ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT OF DETAINEES BY POLICE

4.26 p.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to move the motion standing in my name, which reads:

"That this Assembly views with very grave concern and alarm the repeated allegations of ill-treatment, by means of electric wires and cold freezing treatments, of some persons detained under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, 1955, by some officials of the Singapore Police Force at the Central Police Station, and, in view of the very serious nature of these allegations, is of the opinion that a Public Inquiry Commission, headed by a High Court Judge with two or more independent and impartial members of high standing and having public confidence and respect, be set up forthwith to inquire into and report on the truth or otherwise of these allegations."

Sir, in moving my motion, it brings my memory back to the old days of the Japanese regime. During the Japanese regime, everyone trembled at the word Kempetai; that word was a very dangerous one during the Japanese time. Today, we are supposed to live in a world of freedom, and Singapore is considered the most peaceful country in the East. But, Sir, the Government, under the guise of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, has made the people fear it more than they feared the Kempetai during the Japanese regime, because of the powers given to the police under this Ordinance. Under this Ordinance the people are frightened to death to criticise either the Government or the police. How can then a person develop his personality under arbitrary detention without open trial?

What is worse, apart from this, is that torture is practised by the police on detained persons. Every country or society must enact laws to protect itself from criminals and other evil-doers; and in order that such laws of the country are complied with and maintained, Government has got to introduce legislation to safeguard the interests of all shades of people, be they coloured or uncoloured. Such powers as arrest, search or detention are given to the police, and as long as these powers are properly exercised, they are the safeguards of freedom and human rights.

Sir, daily we experience or hear of many cases of abuses of power by some officials of the police force. It was only yesterday when two Bills were introduced that we hear Members of this Assembly criticise the abuses, or are afraid that the powers given to the police may be abused. If such powers given to the police are abused, then arbitrary rule takes place. It leads to the hater Gestapo or Kempetai rule and then the country becomes a police state. Like the Japanese rule, Sir, false confessions are put on through Kempetai methods and the Kempetai methods are nothing but torture.

During peace-time, a man can be sent to prison for the crimes that he has committed in the past. But the Government cannot detain any person for imaginary offences of the future that the Government expects him to commit. In Singapore, Sir, there is no civil war; there is no national war. So we consider ourselves to be lucky to live in a world of paradise. Apart from how lucky we may be, Sir, we have the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, which is in fact forced on us and passed by this Assembly.

Under this Ordinance, if the Governor in Council is satisfied that a person is acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the country, the Chief Secretary shall make an order for the detention of that person for any period, but not exceeding two years. Such wide powers given by the Government cannot be carried out by the Chief Secretary alone. He is a single man and he cannot carry out such orders single-handed. So the Chief Secretary then relies upon the police force and calls upon the police force for the enforcement of these rules, orders or instructions issued by him under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance.

Under this Ordinance, Sir, the rules, orders or instructions made by him are not even published in the Government Gazette for the information of the public. Whatever is passed here or whatever the Government does is published in the Government Gazette, and that is what the Government Gazette is for - for the information of the public. But such things are not published in the Government Gazette. So, Sir, the handing over of this blank cheque by the Chief Secretary has in some instances resulted in very, very grave abuses of the law.

Take the case of Lim Chin Joo, Goh Boon Toh, Tan Bok Teng and Tan Juat Seng. I understand that the grievances or complaints of these four detainees were circulated to the majority of, if not to all the Members of this Assembly. And with the complaints I understand that a medical report by a private practitioner was attached. These complaints of torture, Sir, are very, very grave abuses of the law and a threat to our very existence. Police officers engaged in the detention of offenders should not be allowed to discard the detention skill, if they have any, and try to use more easy and tempting measures of torture to make people confess and so obtain the clues that they want.

I am not a lawyer, Sir, but I am told by some legal friends that the law of evidence of the courts provides that a confession made by an accused person whilst in the custody of the police cannot be admissible in a court of law. The object of this law, Sir, is to safeguard the accused person from being subject to abuse by police officers for extortion and oppression to get the information required. I have known quite a lot of cases where the police often extort confessions, by undue influence of torture and oppression. To prevent such abuses, this law was enacted.

To me, I cannot see how torture can be used to obtain confessions. Are we, Sir, going back to the old Japanese regime, when we feared the word Kempetai? As I said earlier just now, Sir, when I introduced this motion my memory brings me back to the old, old days - 1942 to 1945. Now it appears to me, Sir, that people, instead of fearing the word Kempetai, fear the word P.P.S.O. - the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance.

However, Sir, even in this Ordinance I cannot find the word "torture" at all. I have gone through it and there is not a single word which says torture. Therefore, Sir, how is it possible that brutal methods, as alleged, have found their way into the administrative system? If the allegations are true, then there is no doubt of the inevitable collapse and destruction of our administrative machinery.

Whatever we may say, Sir, the vital issue before us today is not of the torture. It is whether these allegations are true or not, whether they are in fact true or not. In the case of Lim Chin Joo, Sir, I understand he is the brother of a Member of this Assembly who is now, I think, in Changi Gaol with him. The allegations were made by Lim Chin Joo on oath before a Commissioner of Oaths, and I think that they should be accepted. I understand, Sir, that a few days after he had sworn to his complaint, he was removed to Changi Gaol. I presume that it was only after his complaint that he was transferred to Changi Gaol. Otherwise he might be confined in the Central Police Station lock-up for more torture.

It will be observed, Sir, that this detainee was confined in the Central Police Station for about five-and-a-half months in all. Soon after his arrest he was kept in the Central Police Station for 48 days. The Chief Secretary said yesterday that a man cannot be detained for more than six weeks, which is only 42 days and not 48 days. During this period he was not questioned at all. If the police did not intend to question him, why did the police confine him in that Central Police Station lock-up for 48 days? The Chief Secretary told us yesterday, while introducing the two amending Bills, that people are detained there for interrogation purposes. Then why was Lim Chin Joo not questioned or interrogated at all?

Furthermore, Sir, this appears to me a gross disregard and misuse of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. Not satisfied with this initial confinement of 48 days, he was again removed to the Central Police Station on 15th November last year from Changi Prison. There he was kept until the 11th or 12th of last month-it was only last month, Sir - a period from 15th November until that date is roughly about four months, to be precise, 116 days. Why, Sir, when the Chief Secretary said a person can only be confined for six weeks, was this detainee confined in the first instance for 48 days?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Member for Queenstown to confine his speech to facts more relevant to the motion, which appears to be allegations of treatment by means of electric wires and cold-freezing treatment?

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am just introducing my subject to point out how the police confine detainees or persons in the Central Police Station for torture. When it comes to a certain stage or when it comes to the right time, I have documents with me which refer to torture and freezing treatment.

