REPORT OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO CORRUPT, ILLEGAL OR UNDESIRABLE PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS

Consideration of motion resumed.

3.20 p.m.

Mr Goh Chew Chua (Ponggol Tampenis): Sir, I rise to second the motion. The report of the Commission could have been better. It has failed in being beyond reproach, as such reports should be, because of elementary mistakes. It has not found the Assistant Minister for Labour and Welfare guilty. His accusers gave evidence in public but the Assistant Minister gave his evidence in private. What did he say? What was his explanation regarding-

Mr Speaker: Order. I was listening to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar very carefully when he touched on that aspect. I did not pull him up to order, or considered him out of order - he kept completely in order. But I think the hon. Member who is now speaking is getting out of order because, under Standing Order 31(9),

"The personal conduct of Members of the Assembly shall not be referred to except upon a substantive motion moved for that purpose.",

and I do not think there is a substantive motion moved for the purpose of considering the personal conduct of the Assistant Minister. I think the hon. Member, if he carries on along the line he has been carrying on, will be completely out of order.

Mr Goh Chew Chua: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just explained what the Assistant Minister had done during the by-election at Tanjong Pagar.

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think we are debating the Assistant Minister; we are debating a motion moved by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar which is quite clear in its terms.

Mr Goh Chew Chua: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will just touch on the report of the Commission of Inquiry. The report has made damaging findings against several candidates, about their hiring gangsters to help them in their campaigns. Most probably, Sir, these allegations were made by the police officers. The police officers gave their evidence in private. Probably they were true. It is all the more regrettable that the persons concerned in these allegations were not told of them and given an opportunity either to admit or rebut them. But nevertheless the Commission has served a useful purpose in bringing attention to a whole host of abuses that regularly take place in elections. Sir, my Party is glad that we have moved this motion.

Question proposed.

3.24 p.m.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon (Cairnhill): Sir, if I am not mistaken, the set-up of this Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt. Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections was put through by a motion of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. Maybe he thought at that time, Sir, that he could show to the people of Singapore that he was the only person who fought clean and the others were questionable. He is now, I believe, disappointed, and has many criticisms against the Commission's findings. To a certain extent, Sir, I agree with him. I must also say that the findings of the Commission were not entirely fair or accurate. If you will give me the permission, Sir, I will tell you why in my case I think it is not fair or accurate. Am I allowed to do so, Sir?

Mr Speaker: If the hon. Member will continue I will soon tell him whether he is in order or not.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon: When I told the Commission. Sir, that the first occasion on which I met Lim Toh Heng, who is alleged to be a headman of a secret society, was when I went on house-to-house canvassing with a Chinese staff member of the Liberal-Socialist Party at Kim Yam Road and Mohamed Sultan Road, the Commission disbelieved me; and when I further said that I did not know that Lim Toh Heng was actually helping me during my election campaign because he had never brought me to see anyone or attended any of my public meetings, it still disbelieved me. I think it would also not believe me if I were to say that I was not aware that Lim Toh Heng was helping me on polling day. The fact is that on polling day I was concentrating on Cairnhill Road and Emerald Hill Road areas, and I only went to Mohamed Sultan Road in the evening at about 6.30 p.m. with Mr Lim Choo Sye, the City Councillor, in his car. I did not meet Lim Toh Heng or any one who was assisting me.

But when the detectives told the Commission that they saw Lim Toh Heng at my public meetings at Tank Road on 13th and 24th June, 1957, this statement was accepted. The Commission also accepted the detectives' word that on 13th June Lim Toh Heng was in the company of two members of his own secret society maintaining order at the meeting, and that on 24th June Lim Toh Heng was in the company of four members of his own secret society, two members of another secret society and three members of a secret society of 18 Group. The Commission further believed police sources that 40 to 50 members of Lau Yong Heng secret society were assisting me in the Mohamed Sultan Road area, by canvassing for me, driving cars and transporting voters to the polling station.

