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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for resumption of debate on Question (18th March, 1959),

"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 Lee Choon Eng).

Question again proposed.

10.02 a.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday we condemned those who were responsible for the leakage. I know that all hon. Members in this House as well as all right-thinking people of Singapore will join us in such condemnation.

But I certainly feel, Sir, that we do not only deplore such a class of people but also the other side of those who are involved. I am referring to those who have urged or who have been using such officials to make them divulge such secret information. Those who corrupt the civil servants are also guilty of that offence. Between the two, those who have bribed or have attempted to corrupt these people should deserve greater punishment.

We have many laws in Singapore concerning this. I know that if a person should bribe a police constable and if that matter is reported, then that person too will be punished by the law. I feel that, as this matter is of such grave consequence, those who are involved should also be punished.

The information before us is that the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has come forward with such information. Where has he got the news? Who has been instrumental in getting that news? Who has been edging on the civil servants to be disloyal to the Government which they serve?

Was it from higher officials who have had access to the files, or was it, as alleged by the hon. Mr Thomas, by way of bringing files in and out and somebody who was responsible or who has had access to the files having a look at it

Mr Francis Thomas (Nominated) rose -

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr Francis Thomas: Point of explanation, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr Lim Choon Mong resumed his seat.

Mr Francis Thomas: I want to say that I did not allege anything yesterday (that I recollect) at all. I described various possibilities but I did not allege how the particular leakage of the information coming out from the Income Tax Department came about. I did not allege any particular method by which it got out.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I am grateful for his explanation, Sir. But whatever it is, this concerns a matter which, we would say, is top secret. The people who have access to such files are few. People who have influence over such files are fewer still. We would say that, in all probability, it might be those who have always been passing information from one side to the other - from the Government side to the Opposition, or from one party to the other. That may be so. I am also just suggesting a method whereby it may be leaked out. If such were so, it should be fully investigated. I personally have a very low opinion of those who indulge in such operations, if such men have no honour, they should be better out of the political field or even out of our own country.

We have men who say that their whole life is devoted towards promoting the welfare of Singapore. Now we have information that there are quite a number of people who are not. We demand complete loyalty even from those who come to live with us and want to become citizens. Who wants to set examples to them? We want to make them feel that they are following leaders who have integrity, and who are going to make them feel that they are living with leaders in whom they can have faith and to whom they can even close their eyes and be led along. But if we have leaders who force civil servants who have all the time been loyal, to be disloyal, who have all the time been cheating on procedures when secrecy is essential, then such men. I would say, are the very scum of Singapore.

I suggest, Sir, that the Commission of Inquiry, when it inquires into this matter, should have this question foremost in their minds, to establish the identities of those who have made possible the leakage of such information.

One other point, Sir, that I would like to mention is that, on this side of the House, we want an inquiry. On the Opposition side, we have one Member who did not want the inquiry to carry on. Similarly, Sir, during the sitting early this month-the 4th of March -we also had the Opposition Party, the People's Action Party, taking a similar stand of wanting to have an inquiry and then wanting to drop it. If a matter is of such importance that a Commission of Inquiry should be called upon, then that inquiry should carry on. We do not want just to indulge in speculation. We do not want to establish any allegation where possibly there is no truth. In an instance like this, Sir, we know that the matter is wrong. It must be investigated and we must get to the bottom of it. Similarly. Sir, in the other inquiry we know that it would be wrong not to pursue it, because there could be innocent parties who would be involved and who would be blamed in this Assembly where there is privilege; but if they have an inquiry, they may prove their innocence.

I bring up this point, Sir, because I feel in the other inquiry, too, allegations have been made as to how the funds came about. But I would say, Sir, like the Member for Tanjong Pagar, that there is no crime in receiving any political gift. What he is concerned about is whether the funds came from any foreign sources. I am certain that even if there was such a gift, and even if people did help the former Labour Front-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member was correct up to the point where he mentioned the former inquiry or the former motion in passing. But he seems to be developing his argument on those lines and, of course, he is going very, very far from this present motion.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I am grateful for your guidance, Sir, I was saying that the difference between those two cases is that we want to get at the truth. I have faith in all inquiries. In passing also. Sir, I would like to mention the inquiry that looked into the matter of corrupt practices, involving the political figures during the Cairnhill by-election. There, we find that the inquiry gave us a picture that it was not the accused that was right. Neither the accused was right nor those who were accused were right, in fact, there was blame apportioned to so many people. Some people may take it that, after a court of inquiry, when the findings are not in their favour, that court of inquiry is not good. But I am of the opinion that when we appoint a court of inquiry we must abide by their findings.

