Hansard, 1999-11-24

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: NameFromTo (1999)(1999) Mr Gerard Ee Hock Kim 24 Nov24 Nov Mr David T E Lim 24 Nov24 Nov Assoc Prof Chin Tet Yung1 Dec12 Dec Dr Aline K Wong19 Dec26 Dec Mr Matthias Yao Chih20 Dec24 Dec TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for Law what action his Ministry will take against those who threaten owners who do not wish to give consent to en-bloc sales.

asked the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry will take action against owners who have neglected maintenance of their buildings in anticipation of en-bloc sales.

asked the Minister for Law what action will be taken to correct the unhealthy trend of greed associated with en-bloc sales which is destroying the community bonding that we are trying so hard to build.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I have your permission to answer the three Questions together, including the Question addressed to the Minister for National Development who has asked me to answer on his behalf as they are all related?

Yes.

Sir, the Member's Questions reflect his concern about recent press reports on en-bloc sales. However, the reports of several en-bloc sale proposals are actually not surprising. The Government first announced its intention to review the need for unanimous consent for strata developments in November 1997. There was considerable interest in en-bloc sales because of the upward revision in the plot ratios. This meant that the land can be redeveloped for a more intensive use, thus increasing the land value. There was a need to move away from the 100% or unanimous consent requirement to facilitate the redevelopment of land to maximise its use and economic potential. Sir, Members will recall that we took time and care in crafting the legislation. The Bill went through a Select Committee and was passed at the Third Reading in this House on 4th May 1999. It was brought into force recently on 11th October 1999. During this 2-year period, those who were keen on selling en-bloc sales were waiting to see the final provisions of the law before proceeding. Therefore, what we are really seeing now are those proposals which had been put on hold during the last 2 years, pending passage of the legislation. Let me stress that while some of the en-bloc sale proposals have been transacted, other proposals are still on tender and are still awaiting a response from interested parties. The Government does not prescribe the sale. It is the choice of the owners. Whether an en-bloc sale proceeds will depend on whether there is a convergence of interests of the owners as well as the buyers where there is a price which the owners are happy to accept. On the specific questions posed by the Member, firstly, as to his question about correcting the unhealthy trend of greed associated with en-bloc sales, obviously, this is a matter of opinion, depending on how one looks at it. To the majority owners, they are simply realising the worth of their assets because of the change in the plot ratio. The higher plot ratio gives them the choice of selling the whole land with a higher premium for each owner than if they were to sell their units individually. Before the amendment on en-bloc sales by majority consent, a small minority, even only one, could block the sale. This often led to strained and acrimonious relationships. For example, in the case of Kim Lin Mansions, which representors in the Select Committee spoke about unhappiness amongst the owners over the blocked sale culminated in a court case. With the announcement of the proposed amendments, the court case was withdrawn, thus avoiding a long, expensive and bitter court proceeding. Secondly, the Member asked about threats against owners who do not wish to give consent. If an owner has been threatened into giving his consent, such consent would not be valid in law. If the Strata Titles Board is satisfied that the consent was not given voluntarily, then the Board would take this into account in determining whether the required level of consent has been attained. Furthermore, those who are threatened could also lodge a police report or make a complaint before a Magistrate for the issue of a private summons for criminal intimidation under the Penal Code. Thirdly, as to his question on the action taken against owners who have neglected maintenance of their buildings, the Building and Construction Authority will take action against Management Corporations and owners who neglect to maintain their buildings or fail to comply with any notice of the Commissioner of Building Control to engage a professional engineer to inspect their buildings for structural safety, regardless of whether the owners are anticipating an en-bloc sale.

Sir, Mr Goh would seem to imply by his question that there are some people who threaten the owners. Is the Ministry aware of any such incidents or not?

No such reports have been received by my Ministry.

"to amend the Fire Safety Act (Chapter 109A of the 1994 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Sir, may I have your consent and the general assent of the House to move that Item 4 on the Order Paper be taken immediately before Item 1, as I have another engagement.

I give my consent. Do I have the general assent of Members? Hon. Members indicated assent. Resolved, "That item 4 on the Order Paper be taken immediately before item 1." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 96, appoints the following as Members of the Committee of Selection: Prof S Jayakumar Mr Wong Kan Seng Dr Lee Boon Yang Mr Lim Hng Kiang Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed Dr Wang Kai Yuen Mr Goh Choon Kang." Sir, with the end of the First Session of the Ninth Parliament in September, the term of the Committee of Selection and the other Sessional Committees had lapsed with it. Parliament has to appoint a Committee of Selection which appoints members to these Sessional Committees. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Sir, may I ask the Leader why has it not been thought proper to have a Mmber from the Opposition in the Committee?Does the House,and the ruling party for that matter,recognise or not recognise that there are Opposition members in Parliament? And if it is going to be a Parliamentary Committee, then all parties should be represented. Why has the Opposition been left out?

Sir, if the Opposition had more Members in this House then, of course, we would not be able to deny them of their opportunity to be represented in this Committee. But this Committee's job is to appoint members to the other Sessional Committees and rest assured that Opposition Members will be appointed to some of the Sessional Committees. If he were to look at the proportion of PAP MPs and Opposition MPs, and if we were also to have an Opposition Member in each of the Sessional Committees, then they would be over-represented.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 96, appoints the following as members of the Committee of Selection: Prof S Jayakumar Mr Wong Kan Seng Dr Lee Boon Yang Mr Lim Hng Kiang Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed Dr Wang Kai Yuen Mr Goh Choon Kang.

Order for Second Reading read. The Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology (Dr John Chen Seow Phun): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the objective of this Bill is to amend the Road Traffic Act (RTA) for the following purposes: (a) To increase the fines for certain offences administered by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) under the Road Traffic Act; (b) To implement tougher measures against motorists against whom there are outstanding warrants of arrest in connection with traffic or parking offences; and (c) To facilitate the operation of an Automated Vehicle Entry Permit (VEP) and Toll Collection System. I will now elaborate on the reasons behind the proposed amendments. Following a review of the penalty system for offences under the Road Traffic Act in 1998, it was felt that the quanta of maximum fines for the offences were generally adequate deterrence, except for 6 types of offences. These are: i. Unlawful alteration of vehicles and trailers; ii. Keeping or using unregistered vehicles; iii. Failure by a resident of Singapore to inform the Registrar of his possession or use of a foreign-registered vehicle; iv. Failure by a registered owner to produce proof of scrap or export within 1 month upon cancellation of registration of a vehicle by the Registrar; v. Making false statements, forging licences, furnishing false particulars; and vi. Using another vehicle mark, plate or documents, forging a mark, plate or document or using them, and driving or permitting an off-peak car to be driven with a tampered or altered supplementary licence. The quanta of maximum fines for the 6 offences were set many years ago . The fines need to be raised in view of the relative severity of these offences and the fact that the number of cases has been rising over the years. To cite some statistics, the number of cases for keeping or using an unregistered vehicle has risen from 69 cases in 1995, to an average of 76 cases each year from 1996 to 1998. During the same period, there was almost a three-fold increase in the total number of incidents involving Singapore citizens, work permit or employment pass holders illegally using Malaysian-registered vehicles in Singapore. The average number of cases of motorists failing to produce proof of scrap or export documents upon cancellation of registration has risen to 11 cases per year from zero cases in 1995. For cases involving the unlawful alteration of vehicles and trailers, there has been a rise from zero cases in 1995 to 9 cases in 1998. There were also 53 cases in 1998 involving forgery of licences and the driving of off-peak cars without valid supplementary licences - approximately a 140% jump in the number of cases handled from 1995 to 1998. The proposed amendments to increase the maximum fines for these offences are thus necessary to check the trend of more persons committing these offences, and will serve as a deterrent to potential offenders. The Government, had on 26th April 1999, announced its intention to implement a package of tougher measures against recalcitrant motorists against whom there are in force warrants of arrest in connection with traffic and parking offences. As of September 1999, there were 39,197 outstanding warrants for parking offences. Together with other traffic-related warrants, a total of 54,604 warrants are still outstanding. These statistics show that a large number of warrants of arrest have been issued because many motorists who have committed parking or traffic offences simply ignore the notices requiring them to appear in court in connection with the offences. Ignoring a notice to appear in court to answer a charge, even when the offence is a relatively minor offence such as a parking infringement, is a grave matter as it shows a blatant disregard for the law. The Government takes a stern view of motorists who do not comply with such notices. Tougher measures will therefore be imposed to ensure that there is effective enforcement against motorists who commit traffic or parking offences and thereafter ignore the notices requiring them to appear in court in connection with the offences committed by them. These measures include not allowing a motorist against whom there is an outstanding warrant of arrest to renew his road tax until he has been arrested pursuant to the warrant or he has surrendered himself, and his case conclusively dealt with by the court. It also includes giving powers to the Police, LTA, Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and Housing and Development Board (HDB) officers to immobilise or seize and detain any vehicle which is registered in the name of a person against whom there is in force a warrant of arrest relating to a traffic or parking offence. Motorists who settle their traffic or parking fines promptly will not be affected by these measures. Our record shows that about 95% of motorists settle their cases by the final reminder. However, warrants of arrest will be issued against those who choose to ignore repeated reminders to pay their fines as well as the notices requiring them to attend court to answer the charges against them. And if they still do not take action to surrender themselves when warrants of arrest have been issued against them, they will face the tougher measures which we intend to implement. Sir, the Road Traffic Act also needs to be amended to facilitate the introduction of the automated Vehicle Entry Permit (VEP) and Toll Collection System, which is targeted to be implemented early next year. The automated system will make it more convenient for Checkpoint users to pay their toll charges and VEP fees, as well as help to speed up the flow of traffic through the checkpoints. Motorists will no longer need to purchase toll coupons in advance before going to the checkpoints. All they need to do is to insert a CashCard or dedicated smartcard with sufficient cash value into a card-reader installed at the immigration booths. The card reader will electronically deduct the toll charges from the CashCard or dedicated smartcard. Motorists driving Singapore-registered vehicles can use the CashCard, which they currently use for paying ERP charges, to also pay for tolls at the Checkpoints. Motorists driving foreign registered vehicles will be required to purchase a dedicated smartcard at the Singapore Checkpoints before entering Singapore. The smartcard, called the Autopass Card, will record the vehicle number, date, time and point of entry of the vehicle. When a motorist leaves Singapore, the VEP fees and toll charges will be computed and deducted automatically when the Autopass Card is inserted with sufficient cash value into a card-reader. The Autopass Card may be used for subsequent trips to Singapore. In other words, when the foreign motorist returns the next time, he will not have to purchase a new card if he has with him the old card. The automated system will cut down the transaction time currently taken for the issue and sale of Vehicle Entry Permits at the Checkpoints. While in Singapore, the motorist may use the Autopass as an ordinary CashCard and enjoy the benefit of cashless transactions. Sir, let me now address the key provisions of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. Increasing fines for certain offences under the RTA The provisions in the Bill which increase the maximum fines for the six offences I mentioned earlier are as follows: (a) Clause 3 raises the maximum fine for the offence of unlawfully altering a vehicle or trailer -