On my word of honour, I have not seen anyone of these members of the Lau Yong Heng Society and to this very day I do not know who they are; except that I learnt later on, from the findings of the Commission of Inquiry, that Lim Toh Heng was an ex-member. But when I approached him on that day canvassing from house to house, I had no idea at all that he was even a member of the Lau Yong Heng secret society.

I had only five public meetings during my by-election campaign last year and they were at Tank Road on Thursday-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is probably making a defence, whereas the motion does not ask him to do so; the motion deplores the fact that he was not allowed to do so.

Mr Soh Ghee Soon: I am sorry, Sir, I only wanted to point out that there was no such meeting and if you will not allow me, I will not say any more, but I do not think much about supporting this motion.

3.30 p.m.

The Chief Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I seek the indulgence of this House to read the letter dated 19th April, 1958, addressed to His Excellency the Governor by the Commission of Inquiry: "Since our Report on Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections was published, three of the candidates in the by-elections namely Messrs. Lee Kuan Yew, Soh Ghee Soon and Keng Ban Ee have in statements to the newspapers criticised our procedure in the Inquiry on the ground that no opportunity was accorded to them to refute allegations affecting them made by witnesses who gave evidence in camera. In addition, Mr Lee Kuan Yew also criticised us for not giving him the opportunity of hearing the evidence of such witnesses and cross-examining them.

In the circumstances, it may be appropriate to submit to Your Excellency our observations on those criticisms. In regard to the first criticism, the fact was that after we have heard evidence in camera relating to those candidates, we called them in camera and particularly examined them in relation to the material points of such evidence so as to enable them to give us their evidence on those points. The dates when they were so called and examined were as follows:

Mr Soh Ghee Soon on 20th December, 1957

Mr Lee Kuan Yew on 13th February, 1958

Mr Keng Ban Ee on 28th February, 1958.

In regard to Mr Lee Kuan Yew's second criticism in cases where the fourth direction in the Commission appointing us applied, we had no discretion as we interpreted the word "public" to include persons about whom a witness was testifying. Moreover, we considered that whenever it was necessary for a witness to give evidence before us in camera especially on the subject of secret societies, that witness was entitled to expect that his identity should remain unknown not only to the public at large but also in particular to the person or persons about whom he was testifying.

We were conducting an Inquiry and not a trial but even if proceedings under certain local Ordinances where the liberty of persons detained is involved, the need for protecting witnesses by not disclosing their identity is recognised by law and the evidence of such witnessess is not given in the presence of nor subject to cross-examination by the person affected. In our opinion, similar considerations apply in our Inquiry."

Sir, on 8th July, 1957, the Member for Tanjong Pagar in moving his motion, which brought the Commission of Inquiry into being, spoke words of wisdom and even foretold the findings of such a Commission of Inquiry. Official Report Volume 2 No. 30, column 2171 contains these words:

"But if an Inquiry Commission were set up which is not confined to the technicalities of the criminal law of corruption, then some astonishing disclosures could take place."

Words of wisdom, prophetic words, Sir! He prepared us for some astonishing disclosures and we were therefore not astonished by paragraph 35 of the Report (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 7 of 1958) under the heading "MR LEE KUAN YEW" but what astonishes us is that the hon. Member was apparently astonished by the astonishing disclosures in the said paragraph. Well, well, well, what an astonishing sequel! He now wants this House to note

"with regret that the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections had made its report (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 7 of 1958) without giving to some of the persons, against whom allegations were made in secret, the opportunity to know of such evidence and to cross-examine such witnesses and to confront them with contrary evidence...".

