INVESTIGATION INTO LEAKAGE OF SECRET INCOME TAX INFORMATION (Commission of Inquiry)

2.50 p.m.

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

That, in view of the leakage of secret income-tax information as evidenced in the Assembly debate on the 4th of March, 1959, and in view of the resulting public anxiety regarding the safety of all the secret or confidential information about the general public entrusted to the Income Tax Department, this Assembly is of the opinion that a Commission of Inquiry should be appointed to investigate into and report on the circumstances in which particulars of file No. 47909/GS of the Income Tax Department became available to a person not entitled thereto.

Mr Speaker, Sir, hon. Members will remember that on the 4th of this month, the Member for Tanjong Pagar disclosed the information recorded in file No. GS/ 47909. This file, I understand, is a file of the Income Tax Department, in the name of Mr Chew Swee Kee. This is what the Member for Tanjong Pagar said. I refer to Hansard, column 2153, of the 4th March:

"The Financial Secretary said yesterday that Mr Chew never saw Mr Holloway. I know Mr Chew saw Mr Holloway and that it was recorded in a file."

It is surprising how the Member for Tanjong Pagar knew that! And in column 2155 he continued to say:

"Sir, the facts are there. First, for the benefit of the Financial Secretary, we will just tell him that we have got all the cards on the table. Mr Chew's file is G.S. 47909."

This is what he said. It is rather surprising how the Member for Tanjong Pagar was able to get that information recorded in a confidential file. As far as I know, all files or documents of the Income Tax Department are considered confidential. There must have been then some leakage in that Department, Sir.

The duty of the Income Tax Department is to receive accounts from either firms or individuals for the purpose of assessing income tax, and not for the purpose of exposing the contents of any confidential documents or information to any political Party. Such accounts, I say again, should be treated in the strictest confidence.

I will quote section 6 of Chapter 166 of the Laws of the Colony, which refers to the Income Tax Ordinance.

"6.-(l) Every person having any official duty or being employed in the administration of this Ordinance"-

which is the Income Tax Ordinance-

"shall regard and deal with all documents, information, returns, assessment lists and copies of such lists relating to the income or items of the income of any person, as secret and confidential, and shall make and subscribe a declaration in the form prescribed to that effect before the Comptroller or a Magistrate.

(2) Every person having possession or control over any documents, information, returns or assessment lists or copies of such lists relating to the income or items of income of any person, who at any time otherwise than for the purpose of this Ordinance or with the express authority of the Governor-

(a) communicates or attempts to communicate such information or anything contained in such documents, returns, lists or copies to any person; or

(b) suffers or permits any person to have access to any such information or to anything contained in such documents, returns, lists or copies,

shall be guilty of an offence against this Ordinance."

It is really shocking, when we read that section of the Ordinance, how the Member for Tanjong Pagar got his information. It is shocking in the eyes of the public, and I am quite sure the public are alarmed at such a leakage.

Sir, in a matter of another two or three months, we are going to have self-government. When we have self-government, I think we certainly want a healthy system of the public service. We also want the highest quality and efficiency in the public service, and I am quite sure we also want discipline and loyalty in the public service. This aim, I believe, is shared by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. It was he himself on the 4th of this month who said that he required it. I will quote Hansard, col. 2118, what he said:

"...we expect and will enforce high standards of efficiency, discipline and loyalty to the service,..."

This is what the Member for Tanjong Pagar and his Party expect if they come into power, and it is going to be a very, very big "if"!

Sir, as officers of the Income Tax Department, it is their duty to safeguard any secret or confidential information entrusted to that Department. This leakage has caused much anxiety and has seriously affected the confidence of the general public in that Department. The public now feel that the Department cannot maintain secrecy as required by law.

From what I am aware. Sir, every officer who joins the Department will have to sign an oath of secrecy. I have got a form here which I am told every officer, on joining the Department, will have to sign. This form reads:

"My attention has been drawn to the Official Secrets Ordinance (Chapter 84, Laws of the Colony of Singapore) and in particular to Section 5 thereof which relates to the safeguarding of official information.

