate resumed.

The Question is, the Motion so moved by the Leader of the House. Mr Chiam.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what exactly do you call me for?

Mr Chiam, when the House took a suspension earlier on, you were having the Floor and you were asked to come back and give your precedent. So I am giving you the Floor.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have been asked to give a precedent. Assuming I come up with a precedent - this is like playing poker, does he have the card or I have the card? If I have it, what then? Are you going to call Mr Jeyaretnam, or what?

Yes, of course.

Well, I have looked up Erskine May, and I thought I found something in the Australian precedent in 1955 House of Representatives there. But I asked for this report; unfortunately it was not there. What I am going to say is that in 15 minutes' time I am not going to find on all fours, as in Court we say, a case which will fit exactly. But I thought I found something there and it was not in the Library. Maybe more time could be given for research, we could look up the matter. I don't know. In 15 minutes I flipped through the page on Privileges content. Of course, Parliament has powers to call witnesses and there is a provision, as the Minister has said. But as regards precedent on all fours, well, at the moment I do not have it. But I thought I saw something there. Unfortunately, this particular report was not in the Library.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are deadly serious. If it is alleged that we have not followed the law and if he can give us the precedent, we will follow the law. The Member for Potong Pasir said that he thought he saw a precedent, an Australian case ---

I saw something there, please!

Could he tell us which authority or which page of Erskine May this authority is referred to? And what is the proposition of law concerning hearing that this Australian case is authority for?

I thought you would like to call for Erskine May at the Library, please. [Copy of Erksine May's "Parliamentary Practice" handed to Mr Chiam.]

Is this the 20th edition?

Yes.

Perhaps you should call for the copy that I looked at. I made a mark there. It is on page 125. Have you got page 125? You look at footnote 20.

May I ask which particular proposition on page 125 is he relying on?

"For sentences of imprisonment imposed by the Australian House of Representatives in 1955 see House of Representatives Debates."

We are not imposing a sentence of imprisonment.

Yes, that is a sentence. Nevertheless, it is a sentence. We want to see whether there is a need for the defendant to be in the House. That is the point in issue now.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this authority referred to is Erskine May in the Chapter on Committal to Prison. May I ask, where is the authority for the proposition that before the Committee can impose a fine or the House can impose punishment or fine for contempt, we must call the Member or the former Member before us in this House? Where is this precedent?

Please, Professor. Our point here is whether or not we should or should not be calling Mr Jeyaretnam whom we are going to pronounce guilty and on whom we are going to impose a fine. That is the issue before us at the moment. So you are asking me to look for a precedent to say that on all such occasions the defendant must be called, otherwise we cannot impose a fine. Is that not an issue now? But what I am saying is that we are setting a precedent here. To me, as trained in the law, I am giving an opinion, that is, I think that Mr Jeyaretnam should be called. I say yes, you say no; so what? And now you want me to look for a precedent. It takes time, isn't it? I am not sure whether I can find one. But the point I am making is - this is what I think and this is my opinion, and if you does not accept it, as always this House does not accept it, so be it. But what I am trying here is to put a point across. Is that wrong? That is certainly not wrong. I think every Member of Parliament here is entitled to put forth his opinion. And when I put forth an opinion, you say, "Go and look for a precedent." Please. What are we becoming now? We are taking up precious Ministers' time looking for precedents. An hon. Member: You are.

Which normally is done by legal assistants or pupil lawyers. We here are all Members of Parliament. You give us time to go and do research on this kind of thing? I do not know what is becoming of our Singapore Parliament.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are not going through this exercise just to have fun. It is a very serious matter.

What serious matter? Everything is serious to me.

The Committee of Privileges made a Report. It specifically found Mr Jeyaretnam guilty and recommended an appropriate penalty. This Report was circulated to all the Members. The Member for Potong Pasir was a Member of the Committee. So he was aware of the Committee's conclusion and the recommendations long before even the other Members knew. He had notice of the motion that I have moved. He has made out that this is an important point - that Mr Jeyaretnam should be present when Parliament decides. One would have thought that if he thought this was an important point and if he felt strongly, he should have come here prepared to make out a case. Our time is being wasted because he has not prepared himself. He has come here and just shot off an argument. We have asked him to substantiate his argument and as a result we have had to adjourn. He should produce precedents because he says, "We are setting a precedent."