And yet, Sir, there is no record of the hon. Member having raised any difficulties about the Commission taking evidence in camera or asked for any elucidation of procedure from the Commission. In fact, the terms of the Commission of Inquiry were clear to him before the Commission was appointed. Formal notice setting out the Commis sion makes it quite clear that any witness who states that he desires to give evidence in camera shall be at liberty to do so and in such case, the Commission shall direct that any such evidence shall be heard in camera or otherwise recorded without being made available to the public. Looking back, this may be loosely worded but at least criticism cannot be levelled at the Commission for procedure which was well within the terms of reference, and, as I said, the terms of reference were clear to the Member for Tanjong Pagar before the Commission was appointed.

This point, Sir, was further made by the Chairman of the Commission in a broadcast on 25th September, 1957. He said:

"Remember also that if you wish to give evidence in private, the Commission will and indeed must comply with your request and if you mark your correspondence `confidential', it will be treated as such."

Sir, in the Singapore Standard of 10th October, 1957, there was a story saying that of the 12 subpoenaed witnesses who were present, six offered to give their evidence in public while the other six elected to give it in camera. No question seems to have been raised as to whether the candidates in the by-elections would have an opportunity of hearing or, if they so wished, submitting rebuttals to the evidence laid by these witnesses before the Commission.

Again, Sir, in the Straits Times of 17th February, 1958 a story said that of the 40 witnesses heard by the Commission, half of them gave evidence in camera. In the story was a paragraph which said:

"The Commission examined several witnesses both in open and private sessions who admitted their connections with secret societies and to have helped election candidates. No private query or public comment was raised."

Sir, column 2170 of the Official Report referred to contains these words uttered by the hon. Member:

"Our law, as I have said, is copied from the English law which is effective under English social conditions where people will give evidence and denounce others in open court. Here it is impossible. Unless we give witnesses a guarantee of secrecy, it is impossible to get these people to come forward in court."

"Unless we give witnesses a guarantee of secrecy, it is impossible to get these people to come forward in court." More words of wisdom!

Column 2202 records the hon. Member as saying:

"I am quite satisfied to have a separate Court provided that there is sufficient protection given for it to make a complete and thorough inquiry. There must be complete privilege, sympathy if necessary, and extra judicial powers in the sense that it can hear evidence which would not otherwise be received, and can hear second-hand evidence if necessary."

All these, Sir, are words of wisdom!

The Commission did exactly what the Member for Tanjong Pagar wished to see done and now the hon. Member says that the Commission should have done otherwise. What an astonishing disclosure of a man who has been claiming that he always means what he says but now apparently says that he does not mean what he meant to say on 18th July, 1957!

Sir, the Government having appointed the Commission believed that they would be able to assess the credibility of witnesses and the degree of credence to be given to the evidence submitted. What the hon. Member is asking is that he himself should act as an independent Commission on the witnesses and their evidence and decide therefore on what he considers the effectiveness of the judgment of the Commission. The Government caniiot accept any criticism which reflects on the integrity or efficiency of the Commission. It is not the Commission which is on trial but the secret society penetration of political Parties which no one in this House denies.

Two things, Sir, are quite clear about the Commission. First, they were clearly impartial in their stringencies on the relations of secret societies to all political Parties and secondly, they gave the source of their evidence.

Sir, I now come to the second part of the motion which reads:

"...and that this House urges the Government to take action against the persons whom the report says the Police have reliable evidence of their having solicited and paid for the assistance of gangsters in their elections."

What did the hon. Member say on 18th July, 1957? I quote from column 2167 of the Official Report:

"The by-elections led to a great number of charges and counter-charges of strongarm methods, illegal methods, corrupt methods, but no election candidate has filed an election petition against his opponents, nor indeed has anyone made any serious complaint to the police."

And in column 2174, he said:

"In the cloistered atmosphere of a court such as the Commission on Corruption, or a court of enquiry or some tribunal not hamstrung by the strict rules of the law of evidence, a great deal of corrupt and improper practices can be brought to light."

I would like hon. Members to take note of these words "not hamstrung by the strict rules of the law of evidence, a great deal of corrupt and improper practices can be brought to light."