2. My attention has also been drawn to General Order 143.

3. I understand and agree that all official information, no matter what its security grading may be, acquired by me in the course of my duties, is to be treated as of a strictly confidential nature, and is not to be published or communicated by me, either during or after my service, to any other person in any form whatsoever, except in the course of my official duties.

4. I further understand that any breach or neglect of this undertaking is a disciplinary offence, and may also render me liable to prosecution under the Official Secrets Ordinance."

Every officer who joins that Department is fully aware that any information that he gathers should be treated in the strictest confidence, and if that be the case, how come then, may I again mention, that the Member for Tanjong Pagar got his information? From what E can see, this is a clear indication of the P.A.P. policy - to plant stooges here and there, to infiltrate here and there. We have evidence, Sir, that the P.A.P. have, during the past year, infiltrated into trade union organisations, and even schools. Such infiltration has caused a a lot of labour unrest, damage to the schools, and even strikes. We have experienced so many strikes during these few years.

Now with the elections coming nearer and nearer, the P.A.P. have no other ways of infiltrating into such organisations than into the civil service. They know that they do not have the strength, and their only thought now is to infiltrate into the civil service so that they will be able to get information from the civil service and use this information against their political opponents. As I said, Sir, secrecy is very important and should be kept for the purpose of investigation. Unless the public have faith that the officers of any department of the Government can maintain secrecy, I am sure the public will not be prepared to pass on information. Then how can the Income Tax Department be able to assess properly income tax? The Department cannot do so unless the public are prepared to submit proper income tax accounts. The public have no faith because the Department cannot maintain secrecy. How then can the Department collect the revenue arising out of income tax?

This leakage has not only caused worry to the public but also amongst business circles. We are aware that most people or small businesses depend for their business on credit from big firms. Now, if the Department cannot maintain secrecy where such accounts are concerned and if any creditor comes to know of the account of a firm or small business that is not making any profit, I am quite sure the creditor will withdraw his credit account and that will incur more suffering or more misery to the small firms. Such small firms depend on credit so that they can maintain their business. Are we going to cause more hardship to such people? Certainly not, because if business is closed down, there will not be any employment, even for the P.A.P. stooges.

We talk of corruption here and there, Sir. As far as I can make out, there are four types of corruption:

1. Monetary corruption.

2. Political corruption.

3. Power corruption.

4. Confidence corruption.

Now in this particular case, within the four, there are two kinds of corruption. The P.A.P. are politically corrupt because they try to influence the civil service to get information so that they can use it against their political opponents; and second is the breach of confidence by a civil servant or servants in leaking out such information, which is not proper on their part to spill to a political party.

Of the four kinds of corruption, these two are the worst forms of corruption, it is rather fortunate, Sir, that the whole civil service is not involved in this case because, by this leakage, it is very lucky that Singapore could have the damage exposed very early. If we do not find out such leakage, I am quite sure that the P.A.P. will infiltrate more into the civil service and then it will cause damage to the whole reputation of the civil service. As I have said, not only the public but business circles are worried over this leakage. The whole civil service is also worried by such leakage. How then, Sir, can we have a strong Government if politicians and civil servants who are entrusted with secret information and documents cannot maintain secrecy? It was evident recently that a politician, who was regarded as the most honest Minister in the Cabinet, had leaked out confidential or secret information which was passed to him by a colleague. If such be the case-

Mr Speaker: Order. I would remind the hon. Member of one of the Standing Orders, which reads:

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

This was the personal conduct on the part of the hon. Mr Francis Thomas and therefore cannot be referred to except on a substantive motion.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged for your drawing my attention to the Standing Orders. It was as a passing reference that I made those remarks, because I was

Mr Speaker: Order. Even in passing, the remark is out of order and it should be withdrawn.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Sir, I accept your ruling and I will withdraw. But what I would like to say is that, if we have politicians of that calibre in Singapore in whom we have trust and faith and who can just leak out secret information, is Singapore safe enough?