The total period during which this detainee was confined in the Central Police Station was, in the first instance, as I said, 48 days. The second instance was 116 days, making a total of 164 days, which is roughly five-and-a-half months. This discloses a shockingly long period for carrying out investigations. In the normal course of events, the police cannot detain a person for more than 24 hours unless ordered by a court of law. Under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, section 17 (3), a detainee can be confined in a police lock-up for about 16 days, 24 hours in the first instance and another 24 hours in the second instance, and then after investigation if the Chief Secretary is not satisfied, another 14 days. I will read the relevant section:

"Section 17 (3). No person shall be detained under the provisions of this section f or a period exceeding twenty-four hours except with the authority of a police officer of or above the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police or for a period of 48 hours in all:"-

which means a detainee can only be confined for 48 hours-

"Provided that if an officer of or above the rank of Superintendent of Police is satisfied that the necessary enquiries cannot be completed within the aforesaid period of 48 hours he may authorise the further detention of such person for an additional period not exceeding fourteen days and shall on giving such authorisation forthwith report the circumstances to the Commissioner of Police."

Sir, under this section a detainee can only be allowed to be confined for 16 days, but the Chief Secretary told us it is six weeks. I do not know how he gets his six weeks.

From this section, Sir, you can now note that, as I just said, it is for 48 hours in the first place, then another 14 days. When he was originally arrested on 22nd August, 1957, he was confined in the Central Police Station lock-up for about 48 days, then for four months, making a total of five-and-a-half months.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I feel obliged to remind the hon. Member for Queenstown that the wording of his motion reads as follows:

"That this Assembly views with very grave concern and alarm the repeated allegations of ill-treatment, by means of electric wires and cold-freezing treatments."

All we have heard so far have been certain sections of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance, nothing touching upon the wording of the motion. May I once again, therefore, ask the Member for Queenstown to confine his speech to the wording of his motion?

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Again I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My motion is closely related to this Ordinance, the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. It refers to four detainees who were arrested under this Ordinance, and I think in introducing my motion I should bring the preliminary in - what this Ordinance is and how those detainees were arrested under it. Unless I quote the section under this Ordinance, there is no indication of how the detainees were arrested and why they were arrested. That is why I have got to quote this Ordinance before I come to the actual torture.

Sir, as I said, he was confined there for five-and-a-half months. Where then is the legal and moral justification for this detainee to be confined in the Central Police Station for nearly five-and-a-half months? Is this not abuse of the application of section 17 (3) of the Ordinance? The only conclusion is that the Chief Secretary or the police force took the law into their own hands.

I am under the impression that the Chief Secretary may no doubt seek his legal justification under section 12 of this Ordinance. For information, I will read section 12 now, Sir:

"12.-(1) The Chief Secretary may by order direct the removal from any place of detention to another place of detention to be specified in such order of any person detained in pursuance of the provisions of this Ordinance and may by arrangement with the Government of the Federation of Malaya direct the removal of such persons to the Federation of Malaya to be there detained"-

The Attorney-General (Mr E. P. Shanks): Point of order, Sir; may I enquire what provisions or how the provisions of the Ordinance relating to removals from Malaya are relevant to the motion now before this House?

Mr Deputy Speaker: I have already reminded the Member for Queenstown that what he has been speaking on - referring to sections of the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance - does not appear to me so far to be relevant to the wording of the motion. I once more ask him to confine his speech to matters relevant to the motion.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Sir, as I have said, this is closely related to the Ordinance but since it is your ruling that I should confine myself to the wording of the motion, I will now come to the "torture" part of it.

Sir, as I said earlier, the majority of the Members of this Assembly have received complaints from Mr Lim Chin Joo. To those have not, I will read extracts of the affidavit filed by Mr Lim Chin Joo and signed in the presence of the Commissioner of Oaths, and this is where the "torture" part comes in:

"On or about the 15th day of November, 1957, I was removed to the Central Police Station lockup. On the following day the 16th of November, 1957, I was ordered to leave my cell and was taken to Room No. 6 (the interrogation room). I was ordered to stand in front of a fully opened air-conditioner and to place both my hands on the said plant. At this time, I was with a bare body from waist upwards. It was extremely cold and it was beyond my endurance. Shortly afterwards, cold water was brought in and sprinkled over my back and front chest. This form of torture"-

Now, the word "torture" is there - "lasted for about 20 minutes." [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: "Soon after, I was handcuffed and my hands were placed behind me and fastened to a chair. Thereafter, electric wires were applied all over my body including my private parts - in the medical term "glans penis". At this time, I was blindfolded with a piece of cloth and I was unable to see the perpetrators of this electric shock treatment. The cold torture as stated in paragraph 4 herein [which in fact is paragraph 2 as I have just read] was repeated to be followed by the same electric shock torture.

These two forms of torture were alternately perpetrated on me. I was blindfolded whenever the electric shock tortures were applied on me. In all, I was subject to the cold torture twice and the electric shock torture was applied four times on the same day and these alternate forms of torture lasted for about two hours.

On the 18th day of November, 1957, some five to six persons entered my room. I was slapped a few times by some of them. I was ordered to take off my shirt in front of the air-conditioner and cold water was brought in. It was sprinkled on my body and poured on my head. This cold torture lasted for about 15 minutes. I reported the torture inflicted on me to the prison doctor when he came on his rounds on the same day.

On or about the 20th day of November, 1957, my father came on his weekly visit and I reported the aforesaid tortures to him and told my father to report this matter to my solicitor. After my father had left, I was taken into the interrogation room by a police officer and was ordered to stand in front of the air-conditioner without a shirt for about 15 minutes. Then I was taken to my cell. On the same day, at about 2 p.m., I was again asked to come out from my cell by a police official. I was ordered to stand before the air-conditioner. About five persons were present at this time. I stood before the fully opened air-conditioner for about 10 minutes. I was told that my former solicitor wished to interview me. I was taken back to the C.I.D. interview room. There I lodged a complaint to my solicitor and also reported the tortures to a private medical practitioner who was also present in the C.I.D. interview room at this time. Exhibit marked A' is a copy of the medical report made by the private medical practitioner. The exhibits marked B' and `C' are copies of letters sent by my former solicitor to the Director of Special Branch and to the Chief Minister of Singapore."

This is what Mr Lim Chin Joo has filed in an affidavit in the presence of the Commissioner of Oaths.

Sir, the most agonising and monstrous part of the allegations, as I have just read out, was the electric current applied, amongst other parts of his body, on his private parts. Is that fair, Sir? Members can refer to the doctor's report, copies of which, as I said, have been circulated to quite a number of Members. I would like to read the medical report but some of the medical terms are not familiar to me but for the information of Members, I will say that the report was made out by Dr Lee Siew Choh (L.M.S.). International Dispensary Limited, 4-6 Hill Street, Singapore, 6, Tel. No. 36550: "Medical Report of Mr Lim Chin Joo, Date, 20.11.57 at 2.40 p.m., Place, C.I.D., Complained that he was shocked with electric current - wire attached to battery - on 16.10.57 at about 10 am. Examination, amongst a number of items, No. 6-glans penis". This is the medical report to which I have just referred. Is it not, Sir, inhuman and most barbaric that this form of torture was practised on a detainee? I understand from an expert scientist that current treatment is more receptive if applied after a certain degree of coldness. This I believe is the reason why Lim Chin Joo was given the electric shock treatment after the cold treatment. As soon as practical, this detainee reported, the tortures inflicted on him to the prison doctor when he came on his rounds, as I have just read out. Then he complained again to his father and then from his father to his lawyer. After his lawyer, a private doctor was then summoned. Now in one of the letters sent by Mr Lim Chin Joo's lawyer dated 27th November, 1957 addressed to the Director, Special Branch, C.I.D., it quotes all these things. It quotes that Lim Chin Joo did not wish to proceed with an identification parade asked for earlier. The Hon. the Chief Secretary may like to know why this detainee refused to proceed with the identification parade. How could, Sir, a man identify any person when he was blindfolded (as I just read out) at the time when he was tortured? There are many other reasons. In the first instance, he may still be under police custody and is afraid that if he really identifies the assailants concerned, he may be subjected to more tortures. Apart from this, the investigation into these allegations was carried out by the police officers themselves who are, in fact, an interested party. Could an interested party carry out an impartial investigation especially when their own reputation is at stake? This again may be one of the factors. Again, it will seen, Sir, from paragraph 5 of Mr Lim Chin Joo's complaint, that he was blindfolded. Is it possible, may I stress again, for a man who is blindfolded and cannot see anything to identify anybody?