I am certain, Sir, that this court of inquiry when appointed will reveal many other things of greater interest to the people of Singapore. It will also expose a great deal of intrigue and false allegations in one case, and probably reveal the true substance of what we want to find in other cases.

Sir, this leakage I feel is not just a leakage. I think it is also a system of spying amongst your own friends, amongst your own people. If this system were allowed to carry on and be fostered, there would be a time when we should not be able to speak to our next-door neighbour nor even to our children. There would be no secret whatsoever.

We have had instances of this in Singapore most recently. The rot is slowly setting in. We must stop the rot. Cure it, or throw it out of Singapore as a method alien to this land, as a method that will create a lot of mistrust.

We have, Sir, in Singapore instances of people using their political influence and asking their drivers to go against their employers when the employees probably have not even a single complaint. We have again, Sir, in unions, where spying is going on, giving information to parties or political parties that are not in their favour or the unions, and where union officials get into great trouble with the political power in the City Council. We have much more than that. The rot does not just end there. We have, even in the major political parties in Singapore, officials who impart information to Opposition members, telling them their inner secrets and giving them all the ammunition to shoot at the party they lead!

Singapore, Sir, demands absolute loyalty of its citizens to the state. Anybody who is not loyal to this land should go to lands where their loyalty belongs. But he should not clothe himself in sheep's clothing, and come and mingle with us to destroy us. This motion has arisen from the allegations made by the leader of the People's Action Party. They have much explanations to offer to the people of Singapore. They have much to let us know who those involved were. We do not want the people of Singapore just to stop thinking at the income tax level of the inquiry. We want them to think of their own lives, of the lives in the community, of the friends they have, of the children they have. Are they going to have that spying system coming to Singapore to destroy them? I am certain the people of Singapore will take this matter seriously. They must retain here what they have today and not go back to the time of Syonanto, as Singapore was called during the occupation, when they were afraid. You were ruled by fear. You just did not know when the Kempeitai, the Japanese Military Police, would take you away from your home, just because you inadvertently said something unpleasant to the ruling power.

I feel, Sir, that it is time the people of Singapore should wake up to eradicate those who are always instigating men against men, race against race, and doing a great disservice to this country.

Sir, the inquiry must go on. The truth must be got at. Whether the truth is pleasant or unpleasant, let those who are responsible for all these things be punished most suitably.

10.18 a.m.

Mr A. R. Lazarous (Farrer Park): Sir, it is surprising that a Member from the Government back bench is bringing up the motion. In my opinion, it is to censure the Government. Information was leaked out from the Income Tax Department and the Minister in charge is a Government Minister - the Financial Secretary. The Financial Secretary should take the necessary action for the leakage.

Sir, when you bring in a motion, that automatically means you are censuring the Financial Secretary and subsequently the Government.

Sir, I will support this motion. It is not because of the calling for an inquiry. It is firstly, because it is censuring the Financial Secretary and the Government for their incompetence and bungling. Secondly, for the leakage of information. It is admitted that a civil servant has leaked out certain information and he should be punished. I agree, but let us evaluate the information against the crime he has committed. The information released was that our former Minister for Education had received $500,000 from some source. Well, to receive $500,000, he must have sold some information or render some service to foreign people, otherwise no fool is going to give him $500,000 for nothing. He must have made a promise to give certain service to that foreign force. But what is the service? Service against the interests of the population of Singapore. So it is a question of selling the service of 1,500,000 people and receiving $500,000 by an individual - one Minister. So when you count the Civil -

Mr Speaker: I was just wondering whether the hon. Member is anticipating the findings of the Commission of Inquiry that is to be set up. Because if he is. perhaps he is straying away from the motion.

Mr Lazarous: Sir, before I started talking I had submitted that it was an allegation. As this motion involves a leakage and what was the content of the leakage, I was forced to say something about that. If I had anything to do with the Government who are going to be responsible to the Commission for the findings or the judgment, I would rather commend the man who had leaked out that information than reprimand him . Because through that information, the citizens of Singapore had gained certain information that their interests were to be sold for a few hundred thousand dollars, by a Minister, and it is the Minister for Education and the Minister responsible for leakages-

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy rose-

Mr Speaker: Point of order?