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is becoming very disorderly. Perhaps he should now turn to some other aspect of his speech.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: All right, Sir, If you so rule, I will try to turn round to other subjects of the speech which refer to this leakage of income tax. I must warn all civil servants to be on the lookout for such power-corrupt politicians. Unless they are on the look-out, they may ask for trouble. For the purpose of obtaining information, politicians or political parties may promise heaven and earth, and when they come into power, will they give that heaven and earth?

We have already seen this happening in the City Council. The Chief Administrative Officer, Mr Marcus, was promised heaven and earth and was called or considered to be the best and the highest esteemed officer in the City Council. Today, we have Marcus vs. Mayor Ong in the City Council. Is that what it should be?

I feel that no political Party should influence the civil service in order to obtain secret or confidential information, and, at the same time, no civil servant should disclose any secret or confidential information to a political Party and expect promotion if that Party comes into power. All civil servants should be above board and above Party politics and be loyal to the service in maintaining the faith and confidence entrusted to them.

Sir, I am quite sure, after what I have said just now, that hon. Members in this House, including the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, who is a firm believer of loyalty to the service, will join me in deploring in the strongest terms the leakage of secret income tax information and will wholeheartedly support my motion.

Sir, I beg to move.

3.05 p.m.

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to second this motion standing in the name of the Member for Queenstown, and I heartily endorse every word he has said.

The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has every now and again said in this House that he would expect the highest standard of efficiency from Government servants and absolutely incorruptible standards. We all agree with him there wholeheartedly. And yet, Sir, he gave us an exhibition the other day of how he expects Government servants to behave should his Party come into power. It is quite clear that under his Party rule, every Government servant would be expected to give every piece of information that would be required by the Party, no matter how secret it should be, otherwise he would get into very serious trouble. How can he justify in this House giving the number of a secret file - No. 47909/GS of the Income Tax Department? Not only did he mention this secret file number once in this House, but three times, and I have been wondering for what purpose he did this - to show to the world that nothing is sacred to him? How can he, who so blatantly throws his weight about as if he is to be the first Prime Minister of Singapore in the next election, have the face to give out the file number and the information that is contained therein?

The answer I think is that he wants now to threaten the civil servants so that in the next two months they should bow to his will and give him all the information he wants, and give them notice that they must not do anything against what his Party wants.

Let everyone of us in Singapore take heed and be prepared to accept the form of government that he or she can expect if he or she does not exercise his or her vote properly. These two months are the most crucial in the history of Singapore. Everybody who does not think in the same way as the P.A.P. does should come together and have a straight fight - Party against Party, ideology against ideology.

Sir, it seems to me that the policy of his Party is that the end justifies the means. It does not matter how you get it so long as you get it, it does not matter to them how they get into power and how they can win the election, so long as they do win the election. The dreadful part of it is that they have managed to get information - secret information - from a person who holds such a high and responsible position in the Labour Front, so that-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: S.P.A.!

Mr Lim Koon Teck: Sir, the S.P.A. have nothing to do with it. What happened in the last debate was that the sole heir of the Labour Front crossed the Floor, and is sitting opposite us now.

I appeal to everyone in Singapore to realise that in the vital next two months, he must rise to the occasion and cast his vote according to his own conscience.

Question proposed.

3.11 p.m.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is indeed with a very heavy heart that I read through this motion. We have just heard what the mover and seconder of the motion said. The seriousness of this leakage of information from an Income Tax official to a political Party, is already a well-accepted fact. It is most recoiling.