Hon. Members will be surprised to know that in the case of Mr Goh Boon Toh, it is entirely different. I understand that he asked for an identification parade but in asking for this identification parade it was refused by the police. Now, Sir, in view of this, you may say in one case that the man refused to identify but in this case it is just the opposite. Mr Goh Boon Toh asked for an identification parade but the police refused him. Would it serve any purpose, Sir, for a man to ask for an identification parade when it is refused? I understand that Tan Bok Teng and Tan Juat Seng, another two of the detainees, had an identification parade and in fact identified three of their assailants. What action has been taken by the Government? Nothing at all! So would it serve any purpose of having an identification parade of the police officers themselves when action is not taken against those identified? Sir, the only way now to restore the confidence of the people is to ascertain the truth or otherwise of these allegations through an independent Tribunal. As I said, you cannot say whether they are true or not. So the vital issue that is facing us is whether they are true or not and if we want to be sincere about wanting to know whether they are true or not, let us throw it open to a public Commission of Inquiry. When the facts come up, it is then up to that Commission to say whether they are true or not.

We have before us complaints of torture by four detainees - a barbaric form of torture, I may say. How can every one who is considered an honourable Member in this House ignore such complaints? All these complaints are of a very, very grave nature. Can we ignore such complaints?

In the case of Goh Boon Toh, I understand that at the time when he was tortured, he was suffering from T.B. Whether this allegation again is true or not, I do not know but now when a man is suffering from T.B. and is subjected to electric and cold freezing torture, is this not barbaric? Is this fair, may I ask the Government?

We have here a society that is called the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Are these detained people to be treated far worse than animals? So the policy of the Government as regards the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is just nothing but a window-dressing. We might as well close down that society if human beings are treated far worse than animals. We have read, Sir, of cruelty to dogs in the local press when the Russians sent a dog into outer space in their Sputnik II. It received the widest of publicity and, if my memory serves me right, Sir, the President of the Canine Welfare Association who is now a City Councillor immediately sent a cable to Russia protesting against the cruelty to the dog concerned. Is there no one in Singapore who can champion the cause of human beings at least?

Sir, in the case of Goh Boon Toh, he did not complain of electric torture because he was not subjected to it. His complaint was only of the cold treatment. Again for the information of those who have not received copies, I will read extracts of his complaint. This is not as long as the previous one:

"We are instructed that during interrogation, one of the Special Branch officials whom the said detainee could identify hit him several times on his head and another official placed his index finger around the region of the throat and pressed his finger hard for about six to seven minutes. At this stage, he could hardly breathe.". Was the police officer trying to choke and kill him? It is better to kill him outright rather than to allow him suffer such torture.

"The next day interrogation commenced at about 9 am, and was conducted by the same officials as the previous day together with another new officer. One of the interrogation officers was alleged to have told the said detainee, "I am going to put you to talk"- which means that he was trying to force it on him.

"I am going to put you to talk and unless you talk, I will put you into that freezing cold chamber."

Is this not oppression? Is this not using force? What else can we call it?

"Soon after the police officer's threat of a freezingly cold plant he asked the detainee to embrace the said extremely cold plant. The detainee was again ordered to take off his shirt but was allowed to have his trousers on."

Lucky enough!

"He was bare from his waist upwards. While the detainee was embracing the cold plant, another officer poured cold water on his back. This prison torture in the cold room lasted for about one hour. While this prison operation was in process, two officers who were standing on each side of the detainee pressed their fingers on both sides of his ribs for some time."

This time they were not choking him. They were trying to dig between his ribs!

"The detainee complained to us that the cold was humanly unbearable and this coupled with the continuous pressing on the sides of the ribs made the detainee to lose consciousness. He was unconscious after such treatment."

Sir, in the case of the two detainees, Tan Bok Teng and Tan Juat Seng, their complaints of torture have also aroused the politicians in the United Kingdom, it is rather surprising how the United Kingdom came to know about it. Questions were tabled in the House of Commons by Mr Awberry, who I understand is a Member of Parliament and belongs to the Labour Party, in connection with the tortures experienced by these two detainees. Such Members of Parliament, are, in fact, socialists. I would like to quote, Sir, from the Hansard of the House of Commons of 30th January, 1958, column 510:

"SINGAPORE Detainees (Inquiry)

Mr Awberry asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under whose auspices the recent inquiry into the allegations of ill-treatment by Tan Juat Seng and Tan Bok Teng was held; against whom the allegations were made; how many members composed the committee of inquiry; and how many of them were members of the police department of Singapore.

Mr Profumo: The inquiry into the allegations by these detainees that they had been ill-treated by members of the Singapore police was ordered by the Commissioner of Police [which means the Commissioner of Police ordering a Commission of Inquiry and using his own department with his own reputation at stake]. It was conducted by the head of the administration section of the special branch of the Singapore Police, and its results were considered by the Commissioner of Police, the Attorney-General, the Chief Minister and the Governor, who all endorsed its conclusion that the allegations were not substantiated."

How could the Commissioner of Police order an inquiry within his own department and, what is more worse, the Special Branch of the police force, when they themselves were the persons who arrested the detainees? Are they prepared to give a report to the Commissioner of Police or to the House of Commons that they committed such tortures?

Mr Awberry: Is the Minister telling us that the people who are accused were the people who acted as judges in this case?"

That is what Mr Awberry asked. Is it not a fair question?

"If so, is he aware that not only have we to do justice but to show clearly that justice is being done, and that that cannot be done if the accused are the people who are to act as judges in the case."

That means the judges are the accused persons or the accused persons are the judges. What purpose does that serve then? [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: As I said, Mr Awberry is a socialist and it has not only interested Mr Awberry but it has also interested quite a number of trade union organisations in the United Kingdom. A letter of protest signed by the Chairman of the Movement for Colonial Freedom, London Area Council - that is what we are asking for, colonial freedom - together with endorsements by 19 trade union organisations in the United Kingdom was sent to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Rt. Hon. Mr Alan Lennox-Boyd. Now, Sir, if this has not aroused any interest, why then should 19 trade union organisations send a letter of protest to the Secretary of State? I will read that letter of protest if Members will permit me. It is from the Movement for Colonial Freedom, London Area Council, written to the Rt. Hon. Mr Alan Lennox-Boyd (the Secretary of State for the Colonies), Great Smith, S.W.1., dated 20th Feb ruary, 1958:

"Sir.