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Sir, in the Member's speech he says it was as a Minister that the sum was received. I do not think that that allegation was made in this House. The allegation made was that he received it as a politician, as a leader of a political party. Now the hon. Member is imputing that he received it as a Minister, which means that the Government was a party to it.

Mr Speaker: That strictly, of course, is not a point of order. It is a question of degree. Whether or not a Minister is responsible for some dereliction of duty, and whether the Government itself is to blame is a matter of opinion. I rule that it is not a point of order.

Mr Lazarous: Sir, I still submit then, leave alone the Inquiry Commission, does the House consider the seriousness of that offence? One party, that is the civil servant, committed an offence by revealing certain information. But we must also consider what was that information. How does it affect the interests of the people? Actually, we all admit that that particular information was to the detriment of 1,500,000 people-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member is now anticipating what the findings might be. I think he should not proceed on those lines.

Mr Lazarous: Sir, I shall not proceed on that any further. But my only comment is that, comparing the seriousness of the information of the leakage and the seriousness of the substance contamed, I think that that civil servant has done a duty to the people of Singapore. The particular civil servant who revealed that particular information - I must tell him that it was an offence and that he did something wrong - but you see the seriousness of the information that he has given to the public of Singapore. And it is my opinion that that civil servant, having regard to the information they received from him, has done a service to the people of Singapore.

An hon. Member: Shame!

10.25 a.m.

The Chief Secretary (Mr E. B. David): Sir, I have really been shocked to hear the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Farrer Park that a civil servant who has signed an oath of secrecy in respect of all matters committed to his charge should be entitled to judge - and this is the gravamen - from the nature of that information whether or not he is entitled to produce it to any third unentitled party. I hope the House, in the interests of the integrity of the civil service, will join me in repudiating in no mean terms any such suggestion.

Sir, the hon. Mr Francis Thomas has suggested that there is a lot of ado about nothing in this matter and that there is really no distinction between the leakage, which is the subject of this motion, and the type of Press leakage, which I must agree with him is all too common. But I think there is a fundamental difference between these two. It often happens that the Press by their own means are apt to obtain access to information or a Government intention or proposal in advance of the time when the Government intends to release it. That may be at times embarrassing. But it does not go further than that. But I do suggest to him that there is a very great difference between that type of leakage and a leakage where there may or there may not have been a deliberate breach of his oath by a civil servant, and where the public are entitled to be assured that any information made available in connection with their income tax assessments is kept secret, not just for a few days, but for all time.

My hon. friend the Financial Secretary will, I have no doubt, be informing the House that as soon as it became clear that there had been a leakage he at once put in hand a departmental investigation. But I must point out to the House that a departmental investigation, and it is not yet complete, does have its limitation. Where the parties concerned are solely members of the department or Government servants, then it may be possible to clear the matter up and arrive at the truth. But where there are members of the public concerned, they are not of course compellable witnesses for the purpose of a departmental investigation, and if the information is particularly in their possession which would enable an inquiry of this kind to be brought to a successful conclusion, then the departmental investigation can be completely frustrated if they are not willing to come forward. Hon. Members will remember that that was the situation in relation to the investigation of the leakage of examination papers in the Chinese Middle School examinations. As I see it at present, it is still a matter for speculation as to how this leakage occurred. It may have been a matter of carelessness; it may have been a matter of negligence, or it may have been that a civil servant was deliberately responsible. The matter clearly needs to be explained and the public anxiety to be satisfied. If the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar is taking part in this debate later, I hope he will deal with that particular point.

10.29 a.m.

The Acting Financial Secretary (Mr Oon Khye Kiang): Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two points that I would like to speak on.

First with regard to the Department. There is need for confidentiality of information in the Department. There has been public concern over the disclosures that were made at the last sitting on 4th March and it is important that the name of the Department should be cleared. In view of the requirement for official secrecy in the Ordinance, I formed an investigation team to institute a departmental inquiry. It started only last week and it is therefore not in a position to report. Hon. Members will be quite aware of the limitation that this team will be faced with as it has to depend upon voluntary evidence. It is not likely that it will make a positive report. However, should the Assembly decide that a Commission of Inquiry be formed, the report of this team, when submitted, will be made available to the Commission.