But, Sir, what I want to point out to the House is this. It is a waste of time to come here to deplore the action of someone who is so much pleased with what he has gained. What the people of Singapore would like to know is, what is the position of our political situation today because of this leakage? What makes a Government officer risk his career to pass on the information? He knows very well, when he was first employed by the Income Tax Department, that he had to sign a declaration form. May I take this opportunity to read it aloud:

"I, so and so, of address, so and so, do solemnly declare that I will regard and deal with all documents, information, returns, assessment lists and copies of such lists relating to the income or items of income of any person as secret and confidential and that I will not, except in the performance of my duty under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1947, communicate, attempt to communicate or suffer or permit the communication of such information or anything contained in such document, return, list or copies to any person other than the person to whom such document, return, or information relates or his authorised representative. Signed, So and so. Declared before me."

Sir, even a magistrate or the Comptroller of Income Tax is required to witness the declaration. I tried very hard to find out from the Income Tax Ordinance, 1947, whether there was a case to exempt this officer from passing on information to the P.A.P. and also whether the P.A.P. have any right to know such a secret: but, Sir, unfortunately, I could find none. There are a few exceptional cases: for example, the Commissioner of Estate Duties, the Financial Secretary and the Auditor can obtain information. But members of a political Party or even the Prime Minister of the day are not allowed to know everything about the Income Tax Department. It is through the Official Secrets Act that we hold the confidence of the taxpayers of this country.

So, Sir, it is quite clear now that the secret is out. The file number has been quoted by the Member for Tanjong Pagar. He even knew of the interview which took place, although it was denied by the Financial Secretary.

Sir, I would like to read certain passages delivered by the Member for Tanjong Pagar regarding the civil service. He said:

"..to remember this. Keep your politics and your personal views out of your service."

Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Member give the column number?

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, this is from Hansard, Volume 3, No. 24, dated Wednesday, 4th March, 1959, column 2134. The Member for Tanjong Pagar said:

"...to remember this. Keep your politics and your personal views out of your service."

He also said that the Hon. the Chief Minister was ill-advised to advise the public service how to oppose the P.A.P. I would like the Member for Tanjong Pagar to explain how his remarks "advise the public service" apply to the facts of this leakage, and how he could secure the services of anybody working in the Income Tax Department.

Sir, my second point is this. What makes this public servant think fit to pass on this information? I do not have the slightest doubt that it is because of the corruption of money. The I'.A.P. paid out a lump sum to this officer. I have never the slightest doubt about that; and I do not doubt that power corruption is going on. "I offer you a quicker promotion if the P.A.P. come into power and if I can down the S.P.A., the U.M.N.O. -"

Dato Abdul Hamid: No!

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: "- and the Lib-Socs: and then I can promote you to be Permanent Secretary even." Sir, I tried to trace the cause of this leakage, why this public servant had to risk such a severe penalty if he was discovered, such a risk to his career to pass on information to the Member for Tanjong Pagar. Does a national emergency require such an important leakage to save the whole country, Sir? I shall not waste too much time by using the same words delivered by the Member for Tanjong Pagar when he pressed for the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. He said in Hansard, Volume 3, No. 24, the same date, column 2149:

"...in view of what the Hon. Mr Chew has done, that there is any doubt as to the truth of what the Chairman of the P.A.P. stated, and a Commission of Inquiry is completely unnecessary to prove the allegation! that we made."

Sir, I am sure that you will notice that the Hon. the Minister for Education was referred to as Mr Chew and the Member for Tanjong Pagar said fair play was not very necessary. I am not interested in a Commission of Inquiry, because the truth is the truth and because Mr Chew has already resigned, not only his Ministerial post but also as a Member of the Assembly and even from the S.P.A. Yet the hon. Member thinks fit to let us know so much more in detail. He says that it is not necessary. For the national interests. Sir, no. I quote from Hansard, column 2152:

"There was no crime [in other words, about the $500,000]. No act of illegality had been committed. We have not accused the Income Tax Department of doing something irregular. In fact, we admit that if the money was a political gift, as we say it must have been, then it is not liable to income tax."

Sir, the P.A.P. themselves admitted that receiving the $500,000 was neither a crime nor an act of illegality. They even supported the fact that this money was exempted from income tax. And then the hon. Member tried to advise the Secretary-General of the SPA., "Be brave and say, 'Yes, I have got the money. So what?'" Unfortunately, this time the relationship between the Member for Tanjong Pagar and the Hon. the Chief Minister is not very good. Sir, it is deplorable, because this is not a national emergency demanding a martyr, that our most valuable public service system should be destroyed only for political party interests and not for the national interests.

My third point is this. What makes the P.A.P. think of going deeper and deeper into this $500,000? The leader of the P.A.P., the Member for Tanjong Pagar, made a remark that there was no crime and no act of illegality. Why do the P.A.P, not tell the truth? We know there are many intelligent leaders in the P.A.P. They know what the situation is in Singapore. Was the money from America? Of course, dollars are remitted from America. Of course, an American bank is here, and therefore the money is from America. Sir, it is not so simple as that. The P.A.P. know exactly that the money is not from the American Government. I would like to tell him that the Formosan Government and the Japanese Government have for many, many months gone into the question of how to make Singapore politics suit the South East-Asia Organisation, how to divide our people-

Mr Speaker: Order. I must, of necessity, keep a very close watch and see that hon. Members keep to the strict terms of the motion. I am just wondering how those remarks have any relation at all to the motion, which merely asks for the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry to investigate a leakage in the Income Tax Department.

Mr Lim Cher Kheng: Sir, I beg your pardon. Maybe I have to seek your clarification. I spoke on three points.

My last point is this - that the P.A.P. fail to realise the actual political position of Singapore today. They are merely seeking their Party interests and not the national interests as a whole. That is the point of this motion. If I am wrong, please rule me out.

I would like to emphasise this. The damage has already been done to the public service. Nobody doubts that. I may quote a further point. Only last Saturday night I had occasion to meet a foreign diplomat. He did not know that I am an Assemblyman but he knew me as an accountant. He is worried about his money. Sir, it is an open secret. The surrounding countries are corrupted, and there are corrupt diplomats and a lot of corrupt money. This diplomat saw fit to consult an accountant. He asked, "How now, this leakage in the Income Tax Department of $500,000. Now I have to submit my returns. My accountant is so and so. He is seeking certain solutions to help me out." Sir, that is one likely ironical example - how much confidence of the taxpayers has been lost as a result of this leakage of information from the Income Tax Department through the P.A.P. organisation.

My conclusion is this, Sir. Since the P.A.P. said that this $500,000 was neither a crime nor an illegal transaction and it was exempted from tax, because it is a political gift, they were prepared to withdraw the motion calling for the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. They take this matter so lightly. Why? Because they have already achieved their political aim! But there is one thing I cannot understand - despite all the remarks in favour of this $500,000 - case, yet they thought fit to do nothing about the integrity of the public service. That is the thing that should open the minds of the people of Singapore - to take a close look and analyse what makes the leader of the P.A.P.? Somebody says, "A political bankrupt"; I do not think it is true. The P.A.P. are the strongest political Party, but if they are politically corrupt, then they are power corrupted. Although they already have one foot in the grave, yet they choose to sacrifice their "Marcus", the hero who passed information to the Party. That is the thing that worries me much - that if our political leaders, or our political Parties for that matter, work along the lines only for party interests and not for the national interests, then we are really doomed.

Our national movement requires the full support of the masses, irrespective of whether you are rich or poor, whether you are a Malay or a Chinese, or whether you belong to Party (A) or Party (B). We must all stay together to work towards full independence.

Sir, through this leakage, the eyes of the people of Singapore are open to the corruptness of the political Parties in Singapore, politically corrupt at the expense not only of the poor Income Tax officer who passed out the information, but also of the whole public service and the interests of the national movement.

Sir, I sincerely wish the Member for Tanjong Pagar is guilt-conscious, not only duty conscious, and that being so, he has to reply and make a clear statement about this leakage.

3.35 p.m.