We protest against the refusal of the Singapore authorities to hold an inquiry into allegations of torture carried out by police officials in that Colony. The Secretary of State for the Colonies and Parliament in the United Kingdom holds the ultimate responsibility for affairs in Singapore and we therefore request you to initiate an impartial inquiry into allegations that the police tortured two detainees Tan Bok Teng and Tan Juat Seng during last September.

In connection with this request, we would draw your attention to Article V of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as laid down in the Charter of the United Nations which states, `No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.'

Further we wish to place on record our whole-hearted opposition to the use of emergency power whether in Singapore or in any other colonial territory. We request a fair public trial or immediate release of all detainees and an end to all oppressive legislation such as that which permits detention and banishment without trial and the suppression of trade unions and other organisations."

This letter is supported by 19 union organisations. It would take too long for me to read their names out.

Sir, if these cases of torture have aroused the United Kingdom Government and the trade union movement in the United Kingdom, what has the governing Party here done? The governing Party - the Labour Front - claims to be a socialist Party. What has it done to look into the interests of these four detainees about their complaints of torture? Again, Sir, what have the Liberal-Socialists done, or is the word "Socialists" only attached to the name of that Party? Why call yourselves socialists when you do not have that socialist policy? Again, Sir, what has the leader of the P.A.P. done? The P.A.P. is in fact-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: He happens to be the lawyer who acted for the persons.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Oh, good, we can get better information then.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: He knows more about it than you do.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: P.A.P. is considered a Leftist Party. A Leftist Party, I think, is a socialist Party. I do not know whether that is correct or not and if that is so, what has the P.A.P. done? Apart from these so-called socialist Parties, what has the trade union movement in Singapore done? Nothing at all. This is a matter which is of very grave concern. Apart from the socialist Parties here, the trade union movement which claims to champion the cause of workers has also done nothing. I can only hope, Sir, that all the trade unions in Singapore together with the so-called socialist Parties will rally round this cause because these are startling allegations. To those of us who have lived through the four years of Japanese or Kempetai rule, this reminds us of similar ill-treatment by the Japanese warlords.

As I said earlier, Sir, whether all these allegations are true or otherwise, I feel that I am not competent to say so. I am not a lawyer; neither do I know the actual facts of the cases. What I have now quoted are all on paper and from these papers, I make up my case. I consider it my duty that I should table this motion and bring the matter before this House. Sir, if these allegations are untrue, then it is all the more necessary that Government should hold this Commission of Inquiry forthwith to tell the world and the people of Singapore that all these allegations are, in fact, untrue. It is far more necessary if they are untrue. If they are true, then keep quiet. It is no use, Sir, just refuting and refuting on paper that they are not true. As I said, if you are not prepared to hold that Commission of Inquiry, that will clearly indicate that those allegations are, to a certain extent, true and that that is the reason why you are not prepared to hold the Commission of Inquiry. The Commission of Inquiry which I am asking for should be an independent one - not consisting again of police officers or Commissioners of Police or anybody attached to the Special Branch. Only when this Commission of Inquiry is held and the facts and report given, will we then be able to decide and say whether these allegations are true or not. In the name of humanity and social justice, I hope that all Members in this House will give me their fullest support in adopting my motion and whilst I ask for the adoption of this motion I would like to add that the terms of reference be extended so that such Inquiry will also be able to hear evidence from those persons arrested by detectives and brought to police stations or to the C.I.D. I have heard many cases where persons have been brought in for no reason and assaulted by detectives or police officers. Again whether this is true or not, I have not seen for myself but there are numerous complaints and when we do have this Commission of Inquiry, I hope that the terms of reference would also include such cases.

I beg to move, Sir.

Mr A. R. Lazarous (Farrer Park): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to second the motion. The mover of the motion has put the case clearly in every detail with dates, facts and figures. I do not think that I have more to add except one point. There were accusations levelled against the police force even in this Assembly that they are an inefficient lot, but at least in the detention camp they are doing an excellent job.

Question proposed.

5.14 p.m.

Mr E. B. David: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Queenstown who moved this motion had a considerable amount to say about the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance. I do not want to follow him on that but I would only say that my Hon, friend the Chief Minister has already given ample grounds for the existence of that Ordinance and its provisions.

I will however, if you will bear with me, Sir, refer to two points regarding which I think the hon. Member was under a mis-apprehension. The first was his reference to the right to detain a person after his arrest for a maximum period of 16 days. That is correct but that is the right of the police to hold the man for up to 16 days without a detention order having been made.

He also stated, Sir, that I had replied to a Question yesterday to the effect that no detainees had been kept for questioning for a period longer than six weeks. I am afraid he must have misheard me on that because I did inform him that in a number of cases, they had been detained for a longer period. In the particular case to which he referred, the main reason why the period was prolonged to that extent was because a complaint was made and inquiries had to be conducted into the complaint before anything further could be done.

Sir, the hon. Member finished his introductory speech by saying that he was not competent to say whether these allegations were true or false but the whole of his speech was based on the assumption that they were true and the picture he drew was one which I think must have stirred the emotions of everybody but it has validity only if there are grounds for thinking that these allegations are true and therefore, Sir, I do submit to the House that this motion stands or falls by the question of whether or not these allegations have any substance.

Sir, a full inquiry was conducted into each of the allegations made in these four cases and I propose to detail to hon. Members the results of these investigations but before I do so, I would like to make one or two preliminary observations. Firstly, Sir, this motion does constitute a very grave reflection not only on the police but also on all the other officers including the Attorney-General and the Chief Minister who have been associated with accepting or rejecting the results of these investigations. It is therefore a matter of great public importance that this Assembly should address itself to the subject of this motion quite objectively and impartially and not allow its judgment to be in any way swayed by emotion.

The second observation I should like to make, Sir, is that these allegations are made against individual police officers, those whose duty it has been to question the detainees on the dates when it is alleged that these malpractices took place. Neither in the allegations nor elsewhere is there any evidence associating any other police officers with the behaviour alleged and any attempt to extend the accusations to hold any particular section of the force responsible can only be a matter of inference and I suggest that hon. Members should reflect very carefully before considering that any such inference is justified.

I would like, thirdly, Sir, to refer to the procedure followed in investigating these complaints. It has been suggested by the hon. Member that there is something improper and in itself a cause for disquiet that the investigation into these complaints has been conducted by police officers. This suggestion, Sir, is, in my view, wholly misconceived. Wherever and whenever complaints or allegations are made that a crime has been committed, whether the person accused is a member of the public or a member of the police force, it is the duty of the police to investigate the complaint. That is one of their functions and there is no other organisation charged with that duty. The investigating officer takes statements from all the persons concerned and from any others who might have knowledge of the fact. These statements and his report are, in appropriate cases, forwarded to the Attorney-General who then decides in his capacity as Public Prosecutor whether a charge should be brought against any person. If the complaint concerns the behaviour of a member of the police force and it appears from the investigation that there has been a breach of discipline, then it is the duty of the Commissioner to decide whether disciplinary proceedings should be initiated. This is the procedure which was followed in investigating these complaints and whatever hon. Members may feel regarding the substance - the truth or falsehood of the complaints - I do ask them to put out of their minds any suggestion that there was something abnormal or sinister about the procedure adopted.