Sir, I would like to speak in support of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill. In principle, I have no objection to the proposed changes of empowering officials to take further action and steeper fines against people with outstanding warrants of arrest. Illegal parking is, of course, causing a lot of inconvenience to many other law abiding drivers. Whatever reasons many of these errant drivers may give, especially when they go and see their MPs, they should be aware of the danger and the inconvenience they are causing to other law abiding citizens. However, I am quite puzzled by the Minister of State's figure just now, when he mentioned that there are 54,000 of such outstanding warrants of arrests. This figure implies that there are such number of people, who have committed traffic offences walking around and violating the orders of the court to attend to such cases, in which case I am wondering whether these measures that we are proposing in this amendment Bill will actually address the issue. If we have 54,000 people with outstanding warrants of arrests, certainly, I think it is a very serious situation for the Home Affairs Ministry to look into. But there again, for such cases, will these measures address the issue? Why is it so difficult to arrest these 54,000 people? I think there are special issues and nature of the offences involved. Therefore, maybe the solution to address the issue of such warrants of arrest may have to be refined and dealt with at further length. If we just look at seizing the vehicles of the offenders at such places including their homes, then my question is: why is it so difficult to find the vehicles of these offenders in their homes and not able to arrest the person but rather to take away the car? I think there may be a need to really look at whether these are appropriate measures. The errant drivers of vehicles who have committed offences need not necessarily be the owners of the vehicles. So, in a case like that, there again you have this problem of trying to adjudicate who is really responsible for the offences, and whether the punishment that is meted out on the owner of a car is really fair. The second point I want to ask is on the introduction of this automated vehicle entry permit and smartcard for drivers of foreign vehicles. I am not clear exactly what the implications are, but I would like to ask how will the foreign drivers, with this smartcard that is issued to them, top it up with cash in Singapore? Is it through the ATMs? Do they have necessary accounts for this? And how will the authority at the Checkpoint verify and pinpoint the smartcard to a car or a driver? I suppose from the explanation given by the Minister of State, the identification is really from a card to a car. Then again, the issue is really not errant cars but only errant drivers. How then do we pinpoint the fault? An errant foreign driver, for example, committing an offence can conveniently leave the payment of the fines or tolls to another driver who drives out to the gate at the exit point. What happens if there are offences where demerit points may be accumulated? Who then is responsible? Perhaps the Minister can clarify.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. However, there are a couple of clarifications and concerns that I have regarding these amendments. The new section 95A confers wide powers to police officers, auxiliary police officers and employees of LTA to immobilise, seize or detain any vehicle of a registered person subject to a warrant of arrest. This power can be exercised against a vehicle found parked anywhere, even on private premises. In the case of such premises, only police officers can exercise the power and then only if he cannot effect an arrest after making a reasonable attempt. The Minister tells us that the default rate for summonses in road traffic cases is high and that provision has to be made in legislation to control the problem. I agree that when the default rate is high, measures may have to be taken to improve the situation. But I think this new provision may unsettle many. The immobilisation or removal of cars can be done even though they are properly parked. 54,000 immbobilised vehicles in Singapore in car parks can give rise to a totally new dimension of what Singapore means by a "fine" city. It also could be done in the person's own driveway and garage. Is such a far-reaching power necessary? One need not have to have a vivid imagination to picture what will happen when a car is immobilised, for example, in a HDB car park or in one's own driveway. Neighbours would be quick to notice that something is wrong. The stock answer may be that if someone is under a warrant of arrest and he does not surrender he must face the consequences, such as social embarrassment. But should all subject to such warrants deserve the same treatment? I certainly hope that such a power be used only in extreme situations and not as the first recourse in a situation where a person against whom a warrant has been issued cannot be found. In the case of those who disobey the law frequently, I have no doubt that the use of this law would be appropriate. Where a person is intentionally avoiding arrest, one can understand the need for stern action. But not infrequently, there are occasions when, due to some circumstance, such as a change of address or failure to effect proper delivery of the notice of summons, a warrant of arrest may be issued. Members of this House, I am sure, have come across cases where the person against whom the warrant is served does not understand the terms of the warrant at all. The notice is usually worded in legalese, that is to say, in English legal language, which is, to a layman and sometimes even to a lawyer, quite incomprehensible even if he knew English. In such cases, perhaps the Minister can clarify whether there will be an opportunity given to defaulters to answer the warrants before such overt actions are taken against him. I should like to know whether there was any consideration given to a more graduated enforcement of such sanctions. What I mean is whether the Ministry has considered the need to distinguish between those who have been habitually ignoring warrants of arrests and those who are subjected to the process for the first time. Is there a possibility that the legislation could be improved by specifying that these sanctions should only be applied, for instance, to cases where there is habitual disobedience to notices of summons? Sir, the proper treatment of offenders in a just society requires the principle that the punishment must fit the crime. It also follows that in bringing the offenders to justice, we are not seen to take what may be viewed by the public as excessive means, especially when the perception of the public, as the Minister conceded just now, may be that traffic offences, other than the moving offences, may not be regarded as serious offences. Moving next to the provision concerning the giving of notice to a person about the immobilising or removal or detention of vehicle, it is interesting to note the contrast between the means of giving notice through this Bill and the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill that will be considered later. In the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill, the persons affected may be informed through four means: delivering the notice or document to him, another adult member or employee of his family, leaving it at his last known business address, sending him a registered letter to his business address or any address furnished by him, and if any of the above cannot be done, through notification in the Gazette. Under the present Bill, in the case where a vehicle has been detained, the service of notice is only through the post sent to him at his usual or last known place of residence or business in Singapore. It is difficult to see why the notice requirements in the Road Traffic Act, which covers more serious offences, should be less than those in the Parking Places Act. If anything, there should be a higher standard of notification, as more serious offences are involved. This requires further thought given the consequences of the seizure. It is provided, for example, that after three months if the person had not been arrested or surrendered himself, the vehicle may be disposed of by auction or in such manner as the Deputy Commissioner of Police or the authority thinks fit. This may deprive the person affected of one of his most substantial assets besides his flat. I should like to ask the Minister to clarify whether the difference in the notice procedure is intended and why the notice procedure is not as elaborate as that stated in the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill. Sir, with these few points that I hope the Minister can clarify, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my concern arises out of clause 6 and clause 9 of this Bill. But clause 6 really alarms me. I see that by clause 6, a person who has been arrested pursuant to a warrant may be refused a vehicle licence renewal, as the Minister puts it, even if he has not been tried and his guilt determined by the court. This reverses the presumption which perhaps, to some extent, is being eroded in Singapore today. It reverses the presumption that any person who is accused of any offence is innocent of the offence until he has been proved to have committed the offence to the satisfaction of a court. But here we have a proposal that even before the court tries the offender and pronounces him guilty of the offence, he should be punished by not allowing him to renew his licence. That, I find very alarming and, as I have said, it tends to reverse the presumption. It assumes that this man or woman is guilty of the offence which he or she stands charged. It is also undesirable for the reason that it may act as a compulsion for the person to plead guilty to an offence charged simply to get the vehicle's licence renewed. Compelling someone to plead guilty is, as I have said, very undesirable and I think it may even be an offence under the Penal Code if the police try to compel anyone to plead guilty. So I do urge the Ministry to reconsider the provision in clause 6 and see whether it should be made law. It is an important principle of law, and I hope that it is accepted by the Ministry of Law and the Ministry of Home Affairs, that the presumption of innocence should not in any way be dented in Singapore. On the other hand, it should be strengthened. So I have very grave reservations of clause 6 of the Bill. I think it should be taken out completely. If the man has been arrested and a date has been fixed for his trial, which I take will be the case, he will be on bail, compelling his attendance for the trial, then no action should be taken until the decision of the court is known. That would be the civilised way of proceeding. Then there is clause 9 which seeks to insert a new section 95A. Prof. Chin has raised a number of questions on this and I would endorse my support of what he said, and say that it may result in penalising members of the family who may be using the car, where the person who is registered may not be available. He may be out of the country for all we know. But the members of the family may be using the car and they may need the car. Is it the intention to penalise the family who is using the car to put compulsion on the person who has absconded or is evading arrest? That again, may I say, is an undesirable principle. It smacks of the collective punishment theory which was applied in Malaysia during the years of Emergency and was strongly criticised, not only in Malaysia but outside Malaysia, for punishing members of a village or community because of the wrongdoing of one or two members of the community. I see that the power to release the vehicle is given to the Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner of Police or the Registrar. But it would appear to me that the Magistrate's hand is tied in that the clause goes on to provide specifically that he may refuse to release the vehicle unless the man surrenders himself to a police officer. There again, it is a form of compulsion that is being used and in the result punishing somebody else. Finally, on the question of the 54,000 warrants of arrest. Has the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology inquired from the Ministry of Home Affairs or the police officers how diligent are the Police in executing warrants of arrest? What would be the position if the police officers, through shortage of manpower or for whatever reason, suddenly forget about the warrant of arrest, which is lying on the shelf somewhere, and they have not made any attempt to execute it? Are you going to require, first of all, the Police or whoever is authorised to execute the warrant to say what attempts have been made, and in what manner, to execute the warrant of arrest? If not, the owner or driver is being punished for something that the Police have not done. That again is totally unfair. I would therefore ask the Ministry to reconsider this Bill again, particularly the two clauses (clauses 6 and 9) of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, may I raise two concerns for the Minister of State. The first relates to the new penal powers under the Act, and the second relates to the automated system for Causeway traffic. The first concerns the penal powers under clause 9. Singaporeans, as we know, are very attached to their cars. No matter how much we raise the prices, etc, they want them, and the car prices therefore have raised themselves. And we should be very concerned about powers that use the cars as pressure points to solicit the payment of fines. Let me turn my attention particularly to the new section 95A, subsections (9) and (10). As I read them, these clauses would actually allow the Police to detain and then auction a vehicle for failure to pay fines. A further understanding is that these powers would be invoked once there is a warrant of arrest. The threshold for this warrant of arrest may be as low as a single parking offence. And as the Minister of State himself has mentioned, there are currently 54,000 warrants of arrest. That is a lot of cars to auction. This is a very serious power to punish and it can be, I would argue, onerous and unjust. This is primarily because under the new subsections 95A(9) and (10), the notice of auction is merely in the Gazette. The Gazette, of course, is a formal official way of giving notice of things, but it is not read very commonly. In other words, the fact of an auction may not be well known, and this might lead to a paucity of people who would bid for the car, and this might drop the value below what is a fair and market rate. This is certainly the experience in other countries, and in other forms of execution of court processes in Singapore. I understand, of course, that these matters must be taken seriously. People who do not pay their fines should not get away scot-free. But I would argue that there needs to be a balance between the legitimate interest of the State and the sanctions we wish to enforce. There needs to be a balance between the quantum of the fines, just still relatively small though, they keep going up all the time, and the values of the cars which are one of the largest assets any Singaporean can claim. My next concern on the same issue is on the effect of third parties. Here I do not mean the families so much, but people with a legitimate commercial interest in the car. Because car prices are so high, most of us owe tonnes of money to the bank or the hire purchase company. They take the car as a security for their repayment. May I ask the Ministry whether these rights would be preserved if there was an auction? And if there is a shortfall, because the auction price is low, and the company is short of money to recoup its loan, what happens then? I would ask the Minister to reconsider the provisions of penalties, first, to have a higher threshold before these detentions and auctions are exercised. Let us use it only for those who are really recalcitrant. Secondly, to reserve a price for the vehicle. This need not be done by amendment but can be done by practice in the auction. So at least it ensures that a fair market value, par values and years of depreciation, etc, are taken into account. Let me move on to my second concern. This is for the automated system for cars that come across the Causeway. I would just like to ask the Minister of State whether in the short term at least, there are ways to ensure that the shift to the new system would not add to the Causeway jams and will not affect the ease at which our Malaysian neighbours can visit us and our tourism. I mention this because obviously we do not like the same thing when we go to visit Malaysia. When there are new notices and new forms to fill, and we do not get them, we feel very inconvenienced, and I would not like the same to happen to our Malaysian neighbours.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Members for their support of this Bill. First of all, let me clarify that the authorities have been taking action against offenders, and let me give you some of the measures that have been taken. MND, for instance, in 1994 introduced a set of measures to reduce the large number of outstanding warrants of arrest for parking offences at URA/HDB car parks, for example, by clamping the vehicles of motorists with outstanding warrants of arrest for URA/HDB offences, if they were found contravening parking regulations at the car parks. The Police also carries out regular operations to locate and arrest these offenders with outstanding warrants of arrest for traffic and parking related offences. Further, the Police has put in place stringent mechanisms at immigration checkpoints to detect and arrest these motorists. So this also answers Mr Jeyaretnam's point about whether the Police has been diligent in their enforcement actions. Even with all these measures, the problem did not go away. In April this year, the Government announced its intention to introduce tougher measures. In fact, in July this year, URA and HDB introduced a new measure which would deny such motorists the renewal of their season parking tickets if they purchase these season parking tickets for parking in public car parks. All these measures are actually part of a comprehensive set of measures that we are putting in place now to tackle the problem. So what we are seeing here today is the rest of the measures that will be put in place. And why are we taking this comprehensive approach? Let me say that under the current system, motorists are already given ample opportunities to settle their fines. Let me describe the procedure for settling a parking composition fine. Let us say an original notice was issued on day X. First reminder will be sent half a month from day X; second reminder will be sent by registered post one-and-a-half months from day X; final reminder will be sent three months from day X; court summons will be sent by registered post four months from day X; and warrant of arrest will be issued six months from day X. As Members can see, there really is little or no reason why errant motorists do not take action after so many reminders. It is not justifiable to claim unfamiliarity with the system after so many reminders. We know, as MPs, residents come to us with summonses and ask us to help to either appeal for waiver or reduction of fines. They know that they are in the wrong and yet some of them simply ignore these reminders. So what is needed is a strong signal to motorists that they must be prompt in taking responsibility for committing traffic and parking offences by settling their fines. If they are responsive, it would save them from the inconvenience of the more stringent measures which we are putting in place now. And it would also save the time and resources of the various enforcement agencies in issuing summons, reminders and warrants of arrest. Prof. Chin is concerned that immobilising a vehicle can be unsettling to the public and he asks whether it is necessary. The aim of these stringent measures is precisely to make owners realise the importance of settling their offences quickly to avoid facing such a situation. Motorists should realise that they cannot blatantly disregard notices to attend court that are served on them. So the issue really is the blatant disregard for the law. Sir, let me address the other points raised by Members. First, Mr Chay asked why is it that you cannot arrest a person at his home, and why do you need to resort to detaining or seizing the vehicle. As I said, there are limitations to the resources that we have, and the numbers are just increasing too large. So there is a need for more effective measures. Mr Chay is questioning whether it is effective. But, obviously, the rest of the Members think that it is very severe. So we think that it would be effective. And when we talk about seizing the vehicle, it does not mean that you need to seize it only in the homes. For LTA, the area of jurisdiction will be the roads and the public parking places. For the Police, because Police has jurisdiction also in private premises, therefore, they can arrest the person, and they can seize or immobilise the vehicle in the homes and other areas under their jurisdiction. Members also raised a point on how do we differentiate the driver from the owner. Let me say that there is a current procedure. The current procedure is that whenever a person commits an offence, usually the vehicle number is recorded, and the authority will write to the registered owner and ask whether the offender is the registered owner or somebody else. So if it is somebody else, then by law he has to furnish the information and the Authority will go after the offender. Therefore, there will not be a problem because if the registered owner is not the offender, his vehicle will not be targeted. So it is as simple as that. Mr Chay also asked about the VEP. VEP violations will not result in demerit points. So the question of whether it is the driver or owner will not arise. What LTA will do is that it will recover any fines or unpaid fees from cars upon exiting the Checkpoints. So it is very much like a parking system. For the foreign motorists, we will not be able to tell who the registered owner is. So what we will do is we will go after the person who drives the car because he has to leave the country at some point in time, and that is where we will go after him. But of course if he just drives in Singapore without going out of the country, we have a system to track that because the vehicle entry permit is only given for two weeks. After two weeks, if he does not go and renew the vehicle entry permit, we will go after the vehicle which may be somewhere in Singapore. Sir, Prof. Chin Tet Yung brought up the difference in delivering notices between the two Acts. Let me inform him that in the amendment, this is in new section 95A(7) where it mentions about the means of delivery. But this is not the only means of delivery because if you refer to section 131 of the RTA Act, it also mentions about the other means of delivery. So if you compare the two Acts, the only difference is that, in the PPA, the additional means is by way of publication in the Gazette plus also the serving of notices to an employee of family. So he is right in the sense that it is slightly more elaborate for PPA. But the other means are all there. Therefore, we believe that both notice serving procedures provided in both Acts are adequate to enable the effective discharge of the law. Sir, let me now turn to Mr Jeyaretnam's point. He is concerned about clause 6 and also the immobilising, seizure and detention of vehicles in clause 9. He thinks that this is against presumption of innocence. I do not think so. The authorities are given powers in discharging their responsibilities to do certain things. For instance, if LTA suspects that a car on the road is not safe, LTA has the power to detain the car. So these are the powers that the Government is asking Parliament to provide to the relevant authorities to ensure that they can carry out their functions properly. I do not think that we are presuming that the person is guilty before the court trial. So my point is that the whole objective of this amendment is that we should not allow people to disregard the law and that they should show respect for the law. It is actually contempt of court if they just ignore the court orders and the warrant of arrest. So what we are doing here is to put in place an effective means whereby the various agencies can effectively carry out their functions. Again, if Members are concerned about whether family members would be using the cars, and so on, let me say again that the idea of the Bill is to ensure that the person settles the warrant of arrest speedily. Because all he has to do is to surrender himself to the police and he would be given bail and the Authority will release the vehicle. So it is not as if we are going to detain the vehicle for a long period of time. All he has to do is to simply surrender himself. Members have also expressed the concern whether the Authority would be trigger-happy. Let me say that the Authority will first employ other means and seizing the vehicle will in a sense be the last resort. We would not be going out and start clamping vehicles, as some of the Members have feared. Because of the limitation of resources, there is good reason for the authorities to target those recalcitrant offenders first, as Prof. Chin has mentioned, and thereafter, extend it to the rest if they continue to ignore the warrants. Mr Simon Tay raised a valid point about the notice of auction in the Gazette and whether people will know about the auction. Gazetting is to provide the legal cover for the auction. But I do agree with him that we can actually do other things like publishing it in the papers, and so on, to make sure that more people will know about the auction. He also mentioned about credit companies or hire purchase companies. Legally, these vehicles rightly belong to them. Therefore, they can actually approach the Authority and if they can prove that the vehicles belong to them, the vehicles would be returned. Finally, Mr Tay mentioned about the Causeway jam. In my speech earlier, I mentioned that the system will actually help to reduce the jam. At the moment, when foreign vehicles come into Singapore, they have to pay for the entry permits. Whereas in the new system, they just put the card into the card reader. This process is in parallel with the immigration process. If they do not have a card, of course, they will have to purchase it. But, as I said, it is only once off and it would not be worse than before. Presently, they have to purchase a permit. Sir, I think I have addressed most of the questions.

By way of clarification and without being disrespectful to the Minister of State. I wonder whether he really understood what I was saying about the presumption of innocence. I do not get that impression that he understood it. This clause would suggest that the person has been arrested pursuant to the warrant of arrest issued against him. If he is arrested, he is brought to court and perhaps punished for not turning up and then released on bail to face trial for the offence for which he was arrested. The presumption of innocence is that that man or woman in front of the court is innocent of the charge until the court pronounces that he or she is guilty. Therefore, no action should be taken by any Ministry pre-empting the decision of the court and seeking to punish indirectly either the person or any other member of the family or other persons. That is exactly what I was trying to convey. The presumption of innocence before the trial and no one should pre-empt the decision of the court.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have explained that by immobilising his vehicle, we are not presuming that he is guilty. In many of our law enforcement actions, we inconvenience individuals. The police have powers, for instance, if they feel that you have committed an offence, to detain you for certain hours and then they charge you in court. So are you saying that by detaining the offenders in the remand prison, it is presumed that they are guilty? Obviously, not.

May I answer that? They are in the remand prison because they cannot post the bail that has been offered to them. That is the only reason they are in the remand prison, or because certain offences are not bailable. It is something quite different from the subject that we are talking about.

The police can do so if they have reason to believe that they want to perhaps do certain other investigations, and so on. The powers are given to them to do that and there is no presumption of guilt here.

Mr Speaker, may I ask three points of clarification briefly. The first was that in the Minister of State's reply, he suggested there was a division between registered owners and drivers. I understand the general position. May I ask the Minister of State whether this will also apply for parking offences. In other words, if a vehicle XYZ is parked in a certain spot but the offender is not the owner, does it mean that that car will not be seized, detained and auctioned under the powers so long as the driver is different from the registered owner? The second clarification I wanted to make was that I am gratified by the assurances about the auction. But does it mean that the Ministry and the Authority are taking on a duty to have an open and fair auction? I mention this because in certain US cases, from all these advertisements you can buy a Porsche for $50. It may not be true. But what they mean is that these auctions are so badly attended that the price drops dramatically. Is there a duty on the Authority to ensure a fair market price if there is an auction? The third point of clarification is simply on my point about the Causeway problems. I do take the Minister of State's assurance that they will improve things in the long term. My point was simply more about the short term implementation. Will we ensure and, I think we always do, give sufficient notice to the other side?

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I also clarify with the Minister: of these 54,000 warrants of arrest, how many of such errant drivers are actually owning their vehicles.

Just two points of clarification. First, the Minister mentioned very limited resources in relation to the execution of warrants. How limited are they vis-a-vis the 54,000 outstanding warrants? And the second point is that he mentioned that there are some who are more recalcitrant than others in terms of the warrants of arrest. Does he have the breakdown of how many of these persons who are subjected to warrants of arrest are first-timers, and how many are really those who are habitually disobeying the summonses?

The short answer to Mr Chay and Prof. Chin is that I do not have these figures with me on how many are recalcitrants, how many are first-time offenders, and how many are owners of vehicles. I also do not have the number of persons that the Police deploy for such enforcement. Mr Simon Tay asked a few questions. On the Causeway jam, the purpose of the exercise is really to speed up the clearance, not just for the long-term but even for the short-term. And as I mentioned, if you were to compare the automated procedure with the current procedure, you can expect improvements because we are doing through electronic means. As I said, the smartcard will be used and reading of the smartcard is in parallel with the immigration clearance. On the fair market value for the cars, the Government has a duty to ensure that the vehicles are auctioned off because the Government cannot keep the vehicles forever. So that is why we are asking for the power from this House to allow the Government to dispose of the vehicles. And when you dispose of the vehicles, what is a fair market value? How do you actually determine that it is a fair market value? As far as the responsibility of Government is concerned, we have to ensure that reasonable means are employed to publicise the auction but there will still be people who say, "I do not know about the auction." Because of that, can you say it is not a fair value? Publication in the Gazette is one means and it also fulfils a legal requirement. The other thing that we can do, as I said, is to publish in newspapers and ensure that more people will get to know about it. Finally, owners versus drivers. I am not so clear about this point. If it is a parking offence, I believe that we will probably go after the car owner. Otherwise, I foresee a loophole here. In other words, a person who has committed an offence can say that it is somebody else who does not own a car. I believe, subject to confirmation, this is the case.

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. - [Dr John Chen Seow Phun]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 1.50 pm The Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology (Dr John Chen Seow Phun): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the objective of this Bill is to amend the Parking Places Act (PPA) for the following purposes: a) to transfer to the Land Transport Authority (LTA) the power to provide suitable public car parks for vehicles; b) to extend protection from liability for Assistant and Deputy Superintendents of Car Parks; c) to add a general provision to cater for the future implementation of an Electronic Parking System; and d) to empower the Superintendent to immobilise or remove any vehicle which is parked in a public car park and which is owned by a motorist against whom there is an outstanding warrant of arrest in connection with a traffic or parking offence. Sir, let me now address the key provisions of the Parking Places (Amendment) Bill. First of all, clause 2 of the Bill repeals and re-enacts section 4 for the purpose of transferring the power to provide public car parks for vehicles from the Minister to LTA. Currently, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology approves and gazettes the Parking Places Order which designates new HDB and URA car parks, and prescribes the parking charges for them. Generally, new Parking Places Orders are processed and gazetted once a month. To streamline the procedures and processes, the power to provide public car parks will be transferred from the Minister to the LTA. Public car parks will be designated by a parking sign planted on site, in lieu of a Parking Places Order. The prescribed parking charges will be displayed on the parking sign. The certified car park plans will be available for public inspection. The power to approve parking charges will remain with the Minister for Communications and Information Technology. Clause 5 seeks to confer on the Superintendent protection from liability for the loss of or any damage to any vehicle parked in any parking place, or for any injury or death suffered by any person in any parking place. With the amendment, the Assistant and Deputy Superintendents of Car Parks, who are HDB and URA staff, will enjoy the same level of protection in discharging their duties as staff from the Land Transport Authority. Currently, the Parking Places Act only protects the LTA and the Government from such liabilities in the parking places. Clause 6 seeks to cater for the future implementation of electronic parking systems. Clause 8 empowers the Superintendent to immobilise, or remove and detain any vehicle which is parked in a public car park, and which is owned by a person against whom a warrant of arrest is in force for a traffic or parking offence. The Superintendent will release the vehicle only when he is satisfied that the owner of the vehicle has been arrested, or has surrendered himself to a police officer, or the warrant of arrest in force against him has been cancelled by a court. The definition of the term "warrant of arrest" in clause 8(d) covers any Warrant of Arrest issued by a court against a person in connection with an offence committed by this person under the Road Traffic Act, the Parking Places Act, and the rules made under these Acts. This is to ensure effective enforcement against motorists against whom outstanding warrants of arrest are in force. As highlighted earlier in my speech on the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, the large number of outstanding warrants of arrest is a matter of serious concern as it shows that enforcement against motorists who have refused to settle their offences has not been effective. Tougher measures are necessary to send a signal that there must be respect for the law, and that motorists who commit traffic or parking offences must be responsible enough to either compound the offences when given the opportunity to do so, or to attend court in relation to the offence when required to do so. Clause 9 enables the Superintendent to serve on a person any summons, notice, order or document required under the Parking Places Act or its rules, by publication in the Gazette, if the Superintendent is unable to ascertain the person's usual or last known place of residence, after reasonable diligence is exercised. In conclusion, the proposed amendments to the Parking Places Act will enable URA and HDB to take tougher measures against motorists against whom outstanding warrants of arrests are in force, by immobilizing or removing their vehicles at parking places. Taken together with the proposed amendments to the Road Traffic Act, enforcement action against such motorists will be tightened. This will ensure that there is proper respect for the law, and that the massive backlog that the courts are currently experiencing will be cleared. The proposed amendments will also streamline the operations involved in designating HDB and URA car parks, and facilitate the work of the Superintendent in issuing summonses and notices to offenders. Car park Superintendents will also be granted protection in the course of discharging their duties. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. I only have a couple of concerns. The Bill confers the Land Transport Authority to provide for parking spaces in Singapore. Clause 2, proposing the new section 4 subsection (2), states that the Authority is under a duty to ensure that in the provision of such parking spaces, it should not unreasonably prevent access to premises or use of the roads by others. The provision of such spaces should also not be a nuisance to any person. I should like to ask the Minister whether the difference in language between the repealed section and the new proposed section is intended. In the repealed section, the provision of parking spaces should not be a "nuisance". It is proper to interpret this word most likely to refer to public nuisance, that is, the Authority can provide parking places unless such provisions become a public nuisance. Of course, as it stood, the word is ambiguous enough to include private nuisance but this is by no means well-established in case law. The new provision states "nuisance to any person". I wonder whether this is intended to allow any person adversely affected to complain and possibly to bring an action against the Authority to remove parking places that cause a nuisance to him or others like him. Perhaps the Minister can clarify what is intended in this change in the language of the section. In other words, is it intended that a private person can bring a private nuisance action against the authority? This would, undoubtedly, I am sure, complicate the general provision of car parks in Singapore. For example, HDB residents staying next to car parks may complain about the nuisance of listening to squeaking brakes and squealing tyres as vehicles make their way through these car parks. Can they now apply for an injunction to stop the use of the car park until the Authority has installed a surface that would not be so noisy? It would be good if the Minister of State could clarify this aspect. The Bill also includes a provision that refers to the situation dealt with in the earlier Bill that was just passed, namely, where a person is under a warrant of arrest, his vehicle may now be seized by a Superintendent. The inclusion of such a provision in the Parking Places Act, of course, means that even in the case of illegal parking, the person against whom a warrant of arrest is issued can have his vehicle immobilised, seized and even sold. Again, I would like to draw attention to the fact that there is some unease that no distinction is made in the Bill between those who habitually ignore summonses and those who may be going through the process for the first time. Sir, the legislation that we are considering today, in my view, does not really deal with the root causes of why there is so much illegal parking, especially in the new housing estates. The provision of multi-storey car parks in favour of open car parks in the new housing estates means that even medium height goods vehicles have difficulty finding parking space at a reasonable distance from their flats. An even more acute problem relates to heavy vehicles. Very often, heavy vehicle parks are some distance away from the main housing areas. That is understandable because the noise from these vehicles early in the morning may be regarded as a nuisance. However, it is also true that many of these vehicle owners were compelled to park illegally because of the lack of public transport that would take them to their vehicles very early in the morning. I hope that as the Authority is now in charge of the provision of car parks, it will work together with HDB, URA and the public transport companies to rationalise the provision of parking places in Singapore. Provision of suitable parking places is, of course, important. Making sure that the owners of vehicles can get to them in time is equally important, if not more. I hope that the Minister of State can address these problems before using the criminal law that can have such adverse effects not just on the drivers or the owners of vehicles but also on the families concerned. Sir, I support the Bill but implore the Ministry and the Land Transport Authority to take the necessary steps to perform their statutory duties of providing good and convenient parking places in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill, but wish to highlight two clarifications for the Minister, especially with regard to new section 4 where the Land Transport Authority is now given powers to provide suitable parking places for vehicles. Recently, with the introduction of new enforcement measures in the central business district (CBD), there has been feedback about the problems faced, specifically, by courier companies and those who provide such despatch services, and there are two points here which I would like to raise. One is with regard to operation and the other the perception of fair play and equity. First, it is important to recognise that in any major city like Singapore, it is important to have the services of very efficient courier service providers to move documents, parts and samples from place to place within the central business district. This is a crucial and very essential part of our infrastructure. The current legislation requiring couriers to park their vehicles only at designated lots is, at best, very inconvenient. They could park at the basement, leave their vehicles and part of their products behind, and move to a few floors upstairs, pay their parking charges and all that. It is going to be very inconvenient. It certainly has affected the productivity of a lot of these courier companies. If you can understand that as very important and essential, then I would like to ask the Minister to consider whether he would have a scheme whereby certain public parking lots can be provided in front of buildings as such essential services can be provided to facilitate these people to go about doing their work. We could charge a flat fee to allow certain companies who provide such services to participate in a programme, because they are parking their vehicles all around the central business district the whole day. I think we could do more things to refine and facilitate such services, and I hope the Minister of State would consider this carefully. Secondly, we will find issues of competition. Singapore Post, CISCO and somehow people like Telecom do provide services which sometimes can be considered in direct competition with private courier companies. But here, there is a problem because sometimes people feel that the enforcement agencies are more lenient when they see a CISCO van in certain parking places compared to other courier companies, for example. And I think this is very unhealthy because if quite clearly they do only critical and essential jobs, that is fine. But what is more difficult is that these companies do more and more commercial businesses, in direct competition with other commercial companies. I think the level of enforcement, the level of fair play of these people who are authorised to do that and how they carry out the job between CISCO and Government-related companies vis-a-vis private companies must be taken with care. Sir, I hope the Minister of State can assure this House that in discharging such responsibilities, proper care is taken that some of these companies are not unnecessarily disadvantaged or targeted in the course of doing their work. I hope the Minister can clarify these two points.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I answer the specific questions, I would just like to clarify the point I made earlier in response to Mr Simon Tay's question about parking offences. He asked what would happen if the owner was not the person who committed the offence. At the moment, the law does allow the registered owner to clarify upfront that he is not the one who committed the offence. Of course, if he makes a false declaration, then the law will go after him. Firstly, let me address Prof. Chin's point about the nuisance issue. We have consulted the Attorney-General and his view is that the word "nuisance" in the original section 42 of the Parking Places Act is unqualified. So it is wide enough to cover both public and private nuisances. The new section 42 refers to causing a nuisance to any person. Words in the singular include the plural, under section 21 of the Interpretation Act. This means that the amended wording should be read to refer to nuisances caused to any person or persons. Therefore, we do not think that the amended wording would create any different consequences compared to before. But I thank Prof. Chin for expressing this concern. If there is any problem that we face later on, we can always come back to Parliament and tighten the law. Secondly, he also asked whether trivial offences like illegal parking would necessitate such measures. Again, let me say that the Bill does not only target at illegal parking offences. In fact, it covers all Road Traffic Act-related offences plus Parking Places Act offences. And so long as a person against whom there is an outstanding warrant of arrest, the Superintendent of Car Parks can actually immobilise his vehicle in his area of jurisdiction. Therefore, we must look at the amendment in that regard. Parking provision is a separate issue. At the moment, there is no shortage of parking places island wide. In fact, in the new towns, HDB and URA have car park planning norms, and there is generally no shortage. But, of course, he mentioned about the problem of heavy vehicles. Again, nation wide, there is no shortage of heavy vehicle parking places. Yes, heavy vehicle owners want to park right in the centre of the town, but there are land constraints to cater for that kind of demand. We have interim heavy vehicle parks near the estates, but this is a separate issue and the Government is in the process of looking into how to tackle this problem in the long term. Having said that, this does not give them the right to park illegally and, therefore, any illegal parking will be dealt with according to the law. Mr Zulkifli talked about the despatch services in the CBD and asked whether public parking lots can be created. He is aware that there are bays, lanes or car parks where despatch service vehicles can be parked and, where possible, there will be car parks provided along the roads. But we have to bear in mind that the CBD traffic is very heavy and therefore if we were to allow indiscriminate parking or to set up car parks along some of the roads, then the impact to the traffic can be very adverse. So, much as we like to help them, there are the other greater objectives, in other words, to keep traffic free flowing and ensure that there will be no danger to other road-users. I would urge that the despatch services abide by the law and park legally. As for his comment on Singapore Post and CISCO having an advantage over the other courier companies, this is something that I am not aware of. If he has any specific example, he can bring it to the attention of the enforcement agency. I think the law treats everybody equally.

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. - [Dr John Chen Seow Phun]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 2.15 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to provide for the registration and enrolment of nurses, the registration of midwives and for matters connected therewith, and to repeal the Nurses and Midwives Act (Chapter 209 of the 1985 Revised Edition). It will enhance the regulatory role of the Singapore Nursing Board to allow it to discharge its functions more effectively and to ensure higher professional standards of conduct and practice. There have been major changes in the last 25 years in the training of nurses, the practice of nursing and the types of nursing services in Singapore. To maintain a high standard of nursing, there is a need to update the Nurses and Midwives Act. Let me briefly describe some of the major changes. Traditionally, nurse training in Singapore was hospital-based under an apprenticeship scheme. The Singapore Nursing Board's role then was to set the training curriculum and to conduct the examinations. Today, the training of nurses and midwives is part of the mainstream educational system with registered nurses and midwives trained in the Nanyang Polytechnic. The enrolled nurses will soon be trained in the Institute of Technical Education. The Nursing Board's role will therefore have to be changed accordingly to ensure that nursing standards are maintained and that nurses have the skills to meet the changing healthcare needs in Singapore. Over the years, the role of nurses has evolved in tandem with the advances in medical science and technology. Many nurses today are highly skilled, with more than a quarter possessing advanced qualifications in various clinical specialties. As at December 1998, 42 nurses are already designated as "nurse specialists" in their hospitals. Hence, there is a need to guide the development of advanced nursing practice and to ensure the proper use of the title "nurse specialist". Despite the gradual increase in the number of nurses in Singapore, it is still not sufficient to meet the needs of our expanding healthcare service. To protect public safety, measures are needed to prevent persons making use of the situation to indulge in unqualified nursing practice or to employ unqualified persons as nurses. My Ministry aims to prevent such occurrences by empowering the regulatory role of the Nursing Board. Provisions in the Nurses and Midwives Bill Let me now highlight the major new provisions that are being introduced in this Bill. Constitution of the Nursing Board The present Nursing Board consists of 17 members, of whom six are ex-officio members and another 11 are appointed by the Minister for Health. The size of the Board is about right. However, to widen the representation and to change some of the titles and terms that have become obsolete with time, clause 3 establishes a Nursing Board with three ex-officio members and 14 appointed members. The ex-officio members are the Director of Medical Services, the Chief Nursing Officer and the Director-General of Education or his representative. Of the 14 appointed members, 11 must be nurses and the remaining three need not be nurses. Clauses 6 and 12 allow the Minister to appoint the Chairman and the Registrar of the Board. Clause 4 provides for the removal of an appointed member from office if the member, for example, is found guilty of infamous conduct or is absent without leave from three consecutive meetings of the Board or its committees. This is similar to the provisions in the Medical Registration Act (MRA) and the Legal Profession Act. Functions of the Nursing Board Let me now turn to the functions of the Nursing Board. In devolving the training of nurses to educational institutions, the existing functions of the Nursing Board to determine and provide for the training and examination of student nurses are no longer relevant. Hence, these functions are deleted. Additional functions are included in clause 8 to enhance the role of the Nursing Board in: (a) accreditation of formal nursing courses; (b) regulation of training and continuing education for nurses and midwives; and (c) regulation of the scope of nursing practice. This is to ensure that nurses continue to receive appropriate training, keep abreast of advances and developments, and provide safe and competent nursing care to patients. Registration of nurses and midwives Sir, let me now move on to matters concerning registration. Currently, a nurse who has stopped working for more than 10 years is required to successfully complete a retraining and competency assessment programme before the nurse could be registered or enrolled to practise again. This is to ensure that the nurses and midwives are updated in practice. Clause 15 allows the Nursing Board to provisionally register or enrol such nurses to undergo the retraining and competency assessment programme. Another new provision in the Bill is the issuance of Practising Certificates. This is to enable nurses to show proof of current registration, including the type of conditions imposed on registration whenever required. With the issuance of practising certificates, the existing provisions for removal of name if the nurse fails to pay the annual fee or has ceased practice will be deleted. The Bill also provides for a person who is refused registration by the Board to appeal to the Minister. Register of Nurse Specialists With the advancement of medical science, there is a corresponding move towards specialisation in clinical nursing practice. It is necessary to monitor the development of advanced nursing practice and accredit "nurse specialists". Part 5 provides for the formation of a nurse specialist register and the issuance of nurse specialist certificates. Cancellation of registration or enrolment The existing Act allows the Nursing Board to cancel the registration or enrolment of nurses who, for example, have been found guilty of professional misconduct or are deceased. In addition, the Bill provides clauses to allow the Nursing Board to cancel the registration or enrolment of nurses who failed to comply with the conditions as stated in their registration or who failed to renew their practising certificates for a continuous period of time. The Bill also contains provisions for the Nursing Board to restrict the practice of a nurse whose fitness to practise is impaired due to health problems. Appeal The existing Act only allows for a nurse who is aggrieved by the Board's decision to de-register her to appeal to the High Court. Clause 21 will allow for a person who is aggrieved by the Board's decision to impose any of the prescribed disciplinary penalties to appeal to the courts. Restoration of name Clause 23 provides for a nurse whose registration or enrolment has been cancelled by the Nursing Board, to only apply for restoration of name onto the register or roll after a minimum period of three years. Disciplinary procedures Presently, the Board is required to consider complaint letters and decide whether they should be further investigated. This is cumbersome as it slows down the investigation of complaints. The Bill will provide for the formation of Complaints Committees that will investigate into complaints and report the findings and recommendations to the Board instead. New Offences I had mentioned earlier about preventing persons from indulging in unqualified practices and the employment of unqualified persons as nurses. In order to maintain nursing standards and to protect public interest, such unqualified practices will be considered as offences. However, as the intent is not to penalise innocent acts, exceptions are made for persons such as doctors, other healthcare professionals, persons rendering emergency help or home carers who render nursing care. The present penalty for each offence under the Act is a fine not exceeding $1,000, except for failure to surrender the registration certificate, where the fine is a sum not exceeding $500. The Bill increases the present penalties from $500 to $1,000 and from $1,000 to $10,000. Consequential and other minor amendments The Bill also proposes consequential changes as a result of the amendments I have earlier described, other minor amendments to delete obsolete terminology and to update the existing provisions. Mr Speaker, Sir, the nursing profession has undergone significant changes over the years. The role of nurses has grown in scope and complexity with the advancement of medical science and technology. As the standards of any profession are dependent upon the quality of its practitioners, the profession must ensure that nurses are properly trained and highly competent, and that their professional development is promoted. This Bill will help to achieve these objectives by empowering the Nursing Board to safeguard both the high standards of nursing practice and the interests of our patients and the public. My Ministry has actively sought the views and support of the Singapore Nursing Board, the Singapore Nurses Association, and the senior nurses from all hospitals and institutions during the preparation of the Bill. They have made some suggestions on the operational procedures which my Ministry will take into consideration when preparing the Regulations. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand to support the Nurses and Midwives Bill. This new Bill is much more comprehensive in comparison to the old revised Nurses and Midwives Act of 1985. This new Bill will more aptly address the new and changing trends in many areas of the nursing field. Sir, I would like, however, to raise a few of my concerns in this Bill. Clause 3 provides for the establishment of the Singapore Nursing Board as a body corporate and constitution of the Board. Clause 3(2)(a), (b) and (c) spells out the members of the Singapore Nursing Board. Sir, I feel that here we should include as a member the President of the Singapore Nurses Association. It is more appropriate to have the representative of the voices of the nursing profession to be in the Board. This will give weightage to the Singapore Nursing Associations, to recognise them and to acknowledge their contribution. Clause 3(2)(d) specifies that 14 members are to be appointed by the Minister. Under this action, I have three points to make. (1) I feel that we should have a provision for the recommendations from the Chief Nursing Officer, public and private health care institutions and the Singapore Nurses Association. (2) The Nurses Registration Board in New South Wales has 13 members, most of whom are nurses but three are lay persons, out of which one is a lawyer nominated by the Minister and two are nominated by the Minister as representatives of consumers. Sir, the benefit of having people outside the profession is that it allows a wider spectrum of views, perspectives and objectivity. I think this is a good idea and should be considered by the Government. (3) There is no specification on the number of members from the public and private sectors. In the past, the majority of the members are from the public sector. As there are about 30% of nurses or about 3,827 nurses in the private sector, it would be reasonable that this clause caters for at least four members from the private sector. Clause 6(1) provides for the appointment of the Chairman of the Board and it states that the Minister shall appoint one of the members as the Chairman of the Board. In my opinion, the Minister should appoint a registered nurse as the Chairman of the Board. In the past, this has not been the case with the Singapore Nursing Board, as the Directors of Medical Services have been the Chairmen. The appointment of a registered nurse as Chairman in the Nursing Board is adopted in countries like Australia, New Zealand, England and America. This is logical and would be in line with practice in the other professional bodies. Clause 17 deals with the general provisions for registration and enrolment. Clause 17(5)(b) states that the Board may refuse registration or enrolment where the applicant is, in its opinion, not of good reputation and character. This subclause is too brief and open to subjective opinions, as there is no relevant yardstick. A test of relevancy should be applied, as for instance, "not of good reputation and character which renders him unfit to be practising as a nurse or midwife." Sir, in this area we may find some useful provisions from the equivalent Australian Nurses Act 1991. Now, the Australian Act defines "professional misconduct" and "unsatisfactory professional misconduct" as being two instances where there can be a cancellation. For the purposes of the Act, professional misconduct, in relation to an accredited nurse, means unsatisfactory professional misconduct of a sufficiently serious nature to justify the removal of the nurse's name from the Register. For the purposes of the Act, unsatisfactory professional conduct includes any of the following:-