Sir, the Commission was dealing with events which had occurred months previously and neither the police nor the C.P.I.B. had made specific investigations into them at that time because in the words of the hon. Member "no election candidate has filed an election petition against his opponents, nor indeed has anyone made any serious complaint to the police."

My learned friend and colleague the Hon. the Attorney-General has made enquiries and is quite satisfied that though the police obtained information from sources that have properly been described as reliable, there is no evidence on which to found a prosecution for an offence in connection with the by-elections in question.

Sir, the Government does not need to be urged to take action against offenders. The Hon. the Attorney-General would have done so if he had been satisfied that there was evidence on which to found a prosecution and in the light of this explanation, I am sure that this House will reject this motion.

Sir, some more words of wisdom from the Member for Tanjong Pagar, a very learned member of the Bar! Column 2174 reads:

"The whole of the law relating to corrupt and improper practices is completely unsuitable to our conditions, and we cannot bring the crooks to book with these laws."

He has admitted, Sir, that we cannot bring the crooks to book with the present law.

Sir, it is clear from my speech that the Government opposes the motion.

3.46 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe this motion is aimed at the Commission of Inquiry or I would say that the mover of this motion has no confidence in the Report of the Commission. I thought that this Commission was first asked to be appointed by the Member for Tanjong Pagar and that he expressed great faith in Commissions of Inquiry. In fact, one of the Commissions of Inquiry was praised by him a great deal, and this House was urged by him to see that all its findings should be recorded as truths and its recommendations implemented. This motion, however, Sir, seems to give me an idea that there may be Commissions of Inquiry but that some Commissions are good and some not so good. Some Commissions would be acceptable to the People's Action Party, other Commissions must be totally rejected. But still, the People's Action Party finds that some parts of the Report should be praised - such as candidates buying coffee for their helpers or candidates wanting to buy a car for one of their helpers. No regret has been expressed about the findings of the Commission, although the Commission reported that there has been no concrete evidence to bring these cases to book.

On looking through the Report, I, however, regretted the appearance of paragraph 31 whereby the Member for Tanjong Pagar was connected with secret societies and through his good offices was able to settle disputes amongst them.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: It is your colleague, the Member for Tiong Bahru (Mr William Tan).

Mr Lim Choon Mong: The Member for Tanjong Pagar took a big hand. In paragraph 46, another member of these undesirable people tried to help him by tearing down posters. Furthermore, there are more allegations in this Report and the whole of Chapter V is devoted to it under the heading "USE OF FORCE AND COMPULSION (Aggressive Attitude to Voters)". All these I think, Sir, are the parts of the Report that should be very much regretted! They should never have made their appearance in the Report! If they have not made their appearance, then this Report is good. However, they have made their appearance.

It astounded me even more that there should be accusations of candidates being helped by gangsters to win the elections with or without the knowledge of the candidates. The Member for Tanjong Pagar said that if you look up the records, Tanjong Pagar is an area which can boast the most number of gangsters in Singapore and yet he represents them.

Perhaps I would say that the Commission should have specially written in its Report that the gangsters voted for him without his knowledge and that some of them helped him without his knowledge! But I would like this House to note, Sir, that when a Commission is appointed by this Assembly and if we have no faith in the members that are appointed, or if we think that they cannot do a good job, then we should have said so immediately upon their appointments, or while the proceedings of the Commission are going on, and not wait until after the findings are made known, and then fling allegations at them. I am afraid that allegations flung in this way are apt to be biased and not fair to all concerned. There may be a few small faults but generally speaking, I think the Commission has revealed to Singapore that a great deal of maipractices are perpetrated by many of these people who want the world to believe that they are clean by first bringing a complaint to this Assembly to have the matter investigated.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Member has completed his speech.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I was on the point of rising-

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I have completed my speech.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member has completed his speech. The Member for Tanjong Pagar will have an opportunity in reply.

3.52 p.m.