Sir, in detailing the results of these investigations, I shall be referring to the Government Medical Officer and I should like to explain now that the Medical Officer is specifically charged with the duty of seeing every detainee who is temporarily confined in the Central Police Station every working day. Wherever he may be when the Medical Officer makes his rounds, he is seen by the Medical Officer. This arrangement has been made not only to ensure that the health of the detainees is properly looked after but also to guard against any malpractices of the type alleged.

Sir, I would now like to deal in detail with the four cases in which these allegations have been made. Two of these were brought to the notice of the Hon. the Chief Minister by a letter from a firm of lawyers dated 25th September last year. In the first case, it was alleged that while being questioned on 18th September - that was a week previously - the detainee had been tied up and punched, that the police officers concerned administered some tablets and that he had complained of the assault to the Medical Officer when he saw him the following day. The Medical Officer confirmed that the complaint of assault had been made to him that day and on examining the detainee he had found three minor contusions. This finding had been reported the same day to the Assistant Superintendent in charge who questioned the detainee on how he had acquired these contusions to which the reply was that they had resulted from a bout of horseplay with a fellow-detainee. On 26th September, the day after the lawyer wrote, a private practitioner was brought in by the lawyer to examine both detainees. In the case of the first detainee, he reported finding a few abrasions on the left forearm and right wrist. In the course of the investigations, a statement was taken from this detainee in which he said that he had also been assaulted on 22nd August - that was the previous month - and that he had on that occasion been subjected to electric shocks. He was in fact examined by the Medical Officer on 23rd August - that is the day following this first alleged assault - and the Medical Officer had found no trace of any injury of any kind and it is also to be noted that neither in his complaint to the Medical Officer on 19th September nor in his complaint to his lawyer on 23rd September did he make any mention of this alleged electric treatment unless the lawyer did not see fit to pass it on. This, Sir, seems a very strange omission. Following the lawyer's complaint, a statement was taken from the second detainee concerned. In this, he alleged that he had been subjected to assault and electric shock on six occasions. One of these was alleged to have been 29th August and he made a complaint to the Medical Officer the following day. The Medical Officer examined him and again found no signs of any injury to support the allegation. When he was examined by a private practitioner on 26th September - that is about a month later and subsequent to the further alleged assault on 19th September - the doctor reported that some small healing scabs were found on various parts of his body. It was alleged in his complaint to his lawyer that this assault had taken place on 19th September. The Medical Officer has testified that on that day he visited this detainee while he was being questioned and that he noticed nothing abnormal. He added in his statement that if anyone were in pain or fear he was sure that he would be able to detect it from his expression and would at once question him. At an identification parade, the detainee picked out certain police officers whom he alleged had assaulted him. These were among the officers who had questioned him but they emphatically denied the allegations of assault.

In the third case, the detainee alleged that on 16th November, he was made to take his shirt off and stand over an air-conditioner while cold water was poured down his back. He also alleged that he was subjected to electric shock. Two days later, he complained to the Medical Officer who found a number of scratches on different parts of his body. The Medical Officer reported the matter and the senior officer thereupon interviewed the detainee the same day and asked him if he had been assaulted to which he replied, "No". On 20th November - that is two days later - his lawyer arranged for him to be examined by a private practitioner. The report made by the latter - and this is the report to which the hon. Member referred - stated that tiny linear scab marks were visible on a number of parts of his body. The following day, he was examined by two specialists at the Department of Pathology in the presence of his own private doctor who confirmed the findings of the private doctor. They also reported that the nail of his left little finger showed an irregular free margin about 1½ millimetres long while the nails on all the other fingers were cut down to the base. Their conclusions in regard to the lesions - that is the scab marks - were that they were deliberately inflicted but that they could not exclude the possibility either that they were caused in the manner alleged or that they were self-inflicted. Two days later, the lawyers wrote that they wished to lay a formal complaint and asked for an identification parade. Despite what the hon. Member said in regard to Lim Chin Joo and his inability to identify the persons responsible, his lawyers were instructed to ask for an identification parade. This parade was arranged three days later. Just before it was to be held, the detainee said he did not wish to proceed with the matter and was not prepared to attend the parade. He was then asked whether he would attend the parade in order to assist the police inquiry. He declined to do so and the following day his lawyers wrote confirming that they had been instructed not to proceed with the matter for the time being adding that if further assaults took place he would wish to proceed on this complaint also.

The complaint in the fourth case was made in a letter from the detainee's lawyers dated 25th November. In this it was alleged that on 5th November while this detainee was being questioned he had been assaulted and that on 6th November - the following day - he was made to stand over the air-conditioning plant while cold water was poured down his back and extreme pressure was applied to his ribs. It was further alleged in the letter that he lost consciousness and that a doctor was called in who gave him four tablets to relieve pain. In a subsequent statement, the detainee somewhat modified this story by stating that he did not lose consciousness. He also stated that it was immediately after he had had cold water poured down his back that he was instructed to sit down, to put on his shirt and to leave the room. He stated that he did so and met the Medical Officer in the passage outside. I mention this point specifically because the Medical Officer has testified that when he examined him his skin was absolutely dry and so were his clothes. It is inconceivable that they could have dried off in such a short space of time. The Medical Officer's evidence in this case is this; that he made his usual rounds on this day and visited this detainee in the interrogation room. He did not meet him in the passage. He says that he saw nothing abnormal in the room. The detainee was fully clothed and fully conscious sitting on a chair. He noticed however symptoms in the detainee which pointed to tuberculosis and he gave orders for him to be brought to his examination room. There he examined him alone; no one else was in the room. The detainee made no complaint of any assault or ill-treatment. As a result of his examination, the Medical Officer ascertained that he had a history of tuberculosis and had previously attended the Tan Tock Seng Hospital for treatment. The Medical Officer then sent him to hospital to be X-rayed but before doing so gave him four sulphatriad tablets to protect him against secondary infection of the lungs. This is the origin of the story of the tablets to relieve pain. The Medical Officer also stated that he found no marks on his body such as would have been apparent if his ribs had been constricted in the manner alleged. The detainee was subsequently asked why he made no complaint of ill-treatment to the Medical Officer at that time or later to the Medical Officer at Changi where he was transferred two days later. He said that he was afraid to complain to the Medical Officer at that time because the door of the room was ajar and there was a police officer within earshot. The statement that the door was open is specifically contradicted both by the officer who conducted him to the room and by the Medical Officer who states that he himself shut the door for the very purpose that the detainee should not be inhibited from talking freely to him. In reply to the question why he had not complained to the Medical Officer at Changi, the detainee said that he did make a complaint. This statement is denied by the Medical Officer concerned.