Sir, may I take this opportunity to clarify the misunderstanding that has arisen out of my answer to a supplementary question asked by the Member for Tanjong Pagar on 3rd March? I refer to a cyclostyled copy of the statement that was circulated to the hon. Members. The hon. Member asked:

"Will the Financial Secretary tell us whether the Minister in question personally saw the Comptroller of Income Tax, who is now away on leave, and as a result of that interview investigations were dropped?"

My answer was:

"That is not correct."

The intention of my answer was that investigations were not stopped as a result of the interview between the Minister and Mr Holloway. I was quoted by the hon. Member to have said that Mr Chew never saw Mr Holloway and this statement was repeated, I think, by the Member for Changi yesterday. I would like to clarify the position.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar): What is the position?

Mr Oon Khye Kiang: As explained, my answer was in reply to your question that-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Did Mr Chew see Mr Holloway?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Oon Khye Kiang: No, I took the question as a whole, but I think the hon. Member took my answer as an answer to a part of the question, which was not my intention. Whatever is the truth of the matter, I did not state that Mr Chew never saw Mr Holloway.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: On a point of information, Sir. Will the Financial Secretary do us the courtesy of stating, as a matter of fact, that according to his information now, Mr Chew did see Mr Holloway but that, in his opinion, was not the direct reason for the stopping of the inquiry? Is that the position?

Mr Oon Khye Kiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I explained, my answer was in reply to the hon. Member's question as a whole.

10.33 a.m.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, as twilight over this Assembly, there is a streak of insanity in the air.

Looting took place in a protected area. The looting was known by someone outside the protected area and Members of this Assembly, who are supposed to be representatives of the people, held up their hands in horror and in mock indignation, not at the fact of the looting but at the fact that it was known outside the protected area, We did not hear the Member for Queenstown or the Member for Paya Lebar or the Member for Serangoon, when the issue of the $500,000 was debated, but now the cry is for shame that that should ever have been made known. Sir, it was a calculated and deliberate act when I read out the file number to prove two things - that it is one thing for the Government to expect loyalty from civil servants, but that it is another thing when the Financial Secretary, in pursuance of the orders from his elected Ministers, makes a statement which he knows to be partially incorrect. We did not expect that kind of conduct.

Sir, there is almost an air of comedy about this motion. This is a Government matter. If the Government wants to have a Commission of Inquiry, there is no necessity to move a motion in this Assembly. Press on with it, but this of course is a diversion. Everybody was aghast and flabbergasted that this thing should have been known and the best way of distracting attention is to talk about how it came to be known. Sir, at the proper time and in the proper place, we shall let it be known how it came to be known. But I will say this: if you expect, as we expect, integrity in the service, you must have Ministers to set the pace. Anyone who goes into any of the Government Ministries can smell the decay and feel the sense of collapse of morale. That is bad, because we have to run the same machine and it is our duty to stiffen up the morale. That was the reason why we gave the file number. Does the Financial Secretary realise that anybody can pick up the telephone - but: not now, because there is such a jolt in the Income Tax Department that nobody will say anything - and say, "I am Mr So and So. Will you please give me my file number?" And they do. The Income Tax Department literally speaks to the public over the phone and gives a man's file number. I have tried it, before they made this an issue. How do I come to know this? I can tell the Financial Secretary and the Chief Secretary a few other things. I know that this departmental inquiry has been going on, as it ought to be without waiting for a resolution of this Assembly. I know that Mr Teo Kah Leong and Mr Pepper (the Comptroller-General of Income Tax) have been doing a departmental inquiry, and I know that they have shortlisted it to three or four gentlemen. I would like to inform them that they have got the wrong people. They are not involved. How do I know it? It is my business to know what is going on in this Government, otherwise we would not have survived. I say this: we will keep on knowing what is going on right to the end, and it is because we know what is going on that I am going to move the next motion which is down for debate today.