Mr William Tan (Tiong Bahru): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed surprised that the Member for Tanjong Pagar who moved this motion in this House made no reference particularly to a meeting held on 2nd June, 1957 (that is, on page 23, paragraph 54 of Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 7 of 1958). I think the People's Action Party should be blamed for what happened during the meeting held on Sunday, 2nd June, 1957. On that day the Liberal-Socialist Party held a rally behind the Oriental Theatre and there was quite a big crowd from the neighbouring area attending this meeting. About 9.15 p.m. on the same night, Sir, while it was going on and a few of our members were making speeches, a big group consisting of about 600 people marched along Banda Street (that is the street behind where we held our rally) and their behaviour reminded me of the mob action during the Hock Lee Bus riots.

Mr Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member continues, would he please relate those remarks to the motion? If he can convince me that those remarks are relevant to the motion, then he can carry on but, at the moment, I cannot see any relevance whatsoever.

Mr William Tan: Sir, what I am saying is in connection with paragraph 54 of the Report.

Mr Speaker: Order. I understand that but I would like some connection with the motion.

Mr William Tan: I am referring to that because the Member for Tanjong Pagar moved the motion reading:

"That this House notes with regret that the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections had made its report . . , and that this House urges the Government to take action against the persons whom the report says the Police have reliable evidence of their having solicited and paid for the assistance of gangsters in their elections."

Sir, what I am referring to is that the crowd was led apparently, if I am not mistaken, by gangsters. That big group came to disturb our rally and was, in fact, led by gangsters. I have information that this group was led by the Sio Eng Hiong secret society. Why did the Member for Tanjong Pagar not make reference to this? Why I say that, Sir, is because I am most concerned. The Member for Tanjong Pagar said, in relation to page 15, paragraph 31 of the Report, that I settled the dispute between the secret societies. The Superintendent of the Secret Societies Branch in the C.I.D. told me that the Member for Tanjong Pagar said that he represented the Ho clan who belong to the 108 Group, as distinct from the Teo clan who belong to the 24 Group.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Where do you come in?

Mr William Tan: I challenge him to deny that he did not make such a statement in front of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. I was surprised, Sir, that the Member for Tanjong Pagar did not say anything in the office of the Superintendent to deny that. I want to say that, because the reason why I stepped into this dispute was that the Ho and the Teo clans in Duxton Road told me that they had no faith in the hon. Member and that they did not like him to come and interfere in their dispute which involved them in that area. Eventually, the Member for Tanjong Pagar approached me because he understood that both of these clans respected me.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Hear, hear!

Mr William Tan: Whether he shouts, "Hear, hear!" or does not shout, "Hear, hear!", the dispute was settled without a fight! They did not belong to secret societies, as was alleged by the Member for Tanjong Pagar, and I was really surprised why he did not deny that fact in front of the Superintendent of Police.

Sir, there is one point I want to make clear. When the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry asked me - I am referring to page 17, paragraph 33 - whether I knew a certain man by the name of Teck Hock, alias Teck Ho, I told him that I did not know him unless I saw him in person. I made a request that this person should be brought to me in person to identify whether I knew him as Teck Hock or Teck Ho, but he never did so, Sir. He went on to say that Teck Hock, alias Teck Ho, was formerly the headman of the Hai Lok San secret society and I told him that I had no idea about this. I told him, "How do I know if he is a member of that secret society when he does not have any secret society wording written on his forehead?" I told him, if he were to say that Teck Hock or Teck Ho was a member of a secret society, - these are the words which appear at the footnote on page 13:

"We were particularly shocked when Mr William Tan, a Member of the Legislative Assembly, told us: "I know many people connected with secret societies among my friends."

I regret, Sir, that this remark or sentence has appeared in all the newspapers and in the Malayan Monthly, and I am now so popularly labelled as a friend of the secret societies. The Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry said he was shocked. I was more shocked! Sir, actually when he confronted me with the name of Teck Ho as a member of the Hai Lok San secret society, I was taken aback because it was not written on his forehead that he was a member of a secret society. I told him that, if he were to think like that, then among my friends there must be members of secret societies.