Sir, the initiative to introduce new provisions relating to the establishment of the Singapore Nursing Board, practising certificates and the registration of nurse specialists is a timely move. As we adopt a "step-down" strategy of health care delivery from hospitals to the community, the need for clear regulations for managing good practices becomes critical. We need community nursing skills that focus beyond the epidemiological factors of illness and address the many life aspects of the persons who are ill. We also need nurses specialists for patients with special needs like cancer and mental illnesses. In the light of this expanding scope and expectations of the nursing role due to changing demographic trends and the diversity of demands arising from more educated patients, I am in full support of this Bill. Furthermore, I would urge the Board to immediately conceptualise a Nursing 21 national action plan to articulate the visions, goals and guidelines of nursing for the new millennium. To me, nurses form a significant resource that we must develop. The Bill, however, is silent on a number of issues which I feel could minimise the effectiveness of the Board in servicing the needs of the community. Allow me to highlight a few. On membership of the Board, in Part II, clause 3, I would like also to echo Dr Neo's call for the President of the Singapore Nurses Association (SNA) to be a committee member. The Association is the only professional body consisting of 3,000 nurses who could clearly articulate the interests and concerns of the profession as well as challenges faced by patients. It is also the most legitimate vehicle to process policy and professional matters relating to medical management. The lack of such a provision for the President to be present and to present the views of the professional body is, in my regard, a lost opportunity for the governing Board in getting the relevant feedback from the practitioners in the field. What is the percentage of representation of nurses from the private sector on the Board? Should it be consistent with the 30% of nurses in private sector currently, meaning appointing at least three members out of 14 members in the committee? What about the 21% of foreign nurses in our total corps of 15,000 nurses? Should their interests be represented in this Board by a nominated Permanent Resident nurse? If their inclusion is not deemed necessary at a formal level, I hope the committees formed subsequently, as indicated in clause 10, will have representations from the private sector. Apart from meeting the condition of fair representation, by adopting a more inclusive membership policy, the Board helps to draw together the professional groups from the private and public sectors to a common understanding in matters relating to salary, competence, service standards, among others, in order to regulate nursing practices, benchmark service standards and avoid excessive disparities and inequities between nursing groups. Ultimately, it is in the interest of the public that we uphold the dignity and morale of the nursing community. Does the Minister, to again emphasise and stress Dr Neo's point earlier, see the appropriateness of appointing a highly qualified registered nurse as the Chairman, or at least assuming the position of a Co-Chair? The argument for this is plain enough that he or she being in the nursing profession for years, will have the competence to assess the needs of the sector. Part II, clause 6(1) is silent on this matter, whereas previously, the Director of Medical Services always assumed the position of the President. I noted yesterday that in the Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore Bill, a provision was made in clause 31 that the Minister may appoint a Deputy Chairman. Can such a provision be also included in this Bill, if the idea of a Co-Chair is not acceptable? On the mechanism of appointment, can the Minister clarify what are the criteria for selection and will he accept nominations from the SNA, for example? I mean, can a mechanism be set up whereby professionals nominate their candidates for Board governance to ensure that at least one or two are admitted to articulate nursing needs in different medical settings? Could the Bill be specific in delineating the number of formal representations from different nursing sectors among the 14 committee members? This brings me to the definition of "nurse" and "nurses specialists". In Part IV, clause 26, the Act defines "qualified nurse" as a registered or enrolled nurse who holds a valid practising certificate authorising him to practise nursing. From what I observe, the word "nursing" is sometimes nebulously broad, referring to someone who has a certified and approved degree usually dressed in white uniform, in contrast to another who is para-professional who executes the nursing functions without having a degree or being in white uniform. The nurses in private clinics are one such example, as I was told. It is hence expedient, and I fully support the Ministry for its timely initiative in streamlining the definition in order to avoid abuses and mis-application. However, in view of our aging demographic trends and the low number of nurses in training facing a high challenge in attrition rate over the years, the nursing profession will need a wider network of support from non-certified assistants to deliver home nursing services. Especially in community nursing, the definition of who is and who is not a "nurse" can sometimes be inexact. During the Budget debate this March, I called for the development of a network of para-professionals under the supervision of certified senior nurses through the Singapore Nurses Association. My call arises from the practical concern of an increasing need for taking care of the old. Although we can count on home carers, who would primarily be daughters and daughters-in-law, this may not be a sustainable solution. One reason is that women want to work outside the home, and the second reason is that they are not trained in the task of nursing. The kind of nursing services older persons need fall into a continuum from one end demanding very specialised care from "nurses specialists" to those at the middle level who simply need routine health care assistants to attend to bed sores, for example, and those on the other, who only want "nursing aides" to carry out basic physiotherapy routines to upkeep their body capabilities. When no accidents and death occur, the difficult task of "naming" escapes us. When a disaster does occur, how is the person who does not call himself or herself a nurse but carries out nursing tasks which result in maiming or killing the patient, judged or sentenced? Given a broadening in the scope of nursing aides at both community and hospital care, it may be useful that the Singapore Nursing Board establishes guidelines on a registration and accreditation scheme to identify, recognise and regulate a broad range of nursing roles and practices. Could the Bill include a section on Advisory Guidelines on registration of health care assistants other than "qualified nurses"? Do we need to sort out these terms like "para-nurses", "home nursing assistants", "nursing aides"? The other common term is health care worker or assistant. In view of these concerns which I gathered from the nursing community, I urge the Minister to review once again Part IV on "Offences", specially clauses 26 to 28. On the matter of accreditation as spelt out in clause 14, can the Minister clarify if correspondence courses obtained by already certified nurses from an allegedly good university which our Government also sends nurses to are recognised by the Ministry? I heard from the Singapore Nurses Association that the recognition was not given. Can we review and broaden the system of accreditation to include a larger number of approved institutions abroad and at home, and accept modes of learning from long distance correspondence course to part-time basis? The community already facing limited nursing power could thus benefit from continuing nursing support at the same time being managed by higher level competence learnt in the process. In the spirit of pursuit towards a knowledge-based economy and in promoting lifelong learning, I urge the Board in future deliberations on accreditation to cast a wider net to capture the motivations and skills of many individuals who due to personal and unique circumstances learn and upgrade in diverse ways. One last point. In a recent address at a press conference reported in the papers on 19th November, Minister Lim Hng Kiang said that he would like to see family doctors adopt a lifelong training attitude and upgrade their skills by continuing medical education through a Masters or post-graduate diploma course. I am totally in support of his visionary call. I urge the Minister to also seriously consider continuing education within a specified number of hours to be mandatory in the nursing and midwife profession in order to uphold quality delivery services by attuning the practitioners to fast changing information and technology in the medical and nursing sciences. Due to the increasing diversity of nursing work, the development of new sophisticated concepts of care, and the nature of professional practice which increasingly demands the acceptance of responsibility and accountability, the role of nurses and midwives has expanded considerably. In response, the pressure for higher qualifications will be inevitable. I recommend that such a mandatory training provision be made under clause 44 to prescribe a certain number of hours per year for mandatory training. This initiative would develop a new confidence within the nurses and midwives community. I would also urge policy consideration being given by the Board on matters relating to remuneration and recognition packages attached to training depth and specialisation to ensure work and pay equity. I hope this piece of legislation will extend, not limit the practice of nurses; that it serves as a platform for policy formulations that enable nurses in fulfilling their potential in policy making and decision making at all healthcare levels.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank both Dr Lily Neo and Mdm Claire Chiang for their support and their very comprehensive comments on the Bill. Let me take their comments on the various clauses in turn. First, on clause 3 on the composition of the Singapore Nursing Board. There are two approaches that we can go by defining the composition. One is a general approach as we have done, and the other is to define in specifics who should or who should not be a member of the Board. We have decided to go for a general approach. But I can assure Members that in nominating or appointing the members of the Board, we will consider a wide representation of views. For example, the President of the Singapore Nurses Association may not be defined as a member of the Board in the Bill, but traditionally that person has been appointed as a Board member. So it is a question of whether you want to define it or leave it in the appointment process to make sure that there is this wide representation of views and the people who are appointed come from both the public sector as well as the private sector and from the different fields of nursing, whether they are nursing midwives or psychiatric nurses, so that it is broad enough to make sure that the Board can discharge its duties effectively, ie, to set the standards and to regulate the registration and enrolment of nurses. Similar comment on the Chairman of the Board. I agree that there are some pros and cons in defining whether the Chairman should be a registered nurse and that is the reason why we have made it broader. Previously, the Director of Medical Services has traditionally been the Chairman of the Singapore Nursing Board. Personally, I do see great advantages in having the Director of Medical Services as Chairman of the Singapore Nursing Board as opposed to insisting that the Chairman must be a registered nurse. But in this Bill, we have broadened the scope and therefore it is entirely possible that the future Chairman can be a registered nurse or he can continue to be the Director of Medical Services or indeed any other person who can lead the Board effectively. Let me also clarify that the function of the Board is essentially to regulate the registration and enrolment of nurses. So we are not setting up the Board as a representative to look out for the salaries, conditions, practices, etc. So we want to appoint people who have the qualifications to regulate the registration and enrolment and the practice of nursing. Therefore, although we want fair representation, this is not a trade union committee which must have representatives from every group to make sure their interests are taken care of. Let me next deal with clause 17 where Dr Lily Neo commented about the definition of what is good reputation or good conduct. This provision is a fairly standard provision in all the professional Acts, whether it is the legal profession, engineers, etc. There is always this clause which says persons must be of good reputation and character. I think we do have a fairly good understanding of what that means. In the case of the nursing profession, in fact, this is outlined in the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct which is issued by the Singapore Nursing Board in March this year. And the definition which Dr Lily Neo pointed out is very much included in this code. So I think basically we are talking about the same thing. Secondly, Dr Lily Neo also asked whether in not registering a nurse because of overseas regulatory practices, would we make an effort to find out the reason why an equivalent overseas regulatory body did not register the same nurse. I think this is the current practice. If the Singapore Nursing Board decides not to register somebody because that somebody did not receive registration overseas, we would find out the reasons. In not registering the nurse, we would also give the reasons to the applicant why her registration is not approved. It is not possible to outline all these in specific details in the Bill. The Bill is intended to set out the general provisions and the details would be in the subsidiary regulations. Members can be assured that the best practices will be maintained. Clause 22 deals with the term that the conviction is final and conclusive. Let me clarify that this is to be seen in conjunction with clause 19. We have this clause 22 which says that any conviction for a criminal offence is final and conclusive. If somebody is convicted by the courts, we will take that as a starting point and treat that as final and conclusive. But then the Board itself, when deciding whether the application is to be registered, will take this conviction and consider whether the nurse is fit to be registered as a nurse. So the criminal offence is just taken to be final and conclusive and then starting from that point, we will assess whether that offence has any relevance to the registration of the nurse. The final criterion really is whether the nurse is fit to be registered. Clause 23 is regarding the three-year de-registration period. This is to make a distinction between suspension and de-registration. The Bill provides for a range of penalties. If the offences are not so severe, then of course the Board can impose a period of suspension and the maximum period of suspension is two years. And therefore anything more severe than that which requires de-registration must obviously be above two years. So the minimum period for de-registration is stipulated as three years. Dr Lily Neo also questioned whether the term "due diligence" requires a higher level of care than reasonable diligence. My understanding is that both have similar connotations and, that is, that somebody must take proper and due care in making sure that whoever is practising as a nurse or who purports to practise as a nurse is duly qualified. Let me now turn to the whole issue of nursing specialist. I agree with both Members' comments that with advances in medical technology, there will be a greater role for nursing specialist within our system. The provision in the Bill provides for the setting up of a nurse specialist register. We intend that the details of that register to be set out in subsidiary regulations and not put in the main Act itself. Because it is still in its early stages. We have to decide how we want to set out the criteria for determining the different categories of nursing specialists, whether they require Masters degree or years of practice or different post-graduate qualifications. All this will be stipulated in the subsidiary regulations. The next area which is critical and very important is the whole idea of registration and how to prevent people who do not have the qualifications from practising as nurses. I agree with Mdm Claire Chiang that, with an ageing population, we need a wider range of health care and nursing care people to look after the different levels of care. What this Bill intends to do is only to set out the criteria for registering and enrolling nurses. So this Bill does not cover the other areas of health care personnel, such as care givers, health care assistants, etc. The Bill is strictly defined to cater for the registration of nurses. In the Bill itself, the definition of who constitutes or who will qualify as a nurse is clearly spelt out. For the other para-professionals who are involved in caring for the elderly, we will have to deal with that separately. Finally, on the topic of continuing education and upgrading, I agree with the sentiments that nurses should keep up with what is going on in their profession. It is our intention to make the avenues for continuing education and upgrading as accessible and easily available as possible, so as to encourage all our nurses to continue to upgrade. We will assess whether this needs to be mandatory in due course, in the same way as the Singapore Medical Council is putting in place a mechanism for continuing medical education. We will do the same for the Nursing Board, and whether to make it mandatory, we will cross the bridge in due course. A final comment on correspondence courses. Although I am in favour of everybody upgrading, in the field of nursing where really a lot of the skills are hands-on, I would have some reservations in liberally accrediting correspondence courses. I think correspondence courses make sense for nurses who want to upgrade themselves in terms of care management and nursing administration. But for purposes of being a clinical specialist, I would have some reservations on correspondence courses. But we will review the whole scheme of where and how our nurses ought to be trained and putting the details of the accreditation to the Specialists Register.

I would like to thank the Minister for his vision that best practices will be maintained in the implementation provisions of this Bill. May I ask the Minister whether he will appoint several lay persons to be in the Singapore Nursing Board so as to allow broader views, perspectives and objectivity?

My apologies. The Bill does provide for three members of the Board to be non-nurses and it is our intention that that three persons will represent the lay public.

I would like to inform the Minister that the President of the Singapore Nurses Association has not been admitted to the Board for the last five years and therefore, I would like him to look into this matter. The second point is whether he will please comment on the request for a Deputy Chair being a certified nurse if he thinks the Director of Medical Services should assume the position of Chairman.

If I may just add my voice to Dr Neo's and Ms Chiang's in the matter of the Chairperson for the Nursing Board. We have talked a lot about promoting nursing as a career and engendering pride in the profession and if, in fact, the Ministry would consider a registered nurse as Chair of the Board, it would be such a clear and much appreciated indication of the Ministry's faith and confidence in the leadership capabilities of the nursing profession.

I do not want to belabour the point. Basically, the main criteria for appointment to the Singapore Nursing Board must be the qualifications of the person himself rather than who he or she represents. But as I said, in making sure that the composition of the Board represents a wide section of the nursing profession, we will, of course, draw members from the public and private sectors, the Singapore Nursing Association, different types of nursing profession, etc, and we will send the right signals to the nursing profession that the Board would represent and be the appropriate Board which is competent enough to regulate them. On the specifics, the President of the Singapore Nursing Association was a member from 1993-1996. She is not a member in this current Board, but we will consider the qualifications of the President on its own merits. For Deputy Chairman, that is another flexibility which the Minister has. If the Minister thinks that there is a need for the appointment of a Deputy Chairman to increase the effectiveness of the Board, I am sure that the present Minister and future Ministers will take that into consideration.

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 Lim Hng Kiang]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.30 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.06 pm until 3.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm

This motion is subject to signification of support by at least one Member. Does the motion have the support of any other hon. Member?

I support.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House recognises the importance of the Rule of Law and urges the government to ensure the complete and full compliance of the Rule of Law by all Ministers, officials and public servants. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I assure those Members of the House who perhaps are asking why is the Member always raising issues that are ---

Point of order, Sir.

Yes. What is your point of order?

I believe the NCMP has changed the words of the motion and has not given notice of it.

Mr Jeyaretnam, in the motion that you have submitted, I think the Member is referring to the word "observance". You have used the word "compliance".

I see. I am sorry.

Can I ask you to stick to the original words?

Thank you, I will. Thank you for pointing that out.

Please proceed.

Sir, I beg to move, That this House recognises the importance of the Rule of Law and urges the government to ensure the complete and full observance of the Rule of Law by all Ministers, officials and public servants. I was saying, Sir, that I assure those Members of the House who perhaps are asking themselves why is the Member introducing the subject on which we have heard enough, and do we have to listen again to the same thing. May I remind the Members that the subject is not about any abstract value. It may be intangible, but is more valuable than any tangibles. The rule of law is what sets a civilised society apart from other societies that do not observe the rule of law. So it is not an abstract airy-fairy rule that is propounded or shouted out by left wing liberals, but it is something that is so fundamental in any society that believes itself to be a civilised society. I do not think I have to make a strong case on the first statement that the House recognises the importance of the rule of law, because we have had, many a time, Ministers declaring how Singapore scrupulously obeys the rule of law. So there is an admission that Singapore scrupulously recognises the rule of law. The Government often talks about having the fundamentals correct, and they pride themselves that in Singapore the fundamentals are correct and laid down. May I say that the rule of law is the first basic fundamental for any society. It is the only guarantee of the subject's freedom. Without the rule of law, the subject lives in a state of uncertainty and in a state of bewilderment and consequently of fear. But where the rule of law obtains in all its fullest extent, the citizen can live happily, breathe freely, knowing that he is ruled only by the law and not by anything else. Under this rule, citizens are ruled by the law and the law alone. We have had, only this afternoon, the Minister of State saying that it was important to send a strong message to those who blatantly and flagrantly disregard the law. My party says amen to that. The question is: is the Government exempt from this scrupulous observance of the Rule of Law? And that is what the House has to decide this afternoon. I have no doubt what the outcome of this motion will be. But what this House has to ponder is whether the Government in Singapore disregards the law, or is it only its citizens who refuse to attend and answer court summonses? We have to ask the question whether in Singapore it is a society that lives under the rule of law or whether it is a society that lives under a government that acts by decree rather than under law. It is a question that we have got to face and answer. Is the society in Singapore a civilised society living under the rule of law? Or is it a society more akin to a society ruled by a Mafia? I know these are strong words but the question has to be asked and answered. If the rule of law does not obtain and citizens cannot live in the certainty that all their actions will be judged only by the law and by nothing else, and they will only be punished by the law and not by any arbitrary power on the part of the Minister, it is no better than a dictatorship, where a dictator rules by decree. May I quote to this House what one of the finest writers from Africa and a Nobel Laureate, Mr Wole Soyinka, from Nigeria, wrote in his book The Open Sore of a Continent. And these are his words, "Under a dictatorship, a nation ceases to exist. All that remains is a fiefdom, a planet of slaves." How true those words are. If it is a dictatorship, ruled by decree, then it is no longer a nation but a fiefdom. May I also inform the Members that the proposition of the rule of law that it is an absolute fundamental and necessary before citizens can live in peace and freedom is not something new. It is not a novel concept. Its origins can perhaps be traced back to the 13th century when the English Barons met at Runnymede to curtail and to restrict the powers of the Monarch. Before that, the Monarch was ruling at will, doing what he wished and restricting the liberties of his subjects. And so the Barons gathered to put an end to this rule by the Monarch without any law and they passed a number of declarations. These declarations were later accepted by the Monarch, Henry III, I think, and came to be known as the Magna Carta, the great Charter. And clause 39 is revealing. One can see the origins of all our recent declarations in this clause, and if I may read clause 39: "No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disused or outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed nor will we send upon him except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." They are laying down, telling the Monarch that no free man shall be taken, exiled, his liberty destroyed in any way except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. Clause 40 says, "To no one will we sell, deny or delay right or justice." As I have said, they were embodied in the Great Charter issued back in the time of Henry III at the request of the Barons and became a foundation for the society in England. One of the reasons why despite the Government's assertion, often repeated, that in Singapore the Government observes the rule of law scrupulously and it is seen in its fullest extent, and the critics saying something quite the opposite, that there is no rule of law in Singapore today, may be due to a misconception as to what is meant and understood by the Rule of Law. Therefore, it is important that we try and understand what we mean when we say of the Rule of Law. I see the mentor of the leaders of this Government, Confucius himself, recognised the importance of giving things their correct names. He was asked by a disciple, "What will be your first task if you are given the charge of a country?" His answer was, "Rectify the names." When he was asked to explain, he was reported to have said, "If the names are not correct, if they do not match realities, language has no object. If language is without an object, action becomes impossible. Therefore, all human affairs disintegrate, and their management becomes impossible. Hence, the very first task of a true statesman is to rectify the names." So the need to try and name things properly is recognised by Confucius himself. Perhaps I should try and say something about what is understood by the Rule of Law. This term, the Rule of Law, came into prominence when Prof. A. V. Dicey, a Vinerian Professor of English law, propounded it. He saw the Rule of Law to consist of two main parts. "One, the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the Government. Subjects are ruled by the law and by the law alone. A subject can be punished for a breach of law but they can be punished for nothing else." He continues: "In this sense, rule of law contrasts with every system of Government based on the exercise by persons in authority of wide arbitrary or discretionary powers of constraint." That is the first meaning of the Rule of Law.

Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, would you return to your seat? Mr Jeyaretnam resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before Mr Jeyaretnam continues with his lecture, may I just move the exemption motion to give more time.

All right.

Resolved, That the proceedings on the remaining item on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Debate resumed.