Those, Sir, are the salient facts in the four cases in which these allegations have been made. In every case, the police officers concerned categorically deny that any such ill-treatment took place. I should also add that while they are being questioned, constant visits are made to the room by senior officers at irregular intervals and they have never observed any treatment of the nature alleged. These cases were, as I have explained, very fully investigated and the results of the investigations were submitted to the Attorney-General who decided that there were no grounds for proceeding on the complaints. The question naturally poses itself: if these allegations are unfounded, why were they made? The answer, Sir, is I suggest to be found in the activities with which these persons have been associated. They have every incentive to try and discredit the police who are striving to counter the subversive activities of themselves and those working with them. They also have every incentive to avoid being questioned on these activities and to hinder the police in carrying out their tasks by bringing them into disrepute. They had in fact ample opportunity to concert the stories they would tell and those stories might have carried more weight had it not been for the wise precaution taken to have a Medical Officer visiting these detainees daily and whose evidence has largely brought out discrepancies in the statements made.

I would like, Sir, again to appeal to hon. Members to consider this motion in an objective and impartial spirit unclouded by emotion or prejudice and I do not think I can conclude better than by quoting the comments made by the Medical Officer concerned. I may say that he is no longer in Government service; he is now in private practice but I have his permission to quote from his statement. He says:

"From my observations of the conditions here, I would think that the allegations are wholly unfounded, malicious and with strong intent to damage the good name of the police force. Indirectly, it is an insult to me as a doctor in his own rights."

5.36 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was one of the solicitors in the major case cited by the Member for Queenstown (Mr Lee Choon Eng). In fact, I think I know the whole story better than the Member for Queenstown can ever know from the carefully prepared brief that he read.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Birds of the same feather.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, the position briefly is this. On a certain day in November, the father of a detainee came to see me at one o'clock when I returned during the luncheon hour. He informed me that his son, whom he saw at 11 o'clock that morning, had been assaulted and had complained to him of it. I got in touch with the Director of the Special Branch and informed him that I wished to interview my client with a private medical practitioner whom the father was arranging for. At half past two that afternoon, I interviewed my client together with the medical practitioner. The report as the Member for Queenstown read was the report which the medical practitioner gave to me. I took a full statement myself of the alleged assault, and I immediately wrote to the Director of Special Branch informing him of this, with a copy to the Bar Committee, and another copy to the Chief Minister. I considered it an extremely grave and a very serious charge and one which should be pursued to the very end. I therefore, on instructions, asked for an identification parade in order that five of the police officers who could have been identified, should be identified and proceedings taken against them. Three days later, the identification parade was arranged. I went round to the Central Police Station at half past four, and there I received instructions that my client did not wish to proceed with the identification parade. I explained the position very carefully to my client, including the implications which may be drawn by a judge, or by any Tribunal, if he refused to go on with the identification parade. It ended with written instructions to me which I took to protect myself, to say that he did not wish to proceed. Subsequently, Sir, I was asked, not in my capacity as a lawyer, but in my capacity as an Assemblyman, to move this subject in this Assembly.

Sir, the democratic system is open to political propaganda, and is open in some eases to abuse. But, after my experience in that case, I had not the slightest intention of being a party to something which I did not believe was right and proper. I am not afraid to tell the Member for Queenstown that, although he may think that he will get a lot of political credit out of this - be is a very unwise man for many reasons, not least of all the fact that in his heart of hearts he knows jolly well that this is a thoroughly dishonest motion. I say this openly and publicly, that if I had got those five police officers identified, I would have prosecuted them to a conviction, and got them out of the police force, and have had the Government hold an inquiry into the whole of the Special Branch. But I will not be a party to something which I did not believe was true. When instructions given me were subsequently countermanded at the last moment, it was my duty as an advocate and solicitor, and as an officer of the Court, not to be a party to some smear which I did not believe to be right and proper.

Now, Sir, that is the reason why I did not wish to bring this matter up for debate, but I would ask the Government to consider carefully that although a Commission could be a platform for further propaganda, the Government should also consider that they could clarify this position, and have the Inquiry to go into the facts or otherwise of the allegations, and clear the officers concerned. There are pros and cons, but on balance, my view is that there is more to be gained by a properly conducted Inquiry - to ascertain the facts, not for the purpose of propaganda - than by just throwing out the application for an Inquiry. In my submission, an experienced judge would be able, not only to ascertain the facts, but also to see that there is no character assassination of police officers if that is what the Government is afraid of-in the course of the Inquiry, without proof being brought. The judicial process is not one which can be easily perverted and, if the Government wishes to dismiss these allegations completely, then the proper thing to do would be to have this Inquiry, and have the report tabled in this House for subsequent debate.

Now, I speak from experience in regard to only one case. I do not know the other three cases, and I am therefore not in a position either to confirm or deny the allegations made. The proper tribunal for that should be a judicial one. If the complainants chose not to bring it before a court, then a quasi-judicial Tribunal might serve the purpose of completely dispelling any disquiet which may have been caused by the dissemination of these allegations.

5.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Mr E. P. Shanks): May it please you, Sir, I, together with my hon. friend the Chief Minister, am, in the eyes of the hon. Member for Queenstown, apparently one of the accused, but I am not here to defend myself. The person who is fortunately quite beyond any criticism is the Hon. the Chief Secretary, who has given the facts to this House as they have been established by the machinery that is proper to establish those facts. The hon. Member for Queenstown, in moving this motion, ended by telling us that he does not know the facts and that he is not competent to say whether what he alleges is true or false. The Chief Secretary is competent and he has given the House the facts. But I should like to say to the Member for Tanjong Pagar a word about the action he has taken. I would like to say how much I appreciate the attitude he took. He has quite properly given the lie to, as he says, only one case; but he has done that. The Member for Queenstown does not appear to have made any enquiry himself before putting before this House a motion that he admits may be true or may be false - he does not know; he has not enquired. Apparently he has not even bothered to find out. Now, having had irrefutable evidence that one of these four allegations is false from the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar and having heard the facts given by the completely disinterested Chief Secretary who was not even in Singapore or responsible for the police force at the time, there can, to my mind, be no question of the view this House will take when it comes to decide what should be done with this motion. But in case Members are considering the very proper remarks of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar about the merits of the judicial process, may I just say that the judicial process is not one that should be abused by being invoked in cases that are quite transparently unworthy of credence. I am aware of the value of those processes and I have to act quasi-judicially in arriving at decisions I make as Public Prosecutor. But I do say that in this case - first, there is clearly no call for any enquiry; second, that at this length of time it is extremely doubtful whether any useful purpose would be served, particularly as it is now, I think, obvious that whatever complaints or whatever grievances these four people may now consider themselves to be suffering from, it is extremely unlikely that, they having had these months to prepare, a judicial enquiry would be more than a platform of the type that the Member for Tanjong Pagar so deprecates.

Finally my third reason for suggesting that no judicial enquiry is called for is that to have one when the facts have been so plainly established would be an abuse of the process and quite patently a waste of its time.

5.53 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Sir, I am surprised that this motion was filed in the name of the Member for Queenstown and not in the name of the Member for Tanjong Pagar. When the Member for Queenstown laments in the name of human rights that the Labour Front is quiet, the Liberal-Socialists are also quiet, the P.A.P. are also quiet, the trade union leaders are also quiet, and only he champions it, I find that he has plunged into the whole matter without seeing exactly where the way leads. If it is publicity that he wants, probably he may have a small amount of it - but if he is facing realities and acting sanely, then to bring a matter of this nature to this Assembly needs real and careful investigation.