Mr Francis Thomas: Mr Speaker, Sir, if confidential and secret information leaks out from Government services, it is certainly deplorable and should not be, and proper action must be taken to see that it does not occur again. Nevertheless, Mr Speaker, I do not think that appointing a Commission of Inquiry is an appropriate and proper action in this case. I believe this motion is purely a political motion designed for political advantage and prepared to expose the Civil Service in the interests of political advantage. If there was a genuine desire on the Government benches, if there had ever been a genuine desire that leakages should be cleared up, there would have been calls for a Commission of Inquiry long, long ago. There have been continuous allegations by the Press - out come the newspapers, "The Council of Ministers this morning decided so-and-so." There have been continuous allegations from confidential and secret documents in different Ministries; there have been almost weekly headlines in the papers (not even headlines sometimes) about the allegations that leaks have taken place, and yet this. Assembly has never in the least been interested. It is only now, when the political heat is coming on, that we show our keen desire that the Civil Service must be properly careful with all its secrets, and all secrets must be revealed to a public enquiry in order that they may be more secretly kept.

We had an enormous number of Commissions of Inquiry in the last few years, relatively enormous compared to the usual practice. I fear that if we go on calling for Commissions of Inquiry, the whole system will become ridiculous. The tendency now is to call for Commissions of Inquiry not because there is anything useful that is going to result,, but because it is a sort of jest, "Look, I am an honest man; he is a crook: set up a Commission of Inquiry to prove that I am right." That is an absurd way of behaving and brings the idea of Commissions of Inquiry into disrepute. If there have been leaks, then it is for those in the Civil Service, through the Civil Service, to stop those leaks and to see that they do not occur again, and to see that proper disciplinary action is taken. If there had been a leakage it is as well that it should be made known and preferably made known to the responsible Departmental Head or the Minister or whoever is concerned in the Civil Service. If it is made known to the public, well that is less desirable; in my view to give publicity does not help anybody. But certainly if a leak has taken place and if an honest citizen gets to know of it, he should not keep silent about it. He should see that action is taken to stop the leak for the future. We have on the Government benches the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary - as I understand, the mechanism of the Service - they were both concerned with a leak of this sort, and I have no doubt at all that they would have already looked into it and are capable of taking appropriate action to see that such things do not occur again. If there is a suggestion that they cannot do their work and the Commission of Inquiry tells them how to do it, that is a suggestion that they are incompetent in their own jobs - and that is from their own Government supporters suggesting that their own Ministers sitting with them are not able to keep proper control of the affairs of the Civil Service.

There is an enormous number of ways in which leaks can take place, and they need not necessarily be malicious or deliberate ones. I remember some years ago I was quite a new Minister going to the Chief Minister's Office, just next door to this Assembly House, and seeing a secret document being typed on a typing machine and then taken downstairs for duplication in the Public Relations Office in this Assembly building - what I call the Press Room of the Public Relations Office - on the duplicating machine down there. They had not got a duplicating machine upstairs and had to go downstairs, and the secret document which is supposed to be seen by a very particularly limited number of people, was being duplicated in an open office with pressmen coming in and out. I do not know whether they got it, but there were a number of leaks at that time of quite secret information. Now in the Chief Minister's Office there is a Confidential Registry - the door is to the left of the room and marked "Confidential Registry" - supposed to be, I believe, inviolate. Nobody goes in except confidentially-cleared people, or people who have had their security checked. Nevertheless, I have seen the door open with nobody inside and I had heard two men, looking for somewhere quiet to talk, say, "Now, come on, it is all right." And in they went and sat down in the Confidential Registry and they had their private conversation, because there was no other private place to sit. What was on the table I do not know, as it was not my business. I am not alleging anything about those things. I made mention about the difficulties of maintaining security. Papers have got to be handled here and there: it is a continuous job and there is always a possibility of a leak. And in what circumstances was there a leak, if there was a leak, about this file? It seems to me that somebody has talked out of turn and it appears to me that the thing must be looked into. But I do not see that any advantage to the public at all can come from setting up a Commission of Inquiry. I consider this motion should be dropped; I consider that the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary and their Departmental Officers should take proper steps to see that no further leaks of this sort occur; and I think that the Government benches should find other ways of looking for votes.