You may continue, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Thank you. The second sense of this meaning of the Rule of Law is that every subject, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals. Every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen. He adds a third sense, which is that, Rule of Law is part of the common law and has been propounded by judicial decisions rather than by any written constitution. He is speaking of course of England of the United Kingdom. But he continues to say that in developing countries, this has now been incorporated into their written constitutions. So it has in our Singapore Constitution. As I have said once before that when we decided to break away from the British rule, we nevertheless decided, all political parties gathering together and deciding as a people, that we will opt for the Westminster style of Government and for the institutions that were applicable in England and, of course, as they were applicable in Singapore at that time. The common law had been imported into Singapore in the 19th century and the institutions of Government followed exactly the Westminster style of Government. So we decided that we would have not any other system. This was a deliberate conscious choice of the people made through their political parties before the delegation went to London. And as I have said, the present Senior Minister was, of course, a member of that delegation. Now, we have a Constitution. These principles of the Rule of Law are to be found in our Constitution. They are there. They are no longer dependent upon judicial interpretations and declarations of the Rule of Law. It has become part of the Constitution. The Constitution, as I have said, is an act of the people. It is the people's charter. It is the charter by which the people have bound themselves to live together as a society. So we find these principles of the Rule of Law in our Constitution and they are to be found - I am not going to read them for want of time - in Articles 9 and 12 of the Constitution. There are also other Articles. They are all to be found in Part II, I think, which enacts the fundamental liberties of the people. But the most important ones are Articles 9 and 12. One also has to understand what is meant by the term "law" in the phrase "Rule of Law". In a case that went up to the Privy Council, in the case of Ong Ah Chuan versus the Public Prosecutor, concerning the question whether a certain provision in an Act (I think it was the Misuse of Drugs Act) was contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, it was argued for the Government of Singapore that the Act was not contrary to the Constitution because it had been passed by Parliament following the procedure set for the passing of law by the Constitution. So it had been regularly passed and therefore that was law, and that was all that we had to look at. The Privy Council had no hesitation in rejecting that - to confine law just to written law passed by Parliament or the legislature. Lord Diplock, delivering the judgment of the Privy Council said this: "In a Constitution founded on the Westminster model and particularly in that part of it that purports to assure to all individual citizens the continued enjoyment of fundamental liberties or right, references to law in such context as 'in accordance with law', 'equality before the law', 'protection of the law' and their like, in their Lordship's view, refer to a system of law which incorporates those fundamental rules of natural justice that had formed part and parcel of the common law of England that was in operation in Singapore at the commencement of the Constitution. It would have been taken for granted by the makers of the Constitution that the law to which citizens could have recourse for the protection of fundamental liberties assured to them by the Constitution would be a system of law that did not flout those fundamental rules. If it were otherwise, it would be misuse of language to speak of law as something which affords protection for the individual in the enjoyment of its fundamental liberties and the purported entrenchment by Article 5 of Articles 9(1) and 12(1) will be little better than a mockery." So law is not just the Acts passed by Parliament but the fundamental rules of natural justice that have been accepted and become part and parcel of the common law and which, as they say, and which I have been saying, was the law in Singapore in operation before that. I was talking about the misconception. And it comes to my mind that sometime in the 1980s when I was in this House, there was a debate on the Internal Security Act. I said then that the provisions in the Act providing for detention of persons under an order of the Minister was a blatant negation of the Rule of Law. I said there was no question about it, because it blatantly disregarded the fundamental rules of natural justice. The then Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Chua Sian Chin, in replying asked: "Is the Member trying to say that the Internal Security Act is not law? It was not passed properly?" There you have the misconception. Even an Act of Parliament can violate the Rule of Law. It can violate the Constitution and that is specially provided by the Constitution which says that any Act which is inconsistent or contrary to the Articles of this Constitution shall to that extent be void. And further by Article 162, it enjoins the Government and the courts to modify, alter and interpret Articles in any law so as to comply with the Articles in the Constitution, if that law seems to conflict with anything in the Constitution. So it is no answer to say, "Oh, we have the law, and that is it." The question is whether that law itself violates the Rule of Law as understood through the centuries. That is the main question. I think I have said enough to try to define what we are talking about when we say the Rule of Law is supreme and what is meant by the Rule of Law. I must now proceed without any further delay - I see time is running on - to list what I see to be the instances or examples of the violation of this fundamental principle of the Rule of Law in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, after I have listed them, I shall proceed to set out what I think the Government should do immediately, and then return back to this list of violations to try and explain how they violate the Rule of Law. The first on my list of the examples of violation of the Rule of Law is, of course, as has been asserted by us many a time, the arrest and detention of persons without trial purely on the arbitrary power invested by Parliament albeit, on the Minister. A person in Singapore can be detained without trial under the Internal Security Act, under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and also under the Misuse of Drugs Act, although some justification may be found for the detention under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The second is the arrest by police officers and other law enforcement officers without informing the subject of the charge. It is absolutely important under the Rule of Law that a person's liberty should not be deprived. He should not be deprived of his liberty, or in any way restrained unless he is first told of the law under which that can be done, and why it should be done. Also incidental to this is the searches - search of a person's house carried out by the Police and other law enforcement agencies. There again a citizen is entitled to insist that any search of his house be strictly in accordance with the law. Thirdly, the denial of the right to counsel - denial of the right of arrested persons to counsel and to visits from families for a period of time. Fourthly, there is the denial of bail by the courts even without adequate reasons. I am referring to the often heard request from police officers prosecuting to ask for a remand in Police custody when the accused is first produced in court. As I said once before, usually that request is granted without any inquiry, and I shall explain why it violates the Rule of Law. Then the one which we the Opposition have often raised - it is the fifth one - the denial of the freedom of speech and assembly. That violates the Rule of Law. And when I say about freedom of speech and assembly, of course, I am also referring to the freedom of the newspapers to publish - the freedom of the press. That is part and parcel of the freedom of speech. Sixthly, denial of reasons for executive decisions and shutting out appeals to the courts. As I shall say, now in almost every Act, one finds this denial of reasons for decisions and not allowing any recourse to the courts. Seventhly, the restrictions on the right to travel in Singapore, the impounding of passports without an order of court. When I come to illustrate, I shall, of course, refer to the case of Mdm Teo Siew Har whose passport was detained for several months for no reason at all under the law. Then we have the eighth on the list - the power given to the Housing and Development Board to throw out lessees or tenants without having to take them to court. That is, if ever there was one, a clear violation of the person's rights and the Rule of Law. Then we also have the suspension and cancellation of people's licences by executive officials, and I have in mind, of course, the licences of taxi drivers, without a proper judicial inquiry. So you have in Singapore an abundance of power exercised by the executive through its officials which offend the Rule of Law. That is the first limb - that no one shall be arrested, deprived of anything, except under the law. Now, if I may come to the second limb - the equality of all persons under the law, and as Prof. Dicey says, from the Prime Minister down to the constable they are equal under the law. No one is more equal than another under the law. The Prime Minister is not more equal than a postman or a collector of rubbish. And under this, I have about four heads, and that is, the blatant violations during election time by Government and Ministers to secure the victory of their party, the ruling party, including intimidation of voters. There you have clearly the law not evenly applied as between one party and another. Then we have the case not very long ago where it was seen that the law was not evenly applied. The purchase of apartments in Nassim Road and Scotts 28 by Ministers and public officials. I shall explain why I say that also seems to imply that some persons are more equal than others. Of course, I shall explain that. But let me assure the House, in case an attempt is made to assert that I am suggesting corruption, I am not. All I am saying is the law should be evenly applied. Then we have the disparate treatment of Opposition political parties in their applications for licences to hold their activities or conduct their programmes. I will explain that if I have the time. And finally, we have the just recently concluded instance of the President's election. I shall explain why it is a violation of the Rule of Law and violates particularly Article 12 of the Constitution. If I may move on and say what I think should be done as a priority by this Government. And we said this before, we are approaching the end of the century, we are approaching the end of the millennium and we keep talking about the 21st century. These steps have to be done immediately before we go too far into the 21st century. And I am commending to this Government that they immediately take the following steps. One is to repeal the provisions in the Internal Security Act providing for detention without trial. They are absolutely no longer necessary for our society in Singapore. They are an open sore. Secondly, repeal the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. That also is not necessary in our society today. Both these Acts may be convenient to the Government. But that is not the criterion, that is not the test. The test is the people's liberties. It is important to preserve the people's liberties. I do not ask the Government to repeal the Misuse of Drugs Act. But I think they should have another look at the Misuse of Drugs Act and see whether it contains sufficient safeguards against unfairly depriving a person of his liberty. Fourthly, I would urge the Government to consider amending the law relating to public meetings and processions. This comes under the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly so as to give full weight to the Article in the Constitution. Fifthly, repeal the provisions in the Housing and Development Act which empowers the Board to evict people without having to take them to court. The Housing and Development Board acts as the accuser, the Judge, the executioner. It is unheard of. But in Singapore, we have had this for some time. Sixthly, I am seriously suggesting to this Government that the police force should be taken out of political control. It should no longer come under the control or direction of the political masters. And likewise, I am proposing that the CPIB be also removed from the control of the political masters. I shall, if I have the time, expand on all this a bit more. But it may not be possible. The list of examples I have given of the violations in Singapore is, by no means, exhaustive. I could add a lot more. But I have tried to pick out what I thought were the very major serious violations of the Rule of Law. There are many other violations and, equally, my recommendations are only just the beginning, ie, recommendations of the steps that the Government must take immediately to establish the Rule of Law. Now, if I may move on and as quickly as possible try and explain why the Internal Security Act violates the Rule of Law. Under the Act, as I have said, it is just the Minister, and there is no way of checking the Minister's decision, who decides to make an order detaining a subject, depriving him of his liberty, completely contrary to the rule of natural justice and the fundamental principle that all men are free. The Constitution itself provides for a situation when this right may be restrained and, that is in Part XII of the Constitution, that is when there is an emergency, when there is a determined group of people resorting to unlawful means to bring down the Government and the society. The Constitution says in that situation, you have to pass an Act of Parliament and then you can restrain their liberties and restrict them. Are there any other conditions? And that was the case when the British passed the Emergency Regulations. Under the colonial government, Emergency Regulations were a purely temporary affair, designed to deal with what they thought and saw as an immediate threat to the country from people who were determined to break down the Government and create trouble in the society. So they brought in the Emergency Regulations and they were purely temporary, three months at a time and they had to be passed and renewed. After we took over, we retained that power under the Public Peace and Security Ordinance (PPSO), giving the power to the Government. David Marshall who was a passionate believer in the Rule of Law and a believer in the freedom of the individual however added a safeguard. He introduced a court or tribunal of three persons to whom an appeal may be made by the person detained and who may release that person if the tribunal was not satisfied that it was necessary to detain the person. But the PAP, when they took over, and the great champion of personal liberty when Mr David Marshall was in power - the Chief Minister of the country - did away with that provision appointing the tribunal and reverted back to an advisory panel without any power to release. The power is only necessary in emergency times when there is a real threat and so we do not need it any more. Let us for once realise that it is a violation of the Rule of Law. Let us be honest and repeal it. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act again was a temporary measure. It was passed to deal with the threat from secret societies in those days. I remember I was a District Judge in those days having to record statements from persons who had been detained under this Act or Ordinance in those days. A lot of them were later released after the statements were recorded and it was established that they were perhaps not members of any secret society. So that was a temporary measure and we do not need that now. But now it is used for lots of other reasons. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, my suggestion is that there should be proper safeguards. We should require the Director of the Central Narcotics Bureau to get a court order before a person is detained, present the evidence to the District Judge or Magistrate and let the District Judge or Magistrate decide whether, on the medical evidence presented he is satisfied that the person is a drug addict requiring treatment, to make an order for detention. That is the provision under the Mental Disorder Treatment Act and we should take that over into the Misuse of Drugs Act. Then about the arrests that I mentioned, that is, the second violation. It is, as I said, the law that an accused person must be told the reason and the charge for which he is arrested. It was declared so by the House of Lords many, many years ago in what came to be known as the Christy Lynskey case. But in Singapore, persons are just picked up, not told the reason, that alone the charge. They are just told, "Follow me or come to the CID or the CNB." And if they ask why, he is told, "You will be told there." That is a violation of the Rule of Law. You are interfering with that person's liberty without any legal justifications. Even a minute's interference of the person's liberty is unjustified unless the law allows it. And similarly, with search warrants. There was the recent case and the Minister of State replying to it said, "Oh, yes, but the Misuse of Drugs Act provides." Yes, I know it does.

Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, you have used up your time. Question proposed.

Sir, I shall be brief. I know that Singapore has been voted as having the best judicial system in this part of the world but I think the concept of the Rule of Law is not purely about the judicial system. It means more than that. The Rule of Law does not mean just plain justice that is observed in our courts. I have no complaints about our court's function. In fact, I think they are doing a very good job. The Rule of Law to me means that the Government, in its dealings with the people, has to be fair, transparent and predictable. I cannot say that the Government's dealings with the Opposition parties have been fair, transparent and predictable. The Government has control of every public function in Singapore. The Opposition parties are, of course, not happy with the way the Government treats them in regard to applications to hold those functions. The Opposition parties are treated as if they are obligated to the Government and have to get permission to organise any public functions such as dinners, lantern festival or pasar malams. The Opposition do not mind applying for permission if they are done for a purely administrative purpose. But asking for permission or licence is done more for political reasons. Often, when Opposition parties apply for a Public Entertainments Licence or other applications, they do not get a quick reply. They are left in a limbo and have to wait for a long time. And in their anxiety, they telephone the appropriate department and they are told, surprisingly, that that department is waiting for word from the top. We are just wondering whether a simple application for permission, say, to hold a lantern festival or a pasar malam or dinner, you must wait for permission from the top. Mr Yatiman asked for examples. We have only just recently held the 6th Anniversary Dinner of our Party on Saturday, 20th November. We applied for a Public Entertainments Licence on 16th October and our answer did not come until 15th November, five days before the function starts. As you know, if you are organising a dinner, there is a lot of organising to do. This uncertainty of whether a licence shall be given at all makes organising such functions very difficult. When the licence came, permission was given to karaoke singing, song items given by the old folks at the constituency, lion dance, lucky draws, but no speeches were allowed. I was taken aback. I am the elected Member at Potong Pasir, and I am not allowed to speak to my constituents! I had to hurriedly send an appeal to say, "Please allow me to speak." Their reply came, "All right, you can speak but only for ten minutes for purposes of thanking your constituents for coming and acknowledging their sponsorship and gifts that they have given to you." I do not think it reflects that we have the Rule of Law in Singapore. I am not asking much. I am just asking the Government, when they deal with the Opposition, let us have fairness, transparency and a predictable system. So when we write a letter or even before we hold a function, we know what is coming, what is allowed and what is not allowed. But as it is, the whole situation is always very difficult to deal with. It is even now. You may like to know that for any function if we make an application, we do not get a reply until five days or so before the function starts. So how can you hold a function without having any anxiety? We do not know whether or not permission will be given, we do not know whether or not part of the programme will be allowed, or whatever. Sir, I am not asking too much. I am just asking the Government, when it deals with the Opposition, please let us have fairness, transparency and predictability.

Mr Speaker, in this motion there is much to agree with. But in the arguments put forward, there is much I find that I cannot agree with. Let me begin with what I do agree with. I agree that Rule of Law is very important and I think all of us would. I also agree that the Rule of Law takes us beyond a very narrow legalism, but that law is more than what we put on a piece of paper and pass in this House. There are certain natural attributes to law. That I agree. When you agree that law is more than legalism, you look for some idea of fairness. But there, we can disagree. What may seem fair to me may not seem fair to another person or to NCMP, Mr Jeyaretnam, who moved this motion. In this sense, we must quickly distinguish between the fair procedure of law and the fairness in substance of law. For procedure, we find it easier to agree. In moving this motion and his arguments, I tried to listen to NCMP Jeyaretnam carefully. I think there are some problems in his arguments in terms not so much of this broad idea of the Rule of Law but in his complaints and instances. This relates specifically to certain dichotomies, the first of these is an abstract perfection of what is Rule of Law, against the reality of a working system, the society in motion, in action. When we compare any society to those abstract perfections, there are shortcomings, instances of weakness or areas of improvements. I then have to ask myself, when I listened to the instances brought forward by the NCMP, whether this speaks of a systemic abuse and failure of the Rule of Law, or whether these instances are just that, instances. If they are instances, there is recourse to the Rule of Law itself, ie, the Government of the day or certain officials are not fulfilling the Rule of Law, there are other ways of getting the Rule of Law done and observed, and this is to go to the courts. And on this, I found the MP for Potong Pasir, Mr Chiam See Tong's argument is of dual-headed. He says he trusts the courts. He himself pointed out that our courts are one of the most respected. Yet, he complained about certain systems of unfairness. The answer must be, if the courts are fair, but there are instances of difficulty in his view, he must go to the courts. I would like to point out that in recent years, there have been a number of cases in which people have done exactly that. They have taken hard cases to the courts and they have won against the Government. There was the Eddie Taw's case on the constitutionality of Prevention of Corruption Act. There was the Christopher's Bridges' case on the Official Secrets Act. There was a recent decision against the Ministry of Manpower on certain actions they took in arbitrating between employer and employee in which the courts felt that they have over-exceeded their powers. Looking further back, the courts have also struck down decisions by the Housing and Development Board, which Mr Jeyaretnam mentioned, as well as the Registry of Companies and Businesses. My point is, if our system is endemically weak, the whole system is bad, then we really have to call for this motion. But if there are only limited instances, the very courts which Mr Chiam mentioned are the upholder of the Rule of Law. The one exception I think that NCMP Mr Jeyaretnam had on his cards was the Internal Security Act (ISA). That, as a law, the ISA fulfills the Constitution as an exception. It does not fulfill the concept of the Rule of Law in the sense that there are only very limited grounds on which a court can review the decision of the Minister. It is in that sense a subjective discretion. Mr Jeyaretnam then shared his idea on whether there was a need for amendment, and called for the abolition of the ISA. When I first became an NMP, I was asked about this. My view was that the time has come to seriously re-look at the ISA. I still think we should re-look at it. But, in asking for this, I have had to re-look at some of my premises too, because in the last year, I asked in this House, and I was told that we do have present detainees under the Internal Security Act. And why? These are not political detainees. There are some allegations of espionage and other things. This was all released to the public after the question I asked in this House. The point is that, in that sense, we are not arguing about preventive detention in abstract anymore. It is not perfect abstraction. There was no public furore or upset about these recent ISA cases when they were announced publicly. As far as I know, the human rights Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs) are not more upset than they have been with Singapore before. The NGOs have also never raised their hand against the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act which NCMP Mr Jeyaretnam has mentioned today. I like to point out that the NCMP himself has not completely questioned the basis of the Misuse of Drugs Act. It also has preventive detention powers. This is therefore an inconsistency in his stand. So my point is that none of these are we really arguing on principle, Rule of Law, yes or no, black or white. It is a case-by-case decision, because that is how we live our lives in a real society. The NCMP drew a lot of precedents from England. Can I point out that while England has had a very good record in talking about principles, of Rule of Law and living up to many of them, there are also shortcomings in their court, as in every country - emergency laws in Ireland to deal with the emergency there. Many of the precedents that our courts follow in accepting the subjective discretion of the Minister come from English precedents. So I would not think that any society has all the answers. I think of this particularly, because I thought this motion should be understood in the context not so much of the past, which NCMP Jeyaretnam has tried to re-establish for us, but in the context of the present crisis in our region. This crisis has been one that has also raised many questions about good governance, and one of the elements of good governance is the Rule of Law. The Transparency International, an NGO, has named Singapore the highest ranked country in Asia against corruption. I think it is the seventh or eighth in the world. When you look at the region around us, you have to understand that there are many realities which do not measure up to the benchmarks of Transparency International. I was in Indonesia last week and I met with various officials there. They have a severe task in front of them. An old acquaintance, Marzuki Darusman, is now Attorney-General. He, I think, and this is my personal belief, is a man who would try to make a difference, to try to establish the Rule of Law, but the institutions, the officials, some are good and some are not so good. There has been a systemic problem, which we do not have in Singapore. The answers, in this context, are much more complex and difficult than ours. Of course, Singapore is different - size, heritage, a Government that has been clean and not corrupt, and I do not say that we are perfect. But my point today is that if this motion was about the importance of the Rule of Law and how, without being perfect, our Government has tried to observe it and how if Government does not observe it, then the courts will fill that gap, I would have agreed with the motion. But as has been argued by the two speakers before me, I regret I cannot support the motion.

Sir, a question for Mr Simon Tay.

Mr Chiam, are you seeking a point of clarification?

Yes. I am surprised that the NMP says that I should go to court when I was not given permission to speak. I have been a practising politician for over 20 years now. I would like to ask him whether the decision not to allow me to speak is a judicial decision on the part of the Minister, or is it a political decision.

I am really surprised that Mr Chiam does not understand judicial review. Of course, it is the decision of the official in charge, but if the official transgresses certain parameters of the law, if he is acting unreasonably, if he is acting unfairly without due cause, if he has favoured a PAP official and not Mr Chiam, these are all subject to judicial review. In this sense, while many of our laws do not have appeal to the courts, the courts use judicial review to ensure that things observe the Rule of Law. Is that clear enough, Mr Chiam?

I think it is difficult for us to go into a debate, because Mr Simon Tay is an academician and I am speaking as a practical politician. He thinks I am like a cry baby, go to the court to get remedy. To me, this is a political decision and it has to be rectified politically. And I think we know how to do that.

Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, the NCMP never fails to bore us, never fails to show us that he lives in the past, never fails to show us that he is good in delivering lectures on very basic points, which any first year law student would know. For the first almost 30 minutes of his speech, he had talked about things of the past - Magna Carta, Confucius - things which are not of relevance in Singapore, before coming to the Constitution, which is what really matters. He had mentioned basic points that any first year law student would know, which I think highlights the fact that this motion is really unnecessary and gratuitous. Sir, he is right. We have heard enough of him, because that is what he said in this House, and we truly agree. Why do I say that this motion is not necessary and gratuitous? As Mr Tay and all of us believe, there is undoubtedly the Rule of Law in Singapore. And all our Ministers, officials and public servants fully observe the Rule of Law. It is therefore absurd to even imply that the Rule of Law does not prevail in Singapore. Of course, he will cite instances, which I will deal with later on. But again these are instances which he culls from the past. It is as though, in preparation for this motion, he had gone through the Hansard to see what were the points he had raised, probably re-reading his speeches.

I did not do that.

All right. He probably went through his files or his diary to see what points he raised. But he did not read carefully the replies that were given, because he has raised all these points before. I was very diligent in trying to see what new points I could counter. Whether it is, for example, rights of an accused person, right to counsel, right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, or our preventive detention laws, the Internal Security Act, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, the Misuse of Drugs Act, or other matters such as Ministers' actions at the last general elections, or purchases of flats at Nassim Jade and Scotts 28, or the need to hold a by-election, whether or not they are unconstitutional, all these have been debated, all these have been answered. So I do not think I want to prolong the agony of this House by going through the points one by one.

Just sit down.

He would like that. But he has held the floor for one hour. So I think I should do, though not quite likewise, but at least take some time to show up his motion. I would say that instead of this House moving this motion, this House should commend the Government for ensuring that all in Singapore observe the Rule of Law. I went though the Hansard. He may not have gone through the Hansard, but I went through the Hansard, the compilation of all our debates. And I can tell this House that since he first entered Parliament in 1981, until 1986, and then after he re-entered Parliament in 1997, he has raised all these points before. Indeed, since 1997, he has filed innumerable questions for oral answers, Committee of Supply cuts and several motions, not less than 10 motions or so, including about six main and two adjournment motions covering topics that have been covered today. I am sure he would remember our previous encounters in 1997 when we talked about the need to set up a commission of inquiry to look into the rights of accused persons, a commission of inquiry to look at whether or not our defamation laws ought to be changed, respect for the Judiciary, and we had long debates. That is why when I prepared for this motion, I wanted to see whether there is need to do more. Because if there is a need to do more, I will do more. But alas, hearing the NCMP out for one hour, I think he has said nothing new. As Mr Simon Tay said, he picks on instances, areas. He does not see the big picture. I think he is coloured by the fact that he has been around a long time. He does not see the big picture, especially of what is new, what has transpired in Singapore over the last 10-15 years. I applaud Mr Tay. He says that he took a certain position as regards judicial review under the ISA, in the light of the fact that there have been recent detentions, he is prepared to re-consider his earlier opinion. This means that he does listen to what transpires in this House, what Government has to say in explaining why certain Acts are necessary and why certain laws are necessary. But not so Mr Jeyaretnam. This is what he does. He takes specific instances and then he puts them all in a very alarming manner, as though the Rule of Law is something that does not exist in Singapore, as though there is a systemic problem with the Rule of Law. Let me say that that is not the case. Even then, the instances that he cites are all based on erroneous interpretation, both of the law and, in some instances, of the facts. It is just like what transpired earlier on in this House when he challenged the Minister of State for Communications and Information Technology saying that if we clamp a person's car, we are punishing him, we are punishing an innocent person. I am quite surprised with that. Surely Mr Jeyaretnam must know that this is not an innocent person. He has been summoned to court for a parking offence. He does not come. And then a warrant of arrest is issued against him and he also does not comply with the warrant. So he is cocking a snook at the law. He is not complying with an order of the court to appear. And so you clamp his car, not to punish him, but to inconvenience him, to ensure that he appears before a court. This is not judicial punishment which, of course, will be unconstitutional.

May I by way of clarification?

Are you giving way, Prof. Ho?

No, Mr Speaker, Sir. I think Mr Jeyaretnam has had his hour. Now it is my turn.

I will correct you.

Order. Please continue, Prof. Ho.

What does the concept of the Rule of Law entail? Maybe I should also give a bit of background, but I will do it in two minutes, not 25 minutes. In short, the Rule of Law refers to the supremacy of law, as opposed to the arbitrary exercise of power. The other key tenet is that everyone is equal before the law. The concept also includes the notions of the transparency, openness and prospective application of our laws, observation of the principles of natural justice, independence of the Judiciary and judicial review of administrative action. Let me state very clearly that all these are established features of our legal system. We all know that everyone in Singapore is subject to the law. No one is above the law. Other nations admire us for this aspect of our good governance, the Rule of Law. Hence, everyone, from the President to the humblest citizen, is subject to the same laws. There are no double standards or favouritism, and no one is exempt. This is an important point because the integrity and credibility of our institutions, including the Government and civil service and their players, are the key foundations of Singapore's success. Also for this reason, Ministers and MPs suspected of wrongdoing have been investigated and indeed some have been prosecuted. If Members recall, three years ago, Senior Minister and DPM Lee came to this House to explain their actions in relation to some property purchases they had made which PM had earlier investigated. All these again are in the Hansard. To me, this is a very clear example that the Government upholds the Rule of Law and ensures that it is fully observed by all. It shows that the honesty and integrity of Ministers and public servants is zealously safeguarded, not only in words but also in deed. What is the NCMP talking about? In fact, I will say that the NCMP insults Singaporeans by alleging that the Rule of Law does not prevail in Singapore because this Government which stands on the Rule of Law has been repeatedly re-elected in 10 general elections since 1959. He also says that the Government is a mafia. I think he used that word "mafia". I must say that I am very surprised. This is really absurd. Singaporeans are being led by a mafia organisation! All of us here are members of the mafia! Foreigners are coming here to live, some wanting to be part of the Singapore family as permanent residents or as citizens. Why? Because they also want to join the mafia. I hope Mr Jeyaretnam will have a bit more sense. Another example where the Rule of Law prevails in Singapore is what Senior Minister, who was then Prime Minister, said in the House in January 1988, in respect of rumours and allegations of impropriety concerning the previous Attorney-General: "Every allegation made against any official of corrupt, illegal or improper conduct or action will be investigated. The fact that the official complained against is the Attorney-General, the highest legal officer in charge of investigation, will not prevent such investigations." The Senior Minister added that the allegations had been investigated and were proven unfounded. But he also said that if they had been substantiated, the Attorney-General would have to face the consequences. So no one, not even the Attorney-General who has the discretion to prosecute cases under the Constitution, something which Mr Jeyaretnam I am sure, will embrace with his heart, is exempt from investigation and prosecution. Of course, our laws are tough against criminals and wrong doers. We do have laws which allow preventive detention without trial, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, for example. There is a sunset clause and every five years we come before this House to justify why it should be continued. Indeed, even for the other laws such as the ISA and the Misuse of Drugs Act, they have been fully debated in this House. The last time I think it was debated by Mr Chiam and DPM Lee when DPM Lee explained very clearly why the ISA was still needed today. Mr Jeyaretnam calls for the repeal of these laws. Will he be responsible if we repeal these laws and secret societies start infiltrating into Singapore? Of course, he would not be because he is just an NCMP. But the Government, the Minister for Home Affairs and myself, as his No. 2, will have to be responsible. I will tell Mr Jeyaretnam why preventive detention laws are important. I have explained it many times before. In the case of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, we are dealing with triads, secret societies. Witnesses are fearful to testify in open court. So we have to act decisively. Having said this, does it mean therefore that the Rule of Law does not prevail? Does it therefore mean that there are no safeguards? Mr Jeyaretnam must look at the Hansard in detail because I remember very clearly, many times, not just once, including the last time when I moved the Bill to continue the CLTPA for another five years, setting out all the safeguards, including advisory boards. The fact is that for the ISA, there is an advisory board headed by a Supreme Court judge and two prominent members of the public. If they disagree with the Minister's decision to continue detaining the detainee, it goes to the President who will then exercise his discretion. Is Jeyaretnam looking at all these safeguards? Our penalties can of course be harsh in some cases, but this is necessary. This is again not against Articles 9 or 12 that Mr Jeyaretnam is wont to raise. These are all done legally and carefully drafted by our Attorney-General's Chambers. And of course, all are subject to the requirements of the Constitution and all coming to this House to be debated and passed. The courts interpret the laws and apply the laws so that citizens can live in safety. I was quite surprised when the NCMP said that the court's right of review can be excluded. Yes, for a few important statutes, like the ISA, judicial review has been curtailed. But judicial administrative actions to the court, whether it is mandamus or prohibition or certiorari are always available to a person who is aggrieved. The important point is that we must have courts which are independent. Mr Chiam has already said that he believes the courts are competent and independent. They must be fair and they must apply the laws fairly. That is an important safeguard. Or is Mr Jeyaretnam insinuating also that this safeguard does not prevail in Singapore? That our courts cannot be trusted to apply the laws fairly?

Do not put words into my mouth.

Well, you have done that before to me. Sir, the other point is that our law enforcement agencies take a professional, no-nonsense approach in tackling crime. Mr Chiam does the police a disservice. The police do not take orders from the political masters. The police exercise professional judgment in whatever they do. Mr Low, for example, has been quoted in the Straits Times where he said that he finds no reason to say that Government departments discriminate against ---

Point of clarification.

Are you giving way? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee resumed his seat.

On Saturday, 20th November 1999, I was deprived of my freedom of speech. I was not allowed to speak.

I will deal with that.

But on the next day, on Sunday, 21st November, my opponent at Potong Pasir, a prospective candidate for the PAP, Mr Andy Gan, was allowed to speak in the public function. So my question is: has he been given permission to speak under the Public Entertainments Act? Was he given permission?

Mr Chiam complains about not having been given a licence to speak at a function that was in the open. The event was the 6th anniversary of the SPP. He had applied, in fact, initially just for karaoke. That was on 15th October. Later on, on 27th October, a new application was submitted, this time saying speeches would be made. This will definitely turn the event into something not quite the same as the original function. Therefore, police looked anew at his application on 27th October, and within the three weeks which is stipulated, which police has said they will try to process all applications, gave Mr Chiam his reply on 15th November, which still gave him five or six clear days to organise the event. That is the point. Otherwise, if we do not clarify this, Mr Chiam will think that police is being unfair to the Opposition. Indeed, there was another event. In 1998 ---

The Minister of State said the police gave five or six days, which is enough to organise the event. We have got 83 tables and we have got over 800 people coming. Does he think that five days would be enough?

There are two things Mr Chiam can do. He can either submit earlier, which means that the reply will come earlier, or surely he does not wait till the permit comes before doing everything. I would ask Mr Chiam whether this is something new. The SPP, and before that the SDP when he led it, had submitted many applications before for indoor talks. Speeches were made and all these have been approved. He knows that, because this is the stated procedure, stated policy. If political parties want to hold talks outdoors, whether it is PAP or SPP, the answer will be no. In fact, we have stated this in Parliament before. Mr Low Thia Khiang had an exchange in 1992 with Prof. Jayakumar on this point, and Mr Simon Tay raised the question on the procedures for applying for a PEL, and certainly in the media where Government gave out many statements explaining why for political parties an outdoor permit will not be given. So Mr Chiam knows. He was fishing. He was hoping for the best. But he knows that, given the current policy which is stated and known to all, he will probably not get permission to speak. Now he wants to make a song and dance about it.

Point of clarification. I have been an MP for 15 years.

Can I go on?

Mr Chiam, Prof. Ho is not giving way. Can you continue, Prof. Ho?

So what is the result of our approach to law and order? Our approach is that we have a Singapore which is safe, a Singapore which people feel they have a home, which people feel that they can raise children in and one in which they can walk the streets at night safely. Having said this, there are also specific internal guidelines to ensure that, whether it is the police or other law enforcement agencies, there will be no abuse. This has been very clear because, yes, there have been black sheep. But do we cover up the black sheep? Government does not cover up the black sheep. Indeed, if the police themselves, as they have done, uncover wrongdoing among their ranks, they will pursue investigations and prosecutions to the end. That is the assurance the Minister and I have given to Singaporeans, that we do not cover up wrongdoing and black sheep will be exposed. That is the Rule of Law. The other point about the Rule of Law is that an independent, impartial and efficient judiciary will ensure that the laws which are passed will apply to all. It will also ensure that the laws which are passed are also constitutional. I think Mr Jeyaretnam has raised this point. Yes, of course, our laws must be subject to the Constitution because the Constitution is the overriding document that sets the framework upon which the other laws stand. I thank Mr Simon Tay for enumerating the many cases where those who have been aggrieved have mounted challenges in our courts, filing administrative actions and some succeeded. Indeed, in a recent case, Standsfield Business International Pte Ltd against Minister for Manpower, the court, in fact, accepted the complainant's argument that the Ministry's enquiry failed to comply with the rules of natural justice. So the plaintiff won the case against the Government. I am afraid the NCMP is mired in the past. He has not realised that Singapore, the PAP, and the civil service are moving on with fast changing times, something the NCMP most evidently cannot cope with. S21 vividly captures the Government's approach. As for the civil service, PS21 sets the tone. Even our courts have moved on. Because if you look at what the courts have done, they have introduced many innovations. They have also reached out to the public through exhibitions, seminars and talks. This is also an important aspect of the Rule of Law - that Singaporeans know what the law is all about; Singaporeans know how their rights are governed by the laws. They know how to find these laws - statute books which are available, can be bought, can be read in the library. And they also know where they can have their legal rights aired, which is our courts. The Subordinate Courts, in fact, have done a marvellous job. The Subordinate Courts have been held up as a model by the World Bank. And the Subordinate Courts have introduced many innovations so that citizens are involved in the law, for example, family conferencing, multi-door court house. These are all examples. That is an important aspect of the Rule of Law. The next point I would not go into it very much. But this point has also been mentioned by other speakers, particularly Mr Tay who mentioned the polls that show that Singapore has a very high standing with regard to the Rule of Law. I have mentioned this before in this House. The Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, World Economic Forum, and other polls show that both foreigners and Singaporeans believe that we have good judicial and legal systems, fair administration of justice. And this is not just from businessmen because polls conducted in Singapore among Singaporeans and foreigners also underscore this belief and trust. So there you have it. Sir, let me conclude. By this motion, Mr Jeyaretnam implies that our Ministers and public officials get away with breaking the law. Any such insinuation impugns the integrity of Parliament which passes these laws, judges who apply the laws and the AG who enforces these laws. This is entirely unfair. In a recently concluded debate in this House on the President's Address, not one speaker attacked Singapore's key institutions, such as our judges and civil servants, a point highlighted by Mr Davinder Singh in his closing speech. Indeed, the Government has vigorously defended the integrity of our judges when Opposition politicians in courting foreign support had cast aspersions on it. A good example was a motion that we debated in 1995 on the independence and integrity of Singapore's Judiciary. And also the AG. The House has taken great pains - the Minister for Law has done this - to explain to this House the role of the AG, why he exercises independent judgement when he wears his hat as the Public Prosecutor, which he is constitutionally required to do, something which I am sure Mr Jeyaretnam will also fly his flag very high for. And that is why when he issued a considered statement to say that the Ministers in the last Cheng San GRC general election did not violate the law, he meant it. Because his readiness to issue an open statement means that he is prepared to stand by that statement, not just to this House, but to other jurists around the world. So the integrity of the AG is something which is also very important which Mr Jeyaretnam impugns. Because if he says that people get away with breaking the law, the Government gets away with double standards, then he is also impugning the integrity of the Attorney-General. Therefore, Sir, let no one doubt that the NCMP is making a serious but absurd and baseless charge by tabling this motion. And one can only conclude that by doing this, the NCMP is really craving for publicity. Sir, as I have said earlier, it is regretted that the NCMP has all these years habitually made baseless allegations against the Government for not observing the Rule of Law. This motion is yet another example. Sir, this motion must be soundly defeated.

I would like to get a clarification from the Minister of State. If I heard him correctly, he says there would be no more political speeches in open public functions. Is that right?

It is the current policy, except in athletic stadiums. That we allow, but not in open areas.

But, Sir, as far as I am concerned, as MP for Potong Pasir, I have never been refused permission to speak in public in open public functions. This is the first time permission has been refused, and freedom of speech deprived. Yet, as I said earlier, Mr Andy Gan, who is the prospective candidate for the PAP, was allowed to speak in public the day after I was refused permission. The Minister is very proud of Singapore's record of the Rule of Law. If this is not flouting of the Rule of Law, I do not know what it is. Why is an elected MP not allowed to speak but a prospective candidate is allowed to speak? Why is that so? Is that not double standards?

Sir, as I have said, a PAP politician who speaks at a party function ---

Or public function.

--- he will have to apply for a licence. And if it is in the open, it will be refused. So I am surprised Mr Chiam says that he had spoken in the past in the open.

Yes.

As a politician?

Yes.

Without a permit?

With a permit.

With a permit. He must give me the instances. Then the police officers are not doing their job.

I was not given a permit.

We can look into it, if Mr Chiam could give me the instances why Police has been so generous in not following the policy. The other point is that when Mr Gan spoke, he was not speaking at a party function. He was speaking at a grassroots' function. I am sure Mr Chiam knows the difference.

Are we still going to go on? I think you have made your point already, Mr Chiam. We have other speakers.

I am worried about what the Minister of State has said that from now on, no Opposition politicians are allowed to speak in public, in an open public function.

I think Mr Chiam might have spoken in the past.

Yes, I had.

In events organised by the Town Council.

Yes, Town Council.

That is not a function organised by the SPP. So there you have it. Please, your ears must be open.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think with all the isolated incidents that have been mentioned by Mr Chiam and Mr Jeyaretnam, they have detracted actually from the rather broader motion that has been put forward, which is really that we should look at the function of the Rule of Law in Singapore. Sir, the Rule of Law is a fundamental constitutional doctrine. I believe it is deeply valued in Singapore. In fact, more than that, I believe it is internalised in the culture of the public service. Mr Jeyaretnam, of course, mentioned just now the concept by Dicey, and it is not a very accepted concept these days. There have been quite a number of writers who have developed it. And I think since he has mentioned it, perhaps I would take a couple of minutes just to update Mr Jeyaretnam and the House as to how the Rule of Law concept is usually talked about these days. It is usually talked about with a little bit more focus. Broadly speaking, and this is the Diceyian concept, it means that the people are governed by law and not by arbitrary or capricious force. But more narrowly, and I think it is a concept that applies to this debate today, it refers to the doctrine that guides authorities into making decisions that are reasonable and in the public interest. Decisions of public officers are open, rational assessment and justified on the basis of our shared values. The best way perhaps to look at the Rule of Law today is to enumerate some of the fundamental principles that it represents. Some of them actually have been mentioned by Mr Jeyaretnam, Mr Simon Tay and others. But I would just like to consolidate the thoughts on this matter. The first is that, which I think everyone would agree with, in fact I think they would agree with all, all laws are prospective, stable, properly and constitutionally enacted. That is a principle of the Rule of Law. Second ---

Prof. Chin, may I just interject here. I think we all enjoy listening to your lecture. So can you please direct your lecture to all of us and look at us, and not look back at Mr Jeyaretnam?

All right. Continue.

I will do that certainly. All laws are prospective, stable, properly and constitutionally enacted. The application of laws, the making of legal orders by public officers should be guided by clear and general rules, that is, avoiding any personal bias or favour, treating equal cases equally, making decisions rationally and in the public interest, and in accordance with the written laws of the land. In this particular instance, on this principle, I want to refer back to Mr Jeyaretnam's original introduction when he said that a government that acts by decree is not acting under the Rule of Law. I do not have any objection to that if you say a government acts only by decree without any circumscribing of such decrees by other laws. But it would be wrong to think that is the situation in Singapore. In this particular principle where you have laws, obviously such laws must be applied and obviously the laws are applied by public officers who make legal orders. If these legal orders are substantiated by subsidiary legislation, if this subsidiary legislation is sanctioned by parent Acts, by the primary legislation, then any order issuing from it would be legitimate and would comply with the Rule of Law. And, if anyone is unhappy with that, there is always the next aspect or principle of the Rule of Law, and that is, that the judiciary has the power and the authority to review any administrative action. So that is the third principle. The final principle, which is already mentioned by a number of Members, is that the judiciary must be independent and the courts should be generally accessible to all who seek recourse to them. I think all of us in this House, Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Chiam included, would not dispute this principle that is the foundation perhaps of the modern Rule of Law. Sir, this is by no means a complete list of principles but, I believe, they constitute the more important principles of what we are talking about today. We can examine these principles one by one and see how the Government of Singapore measures up to these, but that would be unnecessary in the light of what the Minister of State has mentioned. He has enumerated a number of instances where clearly we have abided by all these principles. In the case of laws laid before Parliament, it is quite obvious to all of us, including the Opposition Members who participate in debate and sometimes participate more than we would like, but no doubt expected, time given between the First Reading and the Second Reading is more than sufficient to allow Members to prepare for the debate. Procedures of Parliament are inherited from the Westminster model which, I am sure, Mr Jeyaretnam would like, cannot be faulted. All legislation, including the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, is passed after due deliberation. As for the civil service, the Minister of State for Law has already told this House more than once, and in fact just now, how the Rule of Law is observed from top to bottom, from the Minister, to use Mr Jeyaretnam's words, to the most junior constable. These examples show that at the very least, a deep commitment to the principles of the Rule of Law. In fact, we all know that the penchant for Singapore civil servants to follow rules and principles is well known, not just in Singapore, but overseas. There are jokes about Singapore civil servants following rules. The more popular one has to do with two Singapore civil servants being marooned on a desert island with a pretty lady and they did not know what to do except to put a message in a bottle and float back for further instructions. This is the sort of picture that we have of the Singapore civil service. It suggests, it more than suggests, it emphasises the fact that the culture of the Rule of Law is deeply rooted in the public service. In fact, recently, the public service aspires to do even more. The Rule of Law is the primary point from which it starts. It aspires to be even more responsive to the people. It seeks to help rather than to hinder and such an attitude must of course be welcomed. As far as the courts are concerned, we have no question on that. All are agreed in this House that the quality of justice is high, and that we have not just local recognition of the quality of justice but also of international recognition. There are now in place various means for ordinary citizens to obtain justice, not just through the Supreme Court, not just through the Subordinate Courts, but also in the Small Claims Tribunals, Community Mediation Centres, and so on. Access to justice has never been greater. The judicial process, as the NCMP knows, rigorously pursues a rapid settlement of disputes. There, of course, can be room for improvement. For example, it may be necessary to see how legal cost can be further brought down to a more affordable level and that is an area where all lawyers can help, including the Non-Constituency MP. But now looking at the original motion filed by the Non-Constituency MP and listening to all the speakers that have come before me, there are two main flaws in the motion as it stands and this would detract from its acceptability. The first is actually in the first limb "That this House recognises the Rule of Law .". I think the word "recognises" sets the standard too low. We not only recognise it, it is part of our legal culture, we internalise it, we value it. It follows from what I said about the first limb that the phrase used in the second limb is also wrong, that the Ministers, officials and public servants should be urged to obey the Rule of Law. We have heard the many ways in which the Government has not only observed the Rule of Law but has gone out of its way to promote and internalise it among all civil servants. In other words, this is not the time to urge. This is the time to commend. That is why we have reached the stage of the debate that we should have an amendment to the motion for this debate to proceed further. Sir, I beg to move an amendment to the motion standing in the name of the Non-Constituency MP. I have taken the liberty to ask the Clerk of Parliament to have copies of this amendment which I would ask your permission to distribute to Members in the House.

All right. The Clerk will distribute the notice of amendment. [Copies of amendment distributed to hon. Members]. Could you move your amendment, Prof. Chin?

Yes. Sir, I beg to move the amendment to the NCMP's motion as follows: To delete all the words immediately after "That this House" and substitute with the following words: "(1) values the importance of the Rule of Law; and

commends the Government for upholding the Rule of Law and ensuring that it is fully observed by all."