Sir, I support the Hon. the Chief Minister when he said in his speech that this is the type of motion which the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar - he is the Secretary-General of the People's Action Party - likes to move, because he likes to play to the gallery. The hon. Member knows that this motion may be 85 per cent or 90 per cent true. Because he regretted that he had ever asked for a court of inquiry to be set up, he has today, in order to clear himself, moved a motion as follows:

That this House notes with regret that the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections had made its report (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 7 of 1958) without giving to some of the persons, against whom allegations were made in secret, the opportunity to know of such evidence and to cross-examine such witnesses and to confront them with contrary evidence; and that this House urges the Government to take action against the persons whom the report says the Police have reliable evidence of their having solicited and paid for the assistance of gangsters in their elections.

I am very happy to note, Sir, that the Hon. the Chief Minister has rejected this motion. Even though the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry said that he was shocked at the fact that among my friends there were many people connected with secret societies, I still that this report, though it is not a hundred per cent true, is 95 per cent or 99 per cent true.

4.04 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Mr E. P. Shanks): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very glad to have had the advantage of hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru. I had a little difficulty in linking some of it to the motion, but it is quite clear that he is a very know ledgeable man, and I wish that I could have him at my side in other places and in other circumstances. With his assistance, I think it might be possible to achieve what the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has described as quite impossible, and that is the bringing properly to justice of a number of people who have in the past indulged in malpractices in elections.

I believe the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar went a little outside that paragraph in the Report which mentions the 1955 elections and referred to one specific case of an admission. It is all very well, Mr Speaker, for people to come here and refer to admissions of this kind and yet stay away from the places where such information could really be made great use of. The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar knows as well as I do - and he has known for a long time - as my friend the Hon. the Chief Minister has told us, just what the difficulties are. He knows those difficulties. He knew them before this Commission was set up, and it is because of those difficulties that the evidence to which he seems to refer in the second part of his motion is not anything better than second-hand, or in many cases third-hand. If the police had any relevant admissible evidence, I should have been able to take action against perhaps a number of people; but if Members will read what the Commission has said, they will see that nowhere is there anything better than evidence resulting from information which, according to the police or to police sources, is described as reliable. Now that is not good enough. On that it would be very wrong to seek to institute a prosecution - unless it were a prosecution of someone for failing to come forward and give evidence that is within his knowledge. That has been considered, but unfortunately we have not even got enough for that, and we have not got it for the reasons which are so well known to the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar. There may be people - and having read this report I firmly believe there are people - who have committed offences in connection with elections, and if I could lay my hands on proper evidence, I should prosecute - but I cannot. And if I could lay my hands on evidence against people whom I could prove have got evidence and have refused to give it to me, I should prosecute - but I have not got it. I have not got it because of the need to give these pledges of secrecy.

It is no use leaving things to other people. That does happen in all communities. People are apt to stand back and say they do not want to be involved; let other people get on with it. "Of course, we know it is all wrong. We know this goes on; we know that goes on and someone ought to put it right." Who is that someone? It is the Attorney-General or the Ministers. But how can the Attorney-General, the Ministers, or the police - anyone concerned - do anything about it unless people will stop saying, "It is all wrong. I do not approve it, but I am having nothing to do with it." If there is something that is wrong, come out and help. Perhaps with the help of the hon. Member for Tiong Bahru, any other hon. Member of this House, or any citizen or inhabitant of Singapore, something could be done if we all had the courage to come forward and say, "We need no secrecy."

What we want is the truth. We have not got it. And so we have this Commission which was set up with this very careful provision for the taking of evidence in camera. Now, because we have that provision, we have complaints that certain people were not allowed to cross-examine witnesses before the Commission. Mr Speaker, to suggest that secrecy of this kind is necessary and to complain that one is not allowed to cross-examine witnesses is a contradiction that needs no stressing by me. It is a contradiction so obvious that I doubt whether any responsible Member of this House can possibly, seriously, support this motion.