I have also been given a copy of the complaints that he read out at length to this House. In fact, I have not wanted to initiate any move at all, because if there is any move that is going to be initiated, it should be the leader of the Party one of whose members is under detention. If the leader of the People's Action Party has found no fault, or has found it unnecessary to move a motion of that type, then I think anybody else moving it and not knowing the facts as well as he did would be just wasting the time of everybody in this Assembly.

5.55 p.m.

The Chief Minister: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the motion that has been moved by the hon. Member for Queenstown confirms the view which I formed when I spoke on the Governor's Speech. I said that the subversive elements in Singapore are now doing their best to seek new fronts, as the old fronts have been lost to them, by finding stooges from among persons who are prepared to prostitute themselves for their own ends; and this, I am sorry to say, Sir, leads one to think that perhaps what I said two days ago is being proved this afternoon. The hon. Member came here saying that he does not know the facts of the case, and then he presented them in such a way as if he is the one and only champion in Singapore of subversive elements. He said that not one organisation - neither the P.A.P., the Labour Front, the Liberal-Socialists nor the trade unions - in Singapore has raised a finger in protest or has championed this particular cause. I am happy to hear, Sir, that in Singapore there are a large number of organisations and individuals who can no longer be hood-winked by subversive forces.

I was indeed touched by the speech of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. I listened to him with respect and with admiration - his is indeed a very sober and responsible speech. I would have liked to agree to his suggestion that perhaps it might be better in the interests of the Government that an enquiry should be held into this, but, as has been stated by the Attorney-General, because of the lapse of time, the appointment of such a commission would not help at all but would just be playing into the hands of these subversive elements, whose one and only desire is to make their voices heard. Let us drown their voices with louder, stronger and healthier voices among the democratic forces of Singapore. The Government, Sir, is against the motion.

5.59 p.m.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr Francis Thomas): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the emotional feeling which the Member for Queenstown brought to this matter is one for which I have great sympathy. I recollect a case not so very long ago, before this Government came into power, when a man jumped from a window of the interrogation Room and killed himself. I wrote to all the newspapers and a lot of other people saying that this was rather a doubtful procedure and ought to be investigated. When I became a Minister, the matter was still close to my heart and I spoke to the then Chief Minister, Mr David Marshall, and pressed on him the need that he should satisfy himself most fully that there was no fear that torture might be used in interrogating detainees. He shared my views and subsequently he told me that he had been into the matter very thoroughly, by personal visits, by inspections, by ascertaining regulations, by finding out exactly what the procedures were, and he assured me that he was absolutely certain that there was no reason whatsoever to suppose that the sort of method which the Member for Queenstown has brought before us was, in fact, employed or likely to be employed or could be employed safely without a certainty of detection in a not very long space of time. I just mention this very briefly because I feel that the former Chief Minister's views on this sort of thing are well known and that he at that time had fully assented to the view that the allegations of torture that were made then as well as now were unfounded.

6.00 p.m.

The Minister for Health (Mr A. J. Braga): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think most Members sitting in this House are aware that I had practised 27 years in the courts of this colony and I have had my fair share of criminal practice. In the course of my practice I never hesitated to condemn the police when I felt condemnation necessary, and I had never hesitated to commend the police when I felt that commendation was due. I extend a fraternal hand, as a member of the Bar, to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar for upholding the high traditions of the profession which he and I have chosen. When he realises that any allegation made is dishonest, and the motion which is now brought up is dishonest, he has the courage to say so. That is the tradition in which we have been brought up. I would never hesitate to act, even as a Minister today, if I find malpractices in the police force. I would fight any of them, the Chief Minister included, if I felt it necessary. I have gone through the whole of the papers in this case and I am fully satisfied that there is no truth in any of these allegations; furthermore it would be a positive waste of time to have judicial officers sitting in a court of inquiry.

6.02 p.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am glad that the Chief Secretary has given the Government's view on this issue. Every case has two sides to it. I gave my side and he gave his side, it is now up to us to decide whether we should or should not have a commission of inquiry. It is not up to us to decide whether the allegations are true or not. I am rather surprised that this issue has worked up the emotions of the Minister for Health. As I have emphasised again and again, whether these allegations are true or false, let us leave them in the hands of the commission of inquiry, and not let us - 25 elected representatives, three colonial officials and four nominated Members - decide whether they are true or not. The facts can only be in the hands of the Government and not Members of the Opposition. So we cannot decide whether they are true or not. It is only the Government who can say whether they are true or not, but it is their story. Let the story of the opposite side come into the hands of the commission of inquiry.

Answering the Chief Secretary that when I move this motion it was on the assumption that the allegations are true, I again emphasise that I never assumed that they are true. What I did say was that after reading the papers sent to me. I felt it my duty, in the name of humanity and social justice, to see that something should be done. It is not a question of whether I believe or disbelieve those allegations are true. If they are true, then it is bad; and if they are untrue, then it is far worse because the Government have just committed themselves when they said they are not prepared to set up this commission of inquiry. If it is the Government's story - and they have the complete facts - that the allegations are untrue, why then are they not prepared to set up this commission and hold an inquiry? There must be something that is true.

The Chief Secretary said that the police are the proper authority to carry out the investigations. I appreciate that, because the police force is established to carry out investigations and not just to sit idle; but the point is this, Sir, that in these particular cases the police themselves are the interested party. The Member for Changi yesterday or the day before yesterday rightly pointed out that the Commissioner of Police relies on his Assistant or Deputy Commissioner of Police. The latter in turn relies on the Superintendents of Police who rely on the Deputy or Assistant Superintendents of Police who rely on the Chief Inspectors who rely on the Staff Sergeants who rely on the privates. Can the Commissioner of Police, who directs the Special Branch, who themselves are the persons who have detained these people, can he or the Attorney-General or the Chief Minister expect to have a proper, unbiased and unprejudiced report?

Some hon. Members: Yes.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: The Chief Secretary said that the investigations were carried out very carefully. I again appreciate that, but in view of the gravity of these allegations, are they to be treated in the normal way as other types of allegations? If so, I appreciate the procedure mentioned by the Chief Secretary. These allegations have caused world interest. They have aroused the interest of a Member of Parliament. They have aroused the interest of trade unions in foreign countries. Such allegations are very grave. Is the Chief Secretary prepared to say that the procedure applicable to minor offences be adopted in this case? Is that the proper way?

The Chief Secretary also admitted that at one time two detainees identified three police officers, but these three police officers denied the allegations of torture. Are the Government prepared to accept the denial of these police officers? If the Government are prepared to do so, why not they then accept the allegations that they are true? Just the word of three police officers-

The Chief Minister: Never from subversive forces; never, not as long as I live.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Well, these three police officers were identified and they denied the allegations of torture to the Commissioner of Police, and yet the Commissioner of Police is prepared to accept their word. If the Commissioner is prepared to accept their word, it is their word against another's. Why not then leave it to the commission of inquiry, rather than beat about the bush?

Again, in one of the medical reports, the Chief Secretary said that the medical officer said that there was a possibility that the injuries were caused as stated in the allegations. Now the medical officer-

Mr David: Point of clarification, Sir. What I actually said was that the two medical specialists stated in their report that they could not exclude the possibility of the injuries being caused as alleged or being self-inflicted.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I am much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker. Now, as the Chief Secretary has admitted, the medical report could not exclude the possibility of one or the other - that the injuries might have been caused as alleged, or self-inflicted, which means that there is a doubt. So the medical officer himself cannot say one way or the other. There is a possibility of one or the other.

The Chief Secretary again said that at one time he was asked why a complaint was not lodged - that refers to Lim Chin Joo. I think - and Lim Chin Joo said he had not lodged a complaint because he was afraid of the presence of a police officer. That clearly indicates what I have said in my speech - that whilst a detainee is under the supervision and detention of the police, he is afraid to submit any complaints, and the presence of a police officer outside his-

Mr David: Point of clarification, Sir, The statement to which the hon. Member is referring and which I made was in connection with the last case I dealt with - that was Goh - and he was asked why he had not complained to the medical officer when he was alone with him, not in the presence of a police officer.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not say that he was in the presence of a police officer. I said that because a police officer was around somewhere -[Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Not here, but in prison, and I hope that the Chief Minister will not take this House to be a prison when he looked around, taking all of us as detainees. [Interruption.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind strangers in the Gallery that the Speaker, by virtue of the powers conferred upon him by Standing Order 75, rules that strangers in the Gallery are not allowed to create any disturbance whatsoever? Carry on, Mr Lee.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: I am happy that the Chief Secretary has asked Members of this House to treat this motion with an unbiased mind. I think this is a most reasonable statement - that we should not be prejudiced by the Government's story or by the statements or affidavits which have been circulated to us.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar said that he represented the first detainee and he brought him down for an identification parade. But when the detainee went to where all the police officers were assembled for an identification parade, this detainee did not want an identification parade.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Deputy Speaker, I think, when we are dealing with facts of this nature, we should be careful not only in quoting but also in being quoted. I would like to remind the Member for Queenstown that what I said was that I did not attend an identification parade, I was about to attend an identification parade when I received instructions to the contrary. The parade was ready in the next room, but I never went to the parade.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Thank you for the clarification. I have said earlier in my speech that this detainee was blindfolded at the time he was tortured. Again I gave a number of reasons why he refused to have an identification parade - fear of further torture under police detention or confinement - and again the police are themselves in fact an interested party. So that is the reason why this detainee instructed his solicitor that he was prepared to go without an identification parade. This is not very important, Sir, but the important issue which the Member for Tanjong Pagar brought up is that this motion is a dishonest motion. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I filed this motion not for glory, not for gain, and not for publicity. I do not want glory because I do not need glory. For gain, I am not a lawyer and if I do take this case up, I will not be paid. As for publicity, I know quite a number of newspapers do not give me publicity. It is up to the Press not to give me publicity, but publicity to the torture of the four detainees is more important than personal publicity. The hon. Member said that he disbelieved the facts as contained in the allegations. Whether he disbelieves them or not, each has his own opinion. But what I am happy to note is that he believes in one thing - and that is that a commission of inquiry be set up. I am happy that the Member for Tanjong Pagar agrees with me on this particular issue, if not on the whole motion. Sir, he believes it, but the Government say they are not prepared to set up a commission. Again I may say that it is just a refutation of the allegations, and the Government are not prepared. The Chief Minister has a lot of respect for the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Why not give him that respect about his belief that a commission should be set up?

Sir, the Attorney-General said that before I brought this motion to the Assembly I should have made enquiries about the facts, and that when I ended my speech I confessed or admitted that I was not competent to say whether the allegations were false or true. Sir, to obtain information or make enquiries from the Government, I have to go through a lot of red tape. As an elected representative of this Assembly, I feel it is my duty, once a case has been brought to my notice, to bring it to the notice of this Assembly, whether the allegations in the case are true or not, and let it decide. Whether I have made investigations to ascertain if there is truth in the allegations, I wish to say once again that this issue has aroused the interest of foreigners, and if it has done that, why should it not arouse the interest of the people of Singapore and their elected representatives? The trade union movement in the United Kingdom, as I have said, has submitted a very strong protest. If the allegations are not true, I doubt whether the trade union movement there would have sent in that protest.

The Member for Serangoon is surprised that the leader of the P.A.P. has not filed in this motion and it has now come in the name of the Member for Queenstown.

An hon. Member: Yourself.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Quite so! It is! There is no surprise, Sir. Why should there be surprise? Is it necessary that I should belong to a Party, or these detainees or members of the public should belong to a Party, to bring their cases to this Assembly? I, for one, as an elected representative, do represent the people, irrespective of what Party or what colour they belong to. As long as I have a case which I feel should be taken up in the name of justice, I do so. I act accordingly: I do not play party politics.

The Chief Minister says that there are stooges in Singapore and that the subversive elements are now trying to find a new front. Sir, does he classify any elected representative or public spirited man to be a stooge if he is prepared to represent a case to this Assembly? If so, this is not the only time that a motion is filed. This is not the only time that a Member of this House has represented cases to this Assembly and, that being so, those who have brought cases or motions to this Assembly are nothing but stooges. Mr Awberry, a Member of the House of Commons and a Member of the British Labour Party, asked a question regarding this case in the House. Is he then a stooge? If we are stooges, then he should be classified as a stooge. If Members of this House are stooges, then Members of the House of Commons must also definitely be stooges.

The way I look at it, Sir, after hearing the Government's story and the speech made by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who has definite facts about the case, there appears to me to be some doubt as to whether the allegations are true or not. In a court of law, the magistrate always gives the benefit of the doubt to the accused. I, Sir, representing the cases, am considered to be the accused, and I feel that there is some doubt about them; so let us clear that doubt. The doubt is a very big one. Let us set up a commission of inquiry to clear it up. It is now one word against another. The Government said, "No, the allegations are true." On the Opposition Benches, one or two Members have supported me - the Member for Tanjong Pagar is supporting me to a small extent; he thinks the allegations may or may not be true. So let us set up this commission of inquiry. I hope the Government will change their minds and set it up so as to clear the reputation of the Government and the police force.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 4; Noes, 19; Abstention, 1. Ayes. Abstention. Goh Chew Chua. Lim, R. C. H. Lazarous, A. R. Lee Choon Eng. Lee Kuan Yew. Noes. Absent. Braga, A. J. Abdul Hamid bin Chew Swee Kee. Haji Jumat. David, E. B. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Goh Tong Liang. Ede, John. Hart, T. M. Jumabhoy, R. Jumabhoy. J. M. Lim Cher Kheng. Lim Choon Mong. Lim Ching Siong. Lim Yew Hock. Seah Peng Chuan. Mak Pak Shee. Mohd. Sidik bin Haji Abdul Hamid. Nair, M. P. D. Shanks, E. P. Soh Ghee Soon. Sutherland, G. A. P. Tan Siak Kew. Tan Theng Chiang. Tan, William. Thomas, Francis. Wong Foo Nam.

Motion accordingly negatived.

6.30 p.m.