It has been proposed as an amendment to leave out from the word "House" in line 1 to the end, and there to insert the words - "(1) values the importance of the Rule of Law; and (2) commends the Government for upholding the Rule of Law and ensuring that it is fully observed by all." The Question is now the amendment moved by Prof. Chin. Mr Low Thia Khiang rose ---

Can I finish first? Could you please resume your seat? Mr Low, I have to remind you that when the Chair is speaking, you are not allowed to rise. Mr Low Thia Khiang resumed his seat.

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." Members who wish to speak now must confine their speech to the amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am no lawyer. After listening to the lectures, I wonder whether what we are talking and complaining about is the Rule of Law or something which concerns fairness. I have three instances, one of which Mr Chiam has raised about speeches. On the surface of it, advisors to grassroots organisations can speak freely because they are under grassroots organisations. Whereas elected Members of Parliament like us also have committees which deal with grassroots activities but they are not recognised as part of a grassroots organisation, hence the differences between grassroots organisations and events organised by political parties. The policy is such that for events organised by political parties a licence to speak will not be granted. Whereas for grassroots organisations, I believe they do not even need to apply for a licence. In both instances, yes, one is a policy and the other is a provision under the law. The question is whether it is applied fairly because all advisors to grassroots organisations are allowed to speak. We are not grassroots organisations. So the question is: is this fair? The other instance is an old issue which was debated in Parliament and that concerns the use of HDB premises, for instance, the PCF's use as kindergartens. I remember the rules for granting such premises concessionary rental, that is, you have to register it as a charitable organisation with a paid-up capital of $5 million. So the Opposition cannot fulfil the requirement and thereby under the rule you are not qualified. Is that fair? It is under the law, yes. But my question is: is this fair? The other instance is pasar malam. In the past, my committees were allowed to organise pasar malam but suddenly the rule was changed. Right now, only grassroots organisations or town councils are allowed to organise pasar malams. So there is this change of rule, whether policy or whatever, that disadvantages the Opposition and it concerns the Rule of Law. I leave it to the people in the legal profession to judge. Then, of course, there is this question of what sort of licences are issued. There are people who are worried about whether or not licences are being granted with certain consideration. Many a time the Government departments who grant licences say, "Well, we will consider on a case-by-case basis." What is case-by-case basis? I do not think there is a very clear administrative ruling, in terms of granting licences and other things. The transparency is not good enough. Sir, as regards the amended motion, I agree with point one "values the importance of Rule of Law". My understanding of the Rule of Law is to apply the law fairly to everyone. "Commends the Government for upholding the Rule of Law and ensuring that it is fully observed by all", I am not sure whether or not the Government upholds the Rule of Law because my Secretary-General has obviously pointed out that it does not seem to be the case.

Mr Speaker, Sir, you said that any speeches after the amendment was moved must be confined to the amendment. I wish to speak on the amendment, but I also wish to reply to the points raised in my motion because I know what the result will be. The amendment will be passed and I would not have any opportunity to reply to the points raised. So would you give me permission to reply to the points raised?

Mr Jeyaretnam, I have to insist that you stick to the matter under discussion which is the amendment proposed by Prof. Chin.

Then you will give me an opportunity later.

Yes. Confine yourself right now to the debate on the amendment.

All right. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am obliged to you. I have no quarrel with the changing of the word "recognises" to "values". I see that the amendment underscores the importance and the need for the rule of law. I have no objection to that. But I am surprised that thereafter he goes on to amend the rest of the motion by asking this House to commend the Government for upholding the Rule of Law and ensuring that it is fully observed by all. It appears to me, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this amendment ignores the realities in Singapore and tries to shut them out and just look at what Prof. Chin wants people to look at. But we have got to be honest and look at the realities in Singapore. If we look at the realities, can we then commend the Government for upholding the Rule of Law? I am obliged to him for his observation that the debate was somehow hijacked by concentrating on instances, rather than looking at the whole principle and whether it is being applied. It is like you are not looking at the wood but just simply looking at one or two trees there. But if you want to commend the Government for upholding the Rule of Law, you have got to answer a number of questions and ask whether the Rule of Law has been observed in the situations that are being looked at. Prof. Chin again raises, but was already said by Mr Simon Tay, that the laws are properly enacted, passed by Parliament, subsidiary legislation is made under the authority of the parent legislation. We all know that. But the point is, as the Privy Council pointed out in the judgement of Ong Ah Chuan that even an Act of Parliament may violate the Rule of Law if it is completely contrary to the rules of natural justice. Of course, Parliament, which is controlled almost entirely by Members of the Government party, can pass any law according to the Constitution.

Clarification, Mr Speaker.

Would you allow Prof. Chin to make a clarification?

Bring it up later. Of course, having more than a two-thirds majority, the Constitution can be amended at any time. That is why it is absolutely essential in any democratic society that the ruling party should never have more than a two-thirds majority if it wants to have a stable democratic government. It follows without any explanation. Otherwise, it becomes a tyranny, a tyranny by the party which controls Parliament and, of course, we know the situation in Singapore. From 1966 to 1981, it was an entirely PAP Parliament. There was no one from any other party in Parliament. So it was a one party passing laws - yes, strictly following the Constitution, the procedure - but ignoring the fundamental rules of natural justice and saying that they are abiding by the Rule of Law when they passed a Bill, that it has been passed in accordance with the Constitution. That is not compliance with the Rule of Law as the Privy Council tried to point out. After 1981, Parliament continued with a majority of PAP members. And this is the great drawback in Singapore and the one on which the PAP has capitalised, and that is, they go to any length to keep out any Opposition building up in Singapore. That in itself, to me, is a flagrant violation of the Rule of Law. I will illustrate what I mean by just making reference to the way the elections were conducted. Elections in Singapore are all one-sided. The field is not an even playing field. It will be idle to pretend that we have an even playing field in Singapore when it comes to elections. I have said this before, in many countries, particularly in the Commonwealth countries, that elections are the responsibility of an independent body, that is, the Elections Commission. Do we have an Elections Commission in Singapore? The Opposition parties, I remember, asked for it in the 1970s. Have we got an Elections Commission? No. The elections are run as though it was a matter for the Government, and Government alone. It is run on the decree of the Prime Minister in whose Ministry the Elections Department is put.

5.50 pm So, where is the Rule of Law there to ensure equality to all parties to contest the elections? Straightaway, you have a fundamental breach of the Rule of Law. When you, on your own, decide to re-draw boundaries just because an Opposition has gained a foothold in one constituency, you decide that you will bring it in, put it with other constituencies, ad nauseam change boundaries to ensure that the Opposition is kept out of Parliament. So, that is a glaring instance of a violation of the Rule of Law. And then when it comes to the actual conduct of the elections, I am surprised that no attempt is made to try to answer what I have said in my speech. I mentioned about the conduct of the Government Ministers during an election campaign. Have Members here forgotten how the Government won the constituency of Cheng San? The Parliamentary Elections Act has a provision which says that any elections won by intimidation or bribery of voters is illegal and can be set aside on an election petition. What took place on 1st January 1997? The Prime Minister came to Cheng San,

held a rally and he had only about 2,000 people in front of him and what did he say? Did he say, "You vote for the PAP, we are a better party, the Workers' Party cannot be trusted?" That is all in the rules. What did he say to the voters? Please look it up. It was next day headlined in the Straits Times. I will come to that. That was another violation of the Rule of Law. In the front page it said, "PM to voters - all or nothing". And he said, "You vote for the Workers' Party, you would not get anything. Even what you have in the way of any benefits will be taken away from you. But if you vote for us, you will have what you have got and you are going to get more. But if you vote for the Workers' Party, upgrading will cease, you may not get your MRT, trains will not stop here, you would not get your LRT, you would not get your new town, your children may not get good places in schools." If that is not intimidation, I would like to know what is intimidation. That was his threat, all or nothing. We referred this matter for an opinion to a Queen's Counsel in London and he said it was clearly an intimidation and in breach of that section under the Parliamentary Elections Act. PM told the voters that if they did not vote for the PAP, they were going to lose everything. But that is not all. On election day, when the law is that no one, other than the voters, the candidate and his agent, will be allowed into the polling centre, we had the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister driving in, shaking hands with voters queuing up to vote, and going beyond that into the area where they were casting their votes, watching over them. That seemed to us to be a clear breach of the Parliamentary Elections Act which said that no one, other than the voters, the candidate and his agent will be allowed, besides of course the election officials and the police officers to keep the order. If that is not a violation of the Rule of Law, what is it then? May I also refer to the publication by the papers. The Straits Times carried it on their front page. I have no doubt that the Chinese newspapers also carried the same message on their front page. The New Paper thought that it would go one better. It tabulated, for the benefit of the readers, what they would get and what they would not get, depending on their choice. Vote for the Workers' Party, you would not get this, you would not get that, etc. The Parliamentary Elections Act says that on polling day itself, there shall be no campaigning, there shall be no intimidation, there shall be no forcing of voters and yet, the papers blatantly carried all these on polling day. Was any action taken against the papers? Is that a violation of the Rule of Law or not? And yet, we are asked to commend the Government for upholding the Rule of Law and ensuring that it is fully observed by all. I selected the elections because that is the starting point, the main foundation for ensuring that there is a democracy, a properly elected government ruling the country, a government elected by the people with complete freedom to choose their representatives without any fear, without any constraint. Did the Cheng San voters have that freedom? Will you please try and answer that? You have the Prime Minister, not the PAP official. You have the Prime Minister because he was already Prime Minister on nomination day. There was no question that he would be the Prime Minister. He went there and he said this. So what freedom of choice did the Cheng San voters have? Let us be honest and ask this question. Here is the Prime Minister telling you, "I am going to withdraw everything from you." What is more, he told them, "If you vote for us, you'll have a hot line to me. You'll have a hot line to two Deputy Prime Ministers." I have been telling some of the Cheng San voters, "Why do you not ring up the Prime Minister? Ring him up and say, this is the hot line, Mr Prime Minister. Will you listen to me?" and see what response you get. The detention under the Internal Security Act is not answered simply by saying that we may need it. It is justified. The question you have to answer is: does it or does it not violate the Rule of Law? The rule, as I said, was propounded in the 13th century when the Barons said, "No one will be deprived of his liberty except by the lawful judgment of the court." Is it or is it not a violation of the Rule of Law? It is no good arguing that it is necessary because you want to keep Singapore safe. If you want to keep Singapore safe, then shoot all criminals. Then perhaps people may not take up to crime. Have summary trials, summary justice, then Singapore will be absolutely safe. But is that what we want in Singapore? So we must look at the picture as a whole. Does detention without trial violate the Rule of Law? Do not just say that it keeps Singapore safe, we will not have any trouble. Let us be honest and say, "No, in Singapore, we do not uphold the Rule of Law. We don't think the Rule of Law really is necessary for our society because we want to keep Singapore safe. So we are going to give our Ministers arbitrary power to keep Singapore safe." Then, at least, the world will know that we are being honest, that we are not interested in the Rule of Law. We have our own way of doing things. But if you keep saying that we observe the Rule of Law, then you have got to ask the question: do we? And if you examine the record of this Government, certainly from 1965 onwards, you will find that this is a Government which, through its Ministers, through its civil servants, especially the law enforcement agencies, has violated the Rule of Law. I have mentioned the instances. But, as I said, you do not just look at it at one instance, two instances. I could go on and explain in detail, but I do not think I will have the time for that. The way Police investigations are carried out violates the Rule of Law; not informing arrested persons of their right, denying them counsel once they are taken into custody for up to three weeks violating the Rule of Law. Yes, you can, of course, say it is necessary. Our police have to investigate, our police have to stamp out crime. So we have got to give them these powers. Let us say we do not want the Rule of Law. For us, it is more important that our officers have the power to get criminals out of the society and, similarly, with other powers of the police. The amendment ignores the realities in Singapore. It does not look at the situation in Singapore but seeks approval or approbation because Singapore is such a good place. Everyone is happy. Well, that is questionable. But it ignores the realities, because we have got this result. It does not matter about the means. But the means are important. It is not just the end. It is the means which will justify the end, not the end that will justify the means. The other constant theme of Mr Simon Tay and even Prof. Chin is, "Go to the courts, go to the courts." But that is to miss the whole point of the argument. Does Mr Simon Tay know that with the amendment to the Internal Security Act, the courts are now precluded from inquiring into the merits of the detention?

May I clarify?

Do that afterwards. This happened after the Court of Appeal in 1989 decided it would no longer follow its past ---

Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, you have used up your 30 minutes.

Sir, may I speak very briefly on the amendment to the motion. In prefacing my remarks, may I just reply perhaps to the rhetorical question Mr Jeyaretnam asked me. Yes, I do understand what the amendments to the ISA have done. In my remarks earlier, I said that I saw this therefore as an exception to the rule of law.

Why? Why is it an exception?

That is why I argued about my own experience in recognising some of the realities. And I must point out to the NCMP, Mr Jeyaretnam, that his position is inconsistent, because while he says he is against the ISA on a principle of the Rule of Law, he has not recommended, in his speech, the abandonment of the Misuse of Drugs Act, simply some more safeguards. And that is inconsistent. It is only consistent if he looked at the realities, which means to say case by case. Let me turn to the amendment to the motion. May I just ask two points of clarification from the Member for Sembawang GRC, Prof. Chin. This is with regard to the second leg of the amendment. In commending the Government for upholding the Rule of Law, does this amendment suggest that the courts have had no or very limited role in holding the Rule of Law? Secondly, in suggesting that the Rule of Law is fully observed by all, is this amendment suggesting that Singapore is somehow perfect? Because, if either of these suggestions are there, which I hope they are not, then I am afraid I cannot agree with this motion. While Singapore has a good record, it is by no means perfect and can be improved upon further. Secondly, if we do have a good record, it is not only the Government that has observed this and made it possible. They have had a role but it is also the role of the courts and other institutions of this country.

Sir, since Mr Tay has asked about the amended motion, may I just make a couple of points. Commending the Government in relation to that aspect of the Rule of Law which relates to the importance of public servants abiding by rationality, following proper legislation and orders, it is, as I have said just now, not the only aspect of the Rule of Law that exists. I have mentioned, and I think the Minister of State has also mentioned, that it is quite clear that our courts also deserve to be commended for the good work that it has done in ensuring the Rule of Law in Singapore. But if you look at the original motion, the emphasis is on the public servants and the public officers, and that is why the amended motion follows very closely that aspect. As to your second point ---

Order. Prof. Chin, can you address your points to the Chair?

I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. In ensuring that it is fully observed by all, that is an expression of an intention, an expression of the expectation that the Government would ensure that all public servants obey and observe the Rule of Law, and it is no more than what it says. I hope that clarifies the situation for Mr Tay.

Sir, I did not originally intend to speak but having listened to this long and rambling speech by Mr Jeyaretnam, I think I should say a few words, lest he gets away with thinking that he is always right when he is always wrong. I am no doctor, no lawyer, just a Minister. Common sense tells me and sometimes I read journals and what may interest me. I know that as we get older, our short-term memory gets worse. Our long-term memory is always there. So Mr Jeyaretnam recalls all these past instances and selectively remembers certain things and conveniently forgets others that he has learnt over the years. When he quotes certain instances, he has forgotten all the answers that have been given in this House or that have been replied to in other forums. He just completely ignores them or conveniently forgets them. The few examples he gave in this half-an-hour of additional time that he has as a result of this amendment boiled down to three or four points. The first point he made was that in a democracy the Government should not have more than two-thirds majority, otherwise it is not a democracy. I do not know by whose definition it is for this particular term of democracy that the Government should not have more than a two-thirds majority. When you have a democratic system, in our case a system that allows the people to elect and choose a government every five years, they decide who they want to govern them. We know that the people have decided, since 1959, that the People's Action Party is the party they want to govern Singapore. Except for the initial years, we have got more than two-thirds majority since. That is the wish of the people, not the wish of the PAP. From 1965 till 1981, when Mr Jeyaretnam first came to this House and made a big song and dance about it, those were the years when the PAP had total control of this House and in all policy-decision making. Of course, he would say, "One party, and therefore oppressive and bad for the people." But the records say otherwise. Over those few years, despite the difficulties we faced and the issues we had to deal with, despite some people who wanted to down Singapore, we have succeeded. We have succeeded because of the policies that we have formulated, the ways we have implemented them and the ways the people have supported them. They knew quite well in their hearts that this Government delivers whatever it promises. While we had complete control in this House, we did not abuse it. In fact, we have had some of our older colleagues play the role of the Opposition to counter, challenge and criticise our policies to make sure that we were not all of the same mind, moving in one direction regardless of whether the policies were right or wrong. We moved on and we succeeded. In 1981, Mr Jeyaretnam came to the House. What additional contribution did he make? I think the record is there for people to see. In 1984, Mr Chiam came to this House. In 1991, four Opposition MPs came to this House. I think the people had enough. In one term, the people recognised some of them were just not competent enough to serve them and two of them are no longer in this House. That is the kind of Opposition we have. So when Mr Jeyaretnam is unable to get more people to support him, and unable to attract the right people to work with him, do not blame it on the People's Action Party or the Government. He should only blame it on himself. Mr Jeyaretnam became the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party since 1972.

1971.

1971. What has changed in the Workers' Party since? What new people are there? Of course, Mr Low Thia Khiang is a rare find. But that is a rarity in the Workers' Party. What else do we have in the Workers' Party? What sort of people do they produce? Where are they election after election? Look at the People's Action Party in 1971. Look at the people we had in 1971. How many of them are here except Senior Minister? Who else? 1976? A few more are still around. But every term we have got new people because we are able to attract them. Because we are inclusive and able to accommodate all views and take them into account and that we have to stay relevant in order to gain the people's support. That is how we have got here. It is not because of anything else. It is only because of the programmes and manifestos that we have. At every election we say, "This is the People's Action Party wanting to serve you again. This is what we will do for you if we are in charge." What is wrong with that? It is the job of every political party to win the election, including the Workers' Party, SDP, SPP and SP, and what have you. But the unfortunate part about it is that apart from the People's Action Party, none of them has any concrete programme to offer the people. When the PAP said, "If you vote for us, this is what we will do.", Mr Jeyaretnam says, "This is intimidation." Is it? But Mr Jeyaretnam is not a political novice. He is supposed to be an experienced Secretary-General of the Workers' Party since 1971, for almost 28 years. This is the reality of politics. Every political party everywhere in the world has a political programme for the people. When they are in charge, they implement them. If they do their jobs well, they will be re-elected. If they bluff the people and cannot deliver on their promises, they will be out very fast, like the SDP MPs. They could not perform and they were out. That is the reality. So despite his long years of experience in politics and some years in this House, he is not realistic. That is the unfortunate part of it. So the half-an-hour when I was there sitting and listening to him is a very painful exercise. It is painful to me because listening to him we hear the same thing over and over again. The man has not got out of the past when the past is long past. What we have now is the present going to the next millennium, and we are talking of the Internet world. But if he operates by the old system and thinks in the old way, he will never progress. Certainly, he will not. Does he mean that by having an Elections Commission it will do wonders to the Workers' Party? I doubt it. Look at some other countries where they have Elections Commissions. What have they become in some of them? In fact, I do not think the system has run very well in some of them, despite whatever systems they may have. Our Election Department runs a small outfit. Every four or five years, and now with the Presidential Election works, we get the people in the civil service to support and help as Returning Officers, etc. That is the kind of structure we have over the years and it has worked. If he says that it is intimidation because we offer people a programme and that the Election Department is unfair because they are not in charge, there is one route for him, that is, to take it to the courts on an Elections Petition. If he says he has a QC's opinion that what we did the last time was a violation of the law, then the right place to take it to is to the courts, apply to the Election Judge and take up a petition. That is the way, if he really believes in the Rule of Law. What else can it be, if he believes in the Rule of Law? To take a gun and shoot people, like he says? No, certainly that is not the way to do things. The matter is really this. Over these years, people have seen the PAP. They have compared the PAP with all the other parties and they know that the PAP has delivered and that is why they elected us time and again. If we tell the newspapers, "No, you cannot summarise the issues, and you cannot report the eve of polling day speeches.", Mr Jeyaretnam's complaint will be, "Why is there a blackout? Why are you blacking it out and not telling people what the programmes are?" If you do not have a programme, there is nothing for the newspapers to publicise. We have a programme and therefore the newspapers publicise us. That is certainly not our fault. Does the ISA violate the Rule of Law? I think both Mr Simon Tay and Prof. Chin and my Minister of State have said no. The Constitution itself says that Parliament may make any law that ensures national security. If that is against the law, take it up in the courts, unless Mr Jeyaretnam says we cannot trust our courts. Is he saying that? If so, say so. Call a spade a spade. Do not mumbo-jumbo and say all kinds of things and not get to the point. We had four cases of ISA arrests which were mentioned to this House when the question was asked by Mr Simon Tay. We do not just keep people unnecessarily. If they are no longer a security threat they will be out. There is no reason to detain them. But if they were a threat and they have not cooperated and told us everything, they will be detained. As a result, of the four cases, two have already been released because they have been level with the Internal Security Department and have recanted. They have explained their role and now they are no longer a threat and therefore they were released. The other two are still being detained because they have not been fully honest with us. The other point that he talked about is police investigation. Mr Jeyaretnam is a lawyer. I am only the Minister overseeing a department of police officers. If they have violated the law, Mr Jeyaretnam, who has represented many cases, would have won them, would he not? But I am sure of the results of that. All I know is that when police investigates, they follow the rules and the law. They go to the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General sanctions it before it goes to prosecution. The success rate in prosecution is pretty high. But that does not mean that every case prosecuted will be successful. The court has, from time to time, found it justified that either the case was not properly investigated or there was no case and therefore threw it out. That is the Rule of Law in application. We must look at it, as Mr Jeyaretnam says, in perspective, take the whole picture. But, unfortunately, he could only say, "Look at the whole picture", when in effect he only looks at the tree. That is the unfortunate part and very painful to me.