Sir, I have no objections to a Commission of Inquiry. I think the Chief Secretary knows exactly what the results will be. I am only sorry that the Government, instead of taking the bull by the horns, and making the decision themselves, have chosen to allow a Back-Bencher to moot the point in this Assembly. In the course of this Inquiry - be it one or two - let it never be forgotten that our sense of morality should not get perverted. What was really disgraceful was the deliberate lie and denial before we produced the evidence. I spent a great deal of the time of this Assembly at its last sitting in giving details just to make sure that this House and the public understand, Sir, that before we make an assertion of fact, we have ascertained its accuracy. In my position as leader of an Opposition political Party, I get a lot of information - some confidential, some very confidential, and most highly explosive. I do not use it unless I am sure of it. I will just give you an example, Mr Speaker, Sir. The moment the motion on Mr Chew Swee Kee was on, I received many letters giving me more details of that transaction, it was a political gift. We thought well of the civil service, and believed they acted properly. Therefore, they must have satisfied themselves that it was a political gift not liable to income tax. But according to information which I have now received from the post, it says, "You can check it up by advertising so and so and then I shall cross-check and prove further by giving you further information."

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): On a point of order. Sir. The question of the $500,000 is now in the hands of a Commission of Inquiry. Is it in order for the Member for Tanjong Pagar now to review facts which may prejudice the findings of that Commission?

Mr Speaker: My understanding is that facts have not as yet been revealed. They have been threatened to be revealed. If they are revealed, then of course that is wrong. The moment we reach the stage of a threat, perhaps the Member for Tanjong Pagar will not step over the brink.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I do not profess to be as clever as Mr Dulles at brinksmanship. But we go as far as we can justify ourselves. It is only when we have cross-checked our information and we are positive about it that we make a firm assertion.

Sir, a few foolish remarks were made yesterday about civil servants being threatened to give all their secrets. I do not think the Member for Paya Lebar understands what the business of Government is. I would like to make our position quite clear. If and when we are the Government, the civil service will have no secrets from the Ministers. It is the business of the Ministers to run the Government, not the civil service. and if the Member for Paya Lebar knew what the business of Government is, he would not have been responsible for such an inane remark as to suggest that it is wrong for a Minister to know what is happening.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suppose the word "inane" in that context must be unparliamentary. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw that word.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Mr Speaker, Sir, with respect, I am not suggesting that the hon. Member is inane. I am suggesting that the remark is inane, but if you so rule, then so be it.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suppose that if a remark emanates from an hon. Member, the hon. Member must be tainted with that remark, and therefore I ask the hon. Member to withdraw that word.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: As you please, Mr Speaker, Sir, I withdraw it; but nevertheless I should have thought that the elementary principle of the law of defamation says that you cannot impute stupidity in a man but you can always impute stupidity in the remarks that he has made.

Sir, I do not believe that the Government even now know what they are doing. I believe they have blundered into something which is completely unnecessary. It is not our business in this Assembly to bring down the democratic system. We have had four years of a half-trial in a baby Austin with dual-control, and we are about to shed the driving instructor and take over. I was prepared not to press for a Commission. My Party took a decision at a Central Executive Committee meeting after the Chief Minister's offer to allow Mr Chew to resign. We were prepared to forego the trials and tribulations and the ordeals of the disclosures that are bound to take place. That will not only disgrace Mr Chew, but will disgrace the whole of the democratic process. Due to some uncontrollable impulse, the Chief Minister in a fit of anger said, "Let us go on with it." Now he thinks that since everybody on his side is getting into dirt, why not try and get the Opposition and the civil service into it also? I ask him to remember this. Ministers may come and Ministers may go, but it is our business to see that the institutions which we are establishing survive, and it is not our business to try to bring these institutions into disrepute. I welcome the remarks about people of integrity leading the country. I often feel that the Member for Serangoon - whatever his other failings - is not a dishonest man, and I think he should be the first to be distressed to discover that the Minister for Education was not the man of integrity that he would have liked, in order to give morale and tone to the service which he led. As a result not only of this disclosure but also of a series of misdemeanours which took place in his Ministry - perhaps through no fault of his - the whole of the education service and all parents whose children are in school have lost faith in the Ministry of Education. One and a half million cannot be accounted for. Defalcations-

Mr Speaker: Order. I think probably the Member for Tanjong Pagar is wandering from this motion. We are now on disclosures in the Income Tax Department and not on disclosures in the Ministry of Education.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: That is quite so, Mr Speaker, Sir, but I wanted to endorse the point made by the Member for Serangoon, that if you want a service with tone and morale, you have to set the pace as a Minister. If you engage in mercenