各位嘉宾， 大家晚上好!
今天是工人党成立五十周年纪念。 工人党在一九五七年创立，当时新加坡还在英国的管辖之下，大家都渴望能够争取独立与自主。
首先为国人争取民权的就是工人党的创办人，也就是我们的第一任主席—马绍尔先生—一位令人敬佩的出色律师。 今晚我们很荣幸能邀请到他的家人—马绍尔夫人及儿子—为座上嘉宾，令这个晚宴增色不少。
今晚，我们在一起欢庆五十年奋斗历程的同时，也回顾我们走过的这五十年崎岖的道路。 陪着我们一路走来许多在座的资深党员，你们默默地付出，为安顺选区与后港选区争取最后的胜利。即使在党员只剩下寥寥几人，你们依然坚持到底。不管是在种种 的困境或劣势的挑战之下，你们仍旧继续为党无私的奉献和牺牲，以确保工人党能继续为民众服务。没有你们不离不弃的坚韧精神，我们没有今天。 让我再次向大家说声 “谢谢!”
今晚是工人党迈向另一个新的里程碑。我们出版了这本工人党五十周年纪念特刊。 这本特刊以四种官方语言记载了工人党创党五十年来的发展历程。 内容丰富精彩, 除了记录工人党的参选﹑参政过程外，还有新﹑旧党员及许多在场来宾的访问的摘录。本特刊每本售价为十四元，你们可在入口处向蕙玲购买。
这本特刊在商家们和支持者大力的赞助之下，才能以这个特价发售。 在此，我要感谢你们的慷慨解囊，谢谢大家的鼎力支持!
今晚的盛会能成功举行，应该归功于这个五十周年纪念活动的所有工作人员。 他们就是由我们的财政恩忠所带领的委员会。谢谢你们!
最后，谢谢大家抽空出席今天的晚宴。希望大家能和老朋友叙叙旧的同时，也借这个机会认识新的朋友。祝大家有个愉快的夜晚!
谢谢!
Good evening Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen:
50 years ago on 3 November 1957, the Workers’ Party was registered as a society in Singapore. At that time, Singapore was still under British colonial rule, with a thirst for independence and self-determination.
Foremost in this movement was the founding Chairman of the Workers’ Party, Mr David Saul Marshall, a formidable lawyer whose courtroom skills were legendary. This evening, we are indeed privileged to have with us his family members, his wife Mrs Jean Marshall and his son, Mr Jonathan Marshall. Thank you very much for gracing us with your presence today.
On this occasion, we will together recall and celebrate the trials and tribulations of the Workers’ Party since 1957 to date. Present today are many veteran members of the Party who kept the Party going through its victories in Anson and Hougang as well as the hard times when the party membership dwindled to less than ten. Despite the odds and challenging political climate, there have always been WP members who kept faith with the Party and made great sacrifices to ensure the survival of the Workers’ Party in its public service. Without you, we would not be here today.
Tonight, as a record of where we came from and where we are today, we unveil a landmark publication. It is simply called the Workers’ Party 50th Anniversary Commemorative Book. Written in the 4 official languages, you will find in it a historical account of the origins and journey of the Workers’ Party, from 1957, into independence, through 10 General Elections till today. It also contains interviews with members young and not so young, as well as the aspirations of many of you present today. This publication will be available for sale this evening at $14 each from Wai Leng near the entrance to the restaurant. We are able to bring it to you at a reasonable price due to the generous advertisers and sponsors who have supported this publication. A very big thank you to all our advertisers and sponsors.
Lastly, thank you all for taking time off to come to celebrate with us this evening. Besides the formal programme we have put together for you, we hope you will find this an evening well-spent with friends both old and new. Thank you and enjoy the evening.
by Sylvia Lim,
Non-Constituency Member of Parliament
Chairman, Workers’ Party
Assessment of situation in Singapore
Certainly, Singapore’s priority has always been economic development. This must always be important as a government goal, for with growth will come, we hope, improvement to people’s lives. We have all seen how the lack of economic development in Myanmar brings severe misery and finally, social unrest.
In its bid to make Singapore a business-friendly place, resources are poured into making Singapore politically stable, and strengthening dispute resolution mechanisms. In surveys of expatriates already quoted to you by our leaders, our legal system tends to be ranked very highly. I have no doubt that the qualifications of our judges and lawyers, and the efficiency of the courts, can meet any international benchmarks. Hence, businesses generally know that any dispute which comes before the courts will be dealt with quickly and in a reasoned way.