Of course you are.

All right. If we are setting a precedent, it means that we are not following past practice. That is when a precedent is set. Right? We are setting a new precedent, you said. That means we are not following past practice and we said, "Please show us the past practice." I would have thought the Member would have come prepared to make this very important point - that justice has not been done in this House because Mr Jeyaretnam has not been called to appear before this House. Well, it is fair, I think, for him to produce the past practice to show that we are not following past practice and setting a dangerous precedent. An hon. Member: He does not understand the word or meaning of "precedent".

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, where we do not have any precedents in Singapore of our own, we are guided by the practice in the United Kingdom House of Commons. The Member for Potong Pasir has not cited a precedent but may I refer him to page ---

I think you are getting me into a position which I need not be in. Am I not entitled to come to this House and give an opinion? Am I not entitled to? You just answer me on this point.

The Member for Potong Pasir, like all Members, of course, has a right to express an opinion.

Of course.

But where the opinion expresses a view that this House is deviating from a particular procedure or has not followed what the Member considers to be a proper procedure, then the question arises from that Member's opinion, what is the proper procedure? The implication of what the Member for Potong Pasir has said is that there is a proper procedure which calls ---

Where did I say that?

--- for the previous Member for Anson to have a right to be heard in this House before this House inflicts the penalty of a fine. Now I refer the Member for Potong Pasir to page 171 of Erskine May. I read: 'If the committee reports that a serious breach of privilege has been committed, the House usually proceeds to consider the kind or degree of punishment which it would be proper to inflict on the offender.' Then I refer him to page 175: 'A Member not yet adjudged guilty of contempt may return to his place [this of course is talking of Members who are still Members of the House] when debate on his conduct has been adjourned, but it is otherwise if he has been adjudged guilty, even though debate on the question of the punishment to be inflicted on him has been adjourned.' And a precedent is cited therein. And I quote the precedent: 'A request, made through another Member, that a Member who had been adjudged guilty of a contempt, but whose punishment had not been determined upon, might be heard in his place has not been acceded to.' I repeat: 'A request, made through another Member, that a Member who had been adjudged guilty of a contempt, but whose punishment had not been determined upon, might be heard in his place has not been acceded to.' What more of a person who has ceased to be a Member?

So what? He has already been adjudged guilty. Please! Look at it properly. He has been adjudged guilty of contempt. We are going to pronounce it here. He is not guilty yet. An hon. Member: But the Committee has.

We have not moved the motion yet.

The Motion has been moved. Are you replying, Mr Dhanabalan?

It is a very simple point. The Member for Potong Pasir says that Mr Jeyaretnam should be here. We are prepared to have him here if he can tell us past practice and that we ought to follow this past practice. We want to follow the procedures properly. If the Member for Potong Pasir still insists that following past practice would mean that Mr Jeyaretnam should be here, we are prepared to have him here. That is all we are asking. If he cannot make out a case, then I think we should proceed with the motion that I have moved.

One final point, Sir. The Member for Potong Pasir in the Committee never made a request for Mr Jeyaretnam to be called, to be heard in person, either on the charge or on the penalty. I also refer him to page 172 of Erskine May which says: 'In some cases the House, after agreeing to the report, has then proceeded to adjudge the offender guilty of a breach of privilege or of a contempt ... This step, however, is unnecessary in cases where the committee has reported that, in its opinion, the person implicated has been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, or of an offence which amounts on the face of it to a breach of privilege.' And there has been no hearing.

It is neither here nor there.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Second Report contained in Paper Parl. 4 of 1987 and resolves -

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr S. Dhanabalan]. Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes to Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. note - THE CPF MINIMUM SUM ACCOUNT TOPPING-UP SCHEME (Cols. 1063 - 1066)