4.13 p.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew rose -

Mr Speaker: In reply, Mr Lee Kuan Yew?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: In reply, Sir. Mr Speaker, Sir, first the statements of fact made by the Chief Minister. He said he cleared the terms of reference of this Commission with me. If he intended by that to mean that he cleared paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 at page 3 of Command Paper No. 7 of 1958, yes; but if he meant that he had cleared with me the procedure which is set out in the paragraphs following, that is, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, then the answer is no. The terms of reference in the report was a thing with which I, as the mover of the motion, was concerned. The procedure was not one with which I was concerned. The Chief Minister quoted me quite rightly that I intended that the Commission should have powers which need not have to be fettered by the rules of evidence, that evidence should be taken in camera if required, and that secondary evidence should be heard. But what I am asking the House to note is this: it is not a failure to observe the rules of evidence, but it is a failure to observe a fundamental rule of natural justice that both sides to a question must be heard; that in these cases - the ones which I have cited earlier - both sides were not heard. A police officer was heard. What he said was probably true, but it should have been given to the person against whom these things were said in order that he could either say yes or no, and further that he might be asked in camera whether or not he had taken into consideration this, that or the other. When a thing is heard in camera to the exclusion of the public, it does not mean that it is heard in camera to the exclusion of the interested party. In many delicate cases the court is cleared. But you cannot have a court where the interested parties have been cleared, and then proceed to hear evidence in camera in the absence of the person against whom allegations are made.

The Commission said it called me up on 13th February, 1958. Yes, it did, and I was surprised because nothing specific was put to me. "Did gangsters paint the P.A.P. symbol in Trengganu Street?" I said, "No, not to my knowledge." "Well, we want to find out, that is all." Many of the findings were never put to me. In my opinion, although the Commission may have been right in not putting it to me because it was not an allegation against me, it should have been put to the man who was then - not at the time of the hearing of the Commission, but at the time of the by-election - a Committee member of a P.A.P. branch. It is stated in paragraph 35 at page 17 of the Command Paper:

"According to information from Police sources described as reliable, Mr Lee Kuan Yew was supported by members of secret societies of 108 Group and members of 969 secret society of 24 Group of the Cantonese section of Chinatown, who canvassed for votes for him and put up his posters. One Police report was to the effect that Mr Ho Beh Swee was supplying food, refreshments and cigarettes to members of the Sio Eng Hiong secret society of 108 Group."

Well, Mr Ho Beh Swee should have been called up and asked, "Did you supply?", even though it may have been irrelevant to me. As far as I was con cerned, it was res inter alios acta, but as far as Ho Beh Swee was concerned, this allegation had been made and published. He was never told of this, in fact, if it had been mentioned to me that this was said about Ho Beh Swee, I would have brought him along to be cross-examined on this; but he was never called. That is what I am asking the House, to note with regret, and I am glad to hear the Member for Tiong Bahru agrees with me that 95 per cent of this report may be correct. I said that at the outset, and in fact, I think Members of this House were taken off balance by the very calculated stand which he did take at the opening, namely, that whilst all this had been said and done, the substance was correct and the only regret was that the thing was not done in a way which made it beyond reproach. It is not rules of evidence, as the Attorney-General knows, but it is a fundamental principle of natural justice - andi alterem partem. He knows that; I do not have to teach him. But the Chief Minister may not know it. It is not laid down in the Evidence Ordinance of the Colony of Singapore, but it is a fundamental principle.