3.40 p.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am horrified at the disclosures from the hon. Mr Francis Thomas - there were leakages from even the Council of Ministers! He has admitted that. That is terrible! Things that were important were being looked at by unauthorised people. What I want to know is: what did he do about stopping those leakages when he was there?

Mr Francis Thomas: Set up a Commission of inquiry.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Today, Sir, with him sitting on the Opposition bench, I am certain there will be no further leakages.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think that was clearly an imputation, and I do not think the hon. Member is justified in saying that.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Well, Sir, I have not referred to him. I have not referred to anybody. Possibly Government has taken tighter control, and there shall be no further leakages.

Mr Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member will not submit to the ruling of the Chair, then of course he cannot carry on. He must withdraw that imputation.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: If that should be your desire, Sir, I do withdraw, if it implicates him. Sir, on the matter of inquiry, we must view the matter from the gravity of the offence. If a certain person is going to leak out news that probably will not harm anybody, then I see no reason why that matter should be taken up and investigated into. But if a leakage of such important information on Income Tax has occurred, it is a matter that has the whole attention of the people of Singapore focused on it. We in Singapore have always said, "We must trust our Civil Service. We want our civil servants to be neutral. We want them to be efficient. We want them to be able to work well !" On the other hand, we deplore the public for not coming out to help Government. We deplore the people of Singapore for sitting on the fence; not coming out with information to help the Police to enforce law and order. We blame them for not passing on information to the Criminal Investigation Department. But if we have such leakages as this from a Department that is sworn to secrecy, then what will the public think of coming out with information to the Government, when in all probability they will be discovered by their enemies the moment they step out of Government offices?

This matter, Sir, is of a very grave nature, and it must be thoroughly investigated so that the wrong-doers are not just told off and the matter not repeated again. But they should be punished, and punished in accordance with what the law stipulated. This is a case, Sir, where the Members of this House have thought to be of such a serious nature that it must be brought up with a motion, and I am certain that everybody in Singapore is of the same opinion. We do not say: "If a person is wrong, well, other people may carry on. If it is wrong to leak out information, well, never mind, there have always been leakages," and so on. I think if there is something wrong, and we know that it has happened, we should find ways and means of stopping it. We should have ways and means not just of stopping it but also of protecting ourselves. We depend, Sir, on the Income Tax Department to collect large sums of money for our expenditure. If the people have no more faith in the Income Tax Department. I wonder what will happen.

Sir, I want to talk about this matter of honour. I feel that when a person is on oath, when a person has made a promise to do something, or not to do something, it is of very great importance that he should keep that promise. I certainly feel that a person who has sworn to secrecy and then leaks out all such information is doing society a great harm. Such actions strike at the very roots of our democratic society.

I always have remembered the good words Westerners say about the Easterners. I have heard it being said over and over again, that if you deal with an Easterner, especially with a Chinese, you can depend on his word. His word is as good as any legal document - even better. He will honour it, even if it means a loss to him. And today, Sir, we find that officers whom we have engaged to do confidential work leak out such information. They shake the very foundation of our society! Where will we end? I personally feel that we must keep all that is good that we have. We must not allow political or personal gains to come in between us, and disregard honour and good faith. I certainly feel that if people are weak in their faith, weak in keeping their promises, we should help them along, so that they are able to keep up the good old traditions.

The way of the world today, Sir, is always for oneself, always for one's Party, and always for one's own power. What do we get out of that? Why do I worry about society? Society can go its way - anywhere, so long as I can get to where I want. If we do not train the people of Singapore, or rather - because it is a matter of preservation, and not training that we need - if we do not preserve this code of ethics, that we must keep our promises, then I think we will end up with something very sorrowful.