May I, by way of clarification, put two questions to the Minister. Is it or is it not intimidation for the Prime Minister of the country to come and tell voters that if they vote for the Opposition party, his Government will deny them everything? Is it or is it not intimidation? I told him that a Queen's Counsel is of the view that it is intimidation. Will he answer that question? Secondly, is the Minister aware, perhaps he does not bother to read anything that the Workers' Party put out, that the Workers' Party had a manifesto outlining all the areas of Government and outlining the Workers' Party's proposals and programmes? If he has not read it, it is not our mistake. Of course, the papers would not give it prominence but do not make an accusation that we did not have a programme or a manifesto. I will produce it to you and will you please produce to us the manifesto that the PAP put out during the elections. Was it in a book form, a comprehensive one, containing all the policies that will be implemented, the programmes of the party? I have not seen anything. So will he please let us have that and I will give him mine.

Sir, again he says the PM has intimidated the voters. The PM says, "These are my programmes. If you vote for me, this is what you get. If you vote for the Opposition, this is what you will not get from me." I think that is fair. Why? Because it is our programme, you vote for me, I give you my programme. If you vote for the Opposition programme, and if I still give you my programme, then I must be stupid! Cannot be, is it not? If we are stupid, we would not be here. Workers' Party has a manifesto. Yes, I am aware of that manifesto. But if people do believe in the manifesto, if they trust you to deliver -

You said the Opposition Party had no manifesto, no programme. Those were your words.

Let us not quibble about whether you have or you do not have. Assuming that you have, and I believe that you have --- Mr Jeyaretnam rose.

Order, order.

And I believe I have seen it too, what difference does it make? You are not in charge of the Government. If you have not read the PAP's, too bad!

Clarification, Sir. Is the Minister saying that whatever Opposition has, because we are not in charge of the Government, even if we can bring up whatever programme, it will be useless? And the PAP is capitalising itself on its position as the Government to say that because it is in charge, it will give the people everything that this Government has. But where does the money of the Government come from? The people. If you do not vote for me, I will not give you, whether it is the programme of the PAP as a party or the programme of the Government. Are you saying that the Secretary-General of PAP can go to the voters and say, "Well, I am the Secretary-General. I can give you."? I wonder whether a person, who becomes the Prime Minister of a country, should behave as though he is the Secretary-General of the ruling party. Is he looking after the interests of the Party or looking after the interests of the nation?

Sir, I think these are fine points that we are debating. If the PAP is in charge, we are the Government. Over the last 40 years, we have been the Government. Whatever that were accumulated is a result of this Government's policies, and that is a fact and a reality. So when we make a promise and say, "Well, you elect us, we will do this for you, we will carry out our programme." And for the last 9 or 10 terms, this is what we have been doing. That is a reality. We are not politically naive as that, surely.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, listening to the debate in this House over the motion and the amendment, I was reminded of this story. Two housewives went to the market and they saw a rather big fish. They were arguing about how long it was. Housewife A said, "Well, I have got a way to determine this." And she pulled out a string, measured the fish and then compared it to her arm, and she said, "It is about 50 cm." Whereupon housewife B said, "No, it is not." She took a look and she said, "It is 49.74 cm." Whereupon housewife A said, "How did you know? How can you be so accurate?" And housewife B replied, "Ruler, lor." Sir, as we debate what Rule of Law means in this House and whether we value it or not, I think sometimes we must be clear that we know what we are talking about. We cannot be inexact and flawed in our definition of what Rule of Law is. We cannot take a string and say this is what I think Rule of Law is. I do believe that Mr J B Jeyaretnam who has spoken extensively acknowledges that there is Rule of Law. The only problem he has is that this Rule of Law, because it is so well upheld by the Government, he has to re-define it. And he very cleverly uses a case from the Privy Council to say, yes, Rule of Law does not mean written law; yes, we have obeyed the written law. But besides the written law, there is something called the rules of natural justice. Speaking as a lawyer, I think it is indeed true that there are rules of justice which are part of the laws of Singapore, and we do not deny that. Perhaps the debate is so esoteric a topic, that it is the reason why most of the speakers in this House so far have been lawyers. But let me just give a graphic illustration of what Rule of Law is and is not. If you talk about Rule of Law, it is the exact opposite of law of the ruler. Rule of Law means the law decides what you can do, what you as a ruler can do. Law of the ruler means what I say as a ruler, that is law. In some countries around us, we have read the newspapers, it makes headlines when a ruler stops at the traffic lights. Because in that country, the Rule of Law is so abused and violated that when finally a ruler does stop at a traffic light, it is news! I think what would be news in Singapore would be a Minister or an MP shooting the red light. That is breaking the law, and they will be taken to court, I am quite sure, if that happens. So Mr J B Jeyaretnam finds nothing wrong with the law, and nothing wrong with our application of it.

May I have a point of clarification?

I am not giving him the floor. It gives me concern that his flawed definition would therefore mislead those in the House who are not lawyers, and mislead the public who are not lawyers. When we talk about the ISA, he cites that as an example of the breach of the Rule of Law. But if you look at the principles of the Rule of Law, and particularly at the principles of natural justice, natural justice requires essentially two basic principles. One is that you have the right to be heard and to explain your case, and, two, is the right to equal treatment. A right to have your case heard also means that there is a review. As the Minister of State has mentioned, even in the ISA we have got Advisory Boards that review the cases and recommend to the President whether the detention is to be upheld or not. So we do have rules of natural justice applied. There are appeals possible and there are reviews possible. And as Mr Simon Tay has mentioned, there are courts that would review our decisions and the decisions of administrators. Mr Low Thia Khiang has said that there is a difference between the policy and the law. Perhaps there is, perhaps there is not. But if a policy is made and it is in contravention of the law, the courts will strike it out. The Ministers would never have allowed it if they realise it is in violation of the law. Nonetheless, if Queen's Counsel or any esteemed lawyers have given an opinion to the Opposition that things are otherwise, they should test it out in the courts, and our courts are independent, and the Opposition does admit it. And we have examples. Mr Simon Tay has mentioned examples of how the courts have actually ruled against the Government. So there is natural justice, and we must not say that there is not. Mr Jeyaretnam chides the House and certain Members of the House, and I do believe he does chide the Members of the Opposition too, both from his party and from the Singapore People's Party, saying that they are just hijacking the debate from this high abstract concept of natural justice to instances, isolated instances, I must say. And isolated instances may sometimes prove a point, but I agree with Mr J B Jeyaretnam here that we should not look at isolated instances but look at the whole wood. Having said that, however, he goes on ad infinitum on an isolated case and isolated cases. I would say that natural justice requires that the courts are independent and impartial and nobody in this House has disagreed with that. So the ruler does not decide what the law means. It is the court, independent of the ruler, who decides what it means, and that to me, Sir, is the Rule of Law. I would say also that Mr J B Jeyaretnam's arguments are flawed. For example, he says that we should put the CPIB and the Police under, I do not know what, but away from the Government.

Out of political control.

Out of political control. Out of the hands of the political masters, he says. He forgets that if the Police are not accountable to anybody and if they are not checked by anybody, then it will be a Police state beyond what he can imagine. It will no longer be Rule of Law. At least, under the political masters, the political masters are subject to checks, and there are very clear checks. One is that the courts can say, you are out of order, you cannot do this. And the courts have done that, as I have said. Two, every five years or less, they go to the ballot box. And if they have systematically abused the law and the system, they would not be elected, they would be chucked out, and we have not seen that happen yet to the People's Action Party. So I do not believe that the population thinks that there is a blatant disregard for the Rule of Law. Mr J B Jeyaretnam thinks that an Elections Commission would solve all these problems. Perhaps he thinks that with an Elections Commission, the Workers' Party would be a ruling party. I do not think so. The people finally decide, whether it is an Elections Commission or not. But the Elections Commission is not the cure because, if it was, as Mr Wong has pointed out, then there are many countries that have Elections Commissions - they should not be having the problems they are having. And we have got examples recently on this. Mr J B Jeyaretnam would, I am sure, say that the United States of America is a prime example of the Rule of Law. I would say that if he thinks so, and I know he has said this in not so many words before, that the country is a prime example of the Rule of Law. Perhaps he forgets that even in a country like that, we have got Presidents who have been taken to task for breaching the Rule of Law. The Iran contra affair during the Reagan's years is one example. And President Nixon had to resign because of another breach of law.

He had to face the law.

Exactly. That is my point, Sir. That where you have a Rule of Law, a country that has respect for the Rule of Law, it is not whether the system is perfect or not. Nobody says our system is perfect. But it is what we do when there is a breach of the Rule of Law, and governments get knocked out. Actually Reagan did not get knocked out, but that is another story. Governments get voted out and they get imprisoned if they have very blatantly broken the law. So as far as I am concerned, the Elections Commission, the absence or presence of it, does not equal Rule of Law. So we have done what we could. The Government has done what it has to do to make the Rule of Law well respected among Ministers, civil servants and all parties that uphold the law in Singapore. Mr J B Jeyaretnam has got some complaints about how the newspapers deal with his Party. Sir, the last time I checked, the editors of the Straits Times and Zaobao had not occupied the Istana yet. They are not the Government. They should not be brought into this debate which we are now debating, and that is, that we commend the Government for upholding the Rule of Law. Sir, I must add that perhaps if you were to look at another way of summarising what we mean by the Rule of Law, it is that the Rule of Law is a situation where laws are fair and transparent and predictable, as Mr Chiam has cleverly put it, in a moment of inspiration perhaps. I do not think that we have problems with this, and I do not think Mr Chiam has problems with this. He has one instance, and I believe that instance came about from a misinterpretation of what the law and the policy said, and so I think he should be better informed now as to how that law or that policy was applied. Sir, instances like that only go to show that we are not perfect. There are things you can do to improve, but certainly we are living in a country where the Rule of Law is supreme and we have to commend our Government for it. We do value the Rule of Law and we hope that Singapore will continue to have the Rule of Law and good governance and keep Singapore in the eyes of the world, almost heaven.

May I ask by way of clarification?

Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, it is very clear in the Standing Orders when you resort to clarifications. I have always given you the benefit of the doubt when you stand up and go by way of clarification.

I am asking by way of clarification.

May I remind you that if you do this too often, I shall rule you out of order. It is an abuse of the Standing Orders.

I want to ask him a question by way of clarification on his statement.

Carry on. I will decide whether it is a clarification or not.

All right. Thank you. The speaker says that in a detention under the ISA, we have an advisory panel or board. Is he saying it has the same powers as a court of law? Does not the rule of natural justice require that a person should not be deprived of his liberty unless he is tried by a court of law and is found guilty on evidence admissible in a court of law? Does it or does it not say so in the rule of natural justice? And is this what happens in an advisory panel hearing? Are witnesses called to substantiate the Government's case? Is the detainee given right to cross-examine and call any witnesses? Is that what he is saying?

Order. That is not a clarification. Yes, Mr Chiam. Have you spoken?

Not on the amendment.

All right. Proceed.

Sir, I hope I have a moment of inspiration now as I speak. I would like to speak on the amendment to the motion of Mr Jeyaretnam. I wonder why Prof. Chin uses the word "values" rather than "uphold". Sometimes, people value some belief and yet they do not uphold their belief. So I think "uphold" is a better word. Also, he wants the motion to be amended on the second limb "Commends the Government for upholding the Rule of Law and ensuring that it is fully observed by all". I cannot agree with this because of my experience in my constituency. I would like to cite some of the examples where Rule of Law is not observed in my constituency. Sir, some of the Members here may think that that is trivial. When talking of advancement of the Internet, it is probably a small thing to talk about what happens on the ground. But I can tell you that the battle for each seat here in Parliament is fought at the constituency, on the ground level. So it is important. Prof. Chin also said that if you are not happy, you can always go for a judicial review. But how do you go for a judicial review when a Minister makes a decision not to allow the MP even to plant a tree there? Yes, it happened to me. At that time, one of the members of the public felt that he should present me with a tree because my MP's office was about to be opened, in memory of that. Like a good MP, I wrote to the HDB for permission to plant one tree and they said, "No. Very sorry. It is not included in the planting plan of the constituency. You better write to the Parks and Trees Department." So we wrote. The Parks and Trees Department replied that the earth there was not suitable for this kind of tree. When I read that, I went ahead and planted the tree. So the tree was planted. On that night, somebody came and pulled it out and put it in front of my office. Of course, we planted it back in a pot, just to be safe, but not on the ground. How do we go for a judicial review to get permission to have the right to plant a tree? I do not know how it is done. Maybe somebody should advise me. But to me, this is a political matter and it should be resolved politically. Again, at one time, the PAP was generous enough to give Opposition members a walled-up office at the void deck. I was given one and was very happy and we made good use of it for our meet-the-people sessions. Residents could come in to discuss their personal problems with privacy in the office. But now, I do not have an office. It was torn down and given to somebody else. So we have to hold the meet-the-people session with just a temporary curtain across and very little privacy. We have to speak very softly so that other people could not hear. The office was torn down, so what do I do? Do I go for a judicial review and say, "Look, you have made the decision to give us an office. Now it is torn down. I think the decision is wrong, not properly done. It is not clear, not rational, not in the public interest. It does not qualify as an appropriate action." Then we have this problem of pasar malams. Pasar malams of course earn for the people who organise it. Every time you organise it, you get something like $25,000. The money can be useful for welfare work and promoting your interest at the constituency. But suddenly the rules were changed and we were deprived of holding pasar malams. They said, "You can have two pasar malams a year." But suddenly some grassroots organisations, I am not very clear, were given two years of quota of pasar malam. Instead of one year once, they were given two years. In others words, we were straightaway deprived of two years. How do you vouch for that? How do you take that for a judicial review? So these are small problems which you may think are trivial. But these add up to the popularity or status of the MP there. If he can hold pasar malam or plant a tree, people go round and say, "That is the tree planted by the Opposition." Politically, it is probably not prudent for them to allow all this thing. That is why they were taken off. Now, the battle of the notice boards. The RCs have notice boards, so do our town councils. We are supposed to put up only notices concerning the town council and the RCs are supposed to put up only notices concerning their activities. But if they turn political and put up reports of the Prime Minister and photograph of the prospective candidate there, advertising himself all the time, and a lot of political matters, what do I do? Do I go and complain to the courts and say, "Look, this is only meant for RC matters and no political matters are to be put on the notice boards." Again, these are little problems. In the end, maybe Mr Low Thia Khiang is right. What actually is needed is not Rule of Law, but what is fair to both sides. I am not particularly worried that all these things are done because they are actually political matters and should be resolved by political means. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

I call for a division, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Those Members in support of a division please rise in their seats.

I call for a division. I want a division on this vote. Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang rose.

There being less than five Members, a Division is not allowed. Can you please resume your seat?

May it be noted that I called for a division.

All right. We will record that. I will just repeat it again. In future, please do not interrupt me. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." Amendment accordingly agreed to. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted." Amendment accordingly agreed to.

The Question now before this House is the Original Question, as amended: "That this House (1) values the importance of the Rule of Law; and (2) commends the Government for upholding the Rule of Law and ensuring that it is fully observed by all.". Mr Jeyaretnam, if you want to speak, you can speak now.

I want to reply to the comments made when I spoke.

Carry on.

I do not want to keep repeating what I have already said. But may I just take up a few things which were not brought up in the amendment speech. The Minister of State said in his speech - I want to reply to him because I think I have already dismissed the others - as I understand it, that all are subject to the same law. This is what we want, equality, all subject to the same law. But he does not deal with the specific inequalities that we have shown that have happened in Singapore. I have mentioned the elections as an example and nothing has been said about that. I have mentioned about the purchases of the apartment. This, I have said, came under the second limb about all persons being equal under the law. All that the Minister of State can say is, "The Senior Minister and the DPM came to Parliament to explain the purchases." We have the Prevention of Corruption Act. We have section 8 in that Act which says that where any public official gets any benefit, advantage, favour from anyone who has any dealing with the Government, then he will be deemed to have got that benefit or favour corruptly. And we had here Ministers, not only Ministers, Judge and other public officers getting this benefit. The matter was not referred to the CPIB for investigation. But what was done was for the Prime Minister to take it into his hands and to appoint another Minister and somebody else outside to look into it. Where is the equality between the Ministers and anybody outside the Government? In their case, it would have been referred immediately to the CPIB for investigation. But it was not. That is one example where the law was not applied equally. Then he says, "Police do not take decisions from Ministers." May I tell the Minister of State and this House that in a proceeding in a court when I was charged along with the then Chairman for speaking without a permit, and we claimed trial and the licensing officer was called to give evidence for the prosecution, in answer to my question, he said, "Yes, I have been appointed under the Act to consider every application and to make the decision." But he said that there was a ruling that if any application is made by an Opposition political party, that application should be referred to the Ministry first. Of course, we had known that because previously, prior to that case, every time I rang him up he said, "Well, I am afraid that I do not know the decision yet. You have to wait. I will let you know when I get the decision." Well, that was giving himself away. So, there was an admission in court that applications from Opposition political parties were being treated differently from applications by other organisations or individuals. There, you have a clear breach of the Rule of Law that all persons are equal and no one is above the law. The final point, which I would like to make, is to underscore what Mr Chiam has said. The Rule of Law does not talk about how judicial decisions are to be made. That is something quite different. That is built up under the common law and there are rules of court. But what the Rule of Law says is that the executive cannot deprive anyone of his liberty or his goods without a specific law and observing in executing that law, the rules of natural justice. It is no answer to say we have the Rule of Law because we have the courts. We are not talking about the same thing. The Rule of Law is outside the courts. It is for the executive, for the Government, to abide by. It is for the man-in-the-street, the public, to abide by, and of course the courts themselves to abide by it. But the Rule of Law is not just concerned with decisions made by the courts. The Rule of Law is concerned to ensure that the executive, that the Government is under law, just like any ordinary citizen. It is, therefore, no answer to say the courts are there to judge, we are not infringing the Rule of Law. It is a non sequitur completely.

Mr Deputy Speaker, just a short rebuttal. First, I think I have to put on record that when I said that the Minister does not direct the Police what to do, it is not in relation to matters, all and sundry, but it is in relation to applications under the Public Entertainments Act when political parties are concerned. In other words, when an Opposition party applies for a PEL, the licensing officer will have to exercise his professional judgement as he is required to do under the Public Entertainments Act. He does not seek the approval of the Minister.

That was not what that officer said.

I am telling him the practice as we do it now. The other point is Mr Low Thia Khiang's comment about fairness. What is important is that if we have rules, for example, like setting up a community foundation, it is open to everybody to do it, not just PAP but Opposition parties. If you are unable to do it because of financial constraints, you should not say that there is no Rule of Law. Finally, Mr Chiam brought up some instances on the ground which he has lived with. These are, as he has said, not problems of the Rule of Law but how all of us handle matters on the ground to reach out to constituents. Original Question, as amended, put , and agreed to. Resolved, That this House (i) values the importance of the Rule of Law; and (ii) commends the Government for upholding the Rule of Law and ensuring that it is fully observed by all.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed. " - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Eight minutes past Seven o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.