Secondly, and this is a matter for even greater regret, these witnesses who sought secrecy in camera. Surely they were not afraid to meet the persons against whom they were saying these things. They were police officers, and probably amongst them was the Officer i/c of the Secret Societies Branch whom I had summoned for help in order to prevent breaches of the peace. If this officer was afraid to meet Mr Ho Beh Swee, or other members of the Tanjong Pagar Committee who were in charge of the elections, and against whom he might have said something, then there is some thing seriously wrong with the police force. I can expect individuals like To Tung Tak, or whoever it is who associated with the Member for Cairnhill and the Member for Tiong Bahru, to be unhappy at saying something about Mr X.Y.Z. in the latter's presence. These were police officers, trained personnel of the law, and I do not understand why their evidence was not put to the persons concerned.

I would like to say this at the outset. Many speakers, including, I may say with some regret, the Chief Minister, have implied that I have noted with regret, because I was involved and I am now trying to exculpate myself. No, Sir,If the report is read, nowhere is it said that Mr Lee Kuan Yew went to see the headman of so and so. There is no such allegation. It is alleged that some gangsters went there and helped, and I would have been as interested as anybody else, for I would have had the opportunity to go into the evidence. And this is police evidence. Surely the Attorney-General has to admit that if police officers need protection from the public and from an interested party - be it me or Mr Ho Beh Swee - then I say something is seriously wrong with the instruments of policy of the law.

Sir, I still intend to proceed with the first limb of my motion, because I think I am fully justified in taking note of it; but in view of what the Attorney- General has said, I do not intend, with the leave of the House, to proceed with the second limb of my motion, namely,

"and that this House urges the Government to take action against the persons whom the report says the Police have reliable evidence of their having solicited and paid for the assistance of gangsters in their elections." The Attorney-General has said that the police in fact have reliable police evidence, but not of the nature that could be produced in a criminal court, and I therefore beg leave to expunge from my motion the second limb as stated above. I think I need the consent of the House, under Standing Orders, not to proceed with the second limb and I shall be obliged if Members will indicate their consent. This is out of respect for a law officer who has informed me, according to the evidence. But as to the first limb of my motion, I see no reasons whatsoever why this error should have been committed, particularly in view of the nature of the witnesses.

Further, I would like to say this: if the Chief Minister says he believes that this report is correct, then it is a matter for some considerable regret that he has not expelled Mr Keng Ban Ee from his Party. The report says:

"According to information from two separate Police sources described as reliable, this candidate sought and obtained the assistance of one Jiman Bin Simen alias Panjang, the Headman of 329 secret society of 36 Group, and promised him that if he was successful in the election he would present him with a motorcar as a reward for his help. Jiman enlisted members of his own secret society, as well as members of secret societies of 24 Group operating in Jalan Besar area, to assist Mr Keng Ban Ee. Mr Keng Ban Ee himself admitted that Jiman had helped him in his election campaign, and had been in charge of one area ...".

Why has he not been expelled? What is he still doing as a respected and honourable member of a not quite so respected and honourable Party - the Labour Front?

As for Members on this side of the House - the Member for Cairnhill, the Member for Tiong Bahru, and the other candidate, Mr Chong Wee Ling - I can only quote the Secretary-General of the Liberal-Socialist Party the day when this report was published, "I hang my head in shame." And he had reasons to hang his head in shame.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member has in effect suggested that this motion should be considered as two motions and that, with the leave of the House, he wishes to withdraw the second motion. I think that is perfectly in order, and therefore I am treating this motion as two motions. I will first take the second motion which is:

"and that this House urges the Government to take action against the persons whom the report says the Police have reliable evidence of their having solicited and paid for the assistance of gangsters in their elections."

The hon. Member has asked leave that that motion be withdrawn. Have I the assent of hon. Members that that motion be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr Speaker: That motion is accordingly withdrawn. We are then left with the first motion and I will put it to the House.

Question,

"That this House notes with regret that the Commission of Inquiry into Corrupt, Illegal or Undesirable Practices at Elections had made its report (Sessional Paper No. Cmd. 7 of 1958) without giving to some of the persons, against whom allegations were made in secret, the opportunity to know of such evidence and to cross-examine such witnesses and to confront them with contrary evidence."

put, and negatived.