We have heard in Singapore and elsewhere stories repeated in the Press, stories talked about by travellers. We have read that in the Press where Parties not of a democratic nature are ruling, Parties like the Communist Party to which the P.A.P. say they are not opposed, are having another type of ideology, another standard of conduct. We have heard that if you happen to be students, you may spy on your teachers and report to the People's Court, and condemn the teachers right off. If you happen to be employees, you can go along and condemn your employers publicly. Even if you happen to be the children of your own father or mother, you may go along and condemn them too, and then you will be held as heroes!

I am certain, Sir, that we do not want such things. Society must be built on faith, on the faith that we have for our own fellowmen, and not on a spying system, whereby you may not do what you think is right to do without being reported. You have the fear of punishment hanging over your head, not knowing who is friend and who is foe.

In a department like the Income Tax Department. I certainly have a very low opinion of the person who leaks out such secrets. Such a person is leaking out secrets to sources or to persons to whom he should not be loyal. I certainly believe that the Member for Tanjong Pagar, who offered us all this information, has a very low opinion of the person who offered such information in order to destroy those to whom he owes loyalty or loyalty to the Government he serves.

We have heard, Sir, nowadays of what such people will reap in the end. We know that it may be of advantage to be in the favour of the Party that seems to be up and coming. But I would like to warn such people, and all civil servants, that if they are helping people, and by helping them they are disloyal to the Government, they are not going to go very far. In the City Council today, Sir, we have seen with our eyes what happened; we have heard that Mr Marcus is the founder member of the People's Action Party. He had been promoted one step after another until he came up to the top. Mr Marcus was the best man on earth! He was very efficient! He was rendering the people a great service! Under him there should be great progress! Indeed, there should be great progress - the progress of elimination of the people who have done them service and are now of no further use! Such will be the fate of all people who betray others in order to have personal gains. Let me say here, Sir, that if anybody should betray the Government to which they owe loyalty, then the next Government that comes in will have no faith in him. And if they have no faith in such a person, the only solution is the word "go" - with all the pension rights washed off.

I certainly feel that honesty, loyalty and all those qualities that we have learned and that we feel are dear to us have always been a part of our civilisation and should be preserved at all costs. Today, with the elections coming so near, there will be many people trying to take advantage of the situation. There may be people who come along to the Assembly to say: "Look, you need not worry. We have all the information - all the files, whichever number; and we also know that there have been conferences behind the scenes with Mr Holloway, or with whoever is controlling any department. Oh, we know even more. You need not hide from us. Even in other departments, we have information. We have information even of a more secret nature. I can give an example. The Minister for Commerce and Industry need not tell us any tale. We know even more of the plans. We have the Permanent Secretary working for us, Mr K. M. Byrne." I have the greatest of respect for Mr Byrne, but when his name is used in such a manner, when he has just left Government service, it does give me a feeling that something is not quite right. I wonder, Sir, if a person were to give information to his Party when he is still in Government service, would that be right? Is that honourable? However, this may not be true. But then, coming from the Member for Tanjong Pagar, I cannot disbelieve it. This is getting more and more serious. We have heard the Member for Tanjong Pagar say: "Civil servants, keep politics out of your work!" And yet we have heard from him in the same breath: "We have so-and-so in our Party, a founder member, and another member in the Government service, very high in the Government service. They have resigned to contest the elections."

Sir, it is wrong to take an active part in politics while in government service, and yet these people, although they may or may not have taken part in active politics, have certainly given information. What has the Government done about it? This is something worth investigating into. But I certainly hope that the people who have always been respected as civil servants by the people should keep politics away from their career, and keep the information they have at their disposal away from politics until such time as they have left the civil service and taken up politics. Even then, it will not be right for them to divulge secrets. The secrets should remain secret-secrets to which they have sworn secrecy!

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption. Further consideration, what day?

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Tomorrow, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Tomorrow it will be.