However, when one delves deeper into the issue of the quality of justice, there will be areas for improvement. One is the area of criminal justice, where Singapore, like all countries, faces the tension between crime control and due process. Singapore leans much towards the crime control model and has made compromises to due process. For instance, we have very strict drug laws here. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act, there are presumptions of fact which the prosecution can rely on, which shift the burden of proof to the Defendant to rebut the presumptions. Speaking as a former defence counsel, it is not easy to rebut the presumption, especially since the accused person is usually in custody and the evidence he needs may be abroad. Our Constitution provides for an arrested person to be allowed to see his lawyer as soon as possible after arrest; yet as a result of case law, the Defendant will only be able to see his lawyer if the police feels it will not jeopardize their investigations, which could be several weeks later depending on the nature of the case. As one prepares for trial, there is no obligation for the prosecution to disclose evidence it has obtained but is not using, which could be very useful to the Defendant. I suppose if you were raising a young family here, such procedures may comfort you, but if your child were a suspect in a case, your experience would be quite different.
What about government power? How far can Parliament serve as a check on the executive government?
We inherited the Westminster system from London. Unlike the United States where the Executive and Legislature are distinct arms, the Westminster model requires the Cabinet to be drawn from the Legislature i.e. from Members of Parliament. Yet, even though we have common roots, the balance here is tilted much more in favour of the executive government. Why?
One reason is obviously the overwhelming dominance of the ruling party in Parliament, holding all but 2 elected seats, and that the party whip was lifted only on a handful of occasions in the last 40 years. Hence, if any matter is put to a vote, the executive government’s plans will prevail. Defenders of the system will say that this is the people’s choice, to re-elect the ruling party overwhelmingly. Again, delve deeper and one sees that there are walkovers in many constituencies due to lack of opposition candidates, but that’s for a political seminar, not for today. Much as I desire political reforms, I think we still need to respect the outcome of the elections and push for change within the limits of the law. At this point I should say that conferences such as these are very useful for us to benchmark ourselves against international practices, but finally we Singaporeans can decide for ourselves what kind of country we want.
One aspect of the rule of good law is freedom of information. This is another key difference between London and Singapore. Both structural and cultural factors are at play. We see in Britain laws requiring government declassification of official information, and the formation of boards of trustees as watchdogs over media companies to ensure that the public gets balanced information. In Singapore, more information is classified and the mass media is not subject to any oversight by a body protecting the public right to information. In Britain, there would be an outcry if someone formerly from the intelligence services or a former Cabinet Minister was put in charge of a media company. In Singapore, this is not unusual.
However, one media watchdog which has evolved naturally is the Internet community. It is now much harder for people to spin propaganda if alternative versions / leaks spring up online. In Singapore, we have clearly seen the effect of the Internet as empowering and forcing disclosure of more information of public interest. For instance, in the last Parliamentary elections here, the internet community took it upon itself to propagate news not carried in the mainstream media, particularly opposition news. We now also see the government using the mainstream media to address rumours or discussions arising from Internet discourse. I believe this ground-up development is very important and empowering for our citizens.
The last 2 aspects I would like to touch on are access to legal redress and the role of lawyers to promote the rule of law.
Regarding access to legal redress, there is the issue of the cost of legal counsel. This is not a criticism of lawyers but a fact of life. Here there is state-funded legal aid to a limited extent. For civil cases, the income ceiling is low and there are many who are above the ceiling who would still find lawyers very expensive. For criminal cases, the State funds the defence only in cases involving the death penalty. In non-capital cases, it falls on the voluntary scheme of the Law Society to provide aid.
One cultural impediment is that it is not common to find people suing the government especially the police. First, awareness of the limits of State power is generally low e.g. not many people know that the police can only keep someone for 48 hrs without producing them in court. Secondly, there are the rules of evidential privilege and official confidence which restrict discovery of official documents. Finally, the consequence of losing the case and paying legal costs to the government is a concern. Such a lack of challenge to the government is not good, as it may lead to our government officers becoming complacent.
Finally, let me say something about the role of lawyers. Under the Legal Profession Act1 here, the Law Society Council’s role is to take charge of matters concerning the practice of law. The Act also says the Law Society can comment on any other matters submitted to it. It has been said that this means that the Council should not comment on legislation that does not touch on the practice of law directly. I find this to be an unnecessary restriction on the Law Society whose members have much to offer on any laws or policies which it considers undesirable because of inherent unfairness, lack of due process, and being prone to abuse of power. I do not know how active your professional organizations are in your countries, but I am sure lawyers can add tremendous value on rule of law concerns even in areas not touching the practice of law. Indeed, each of us has a duty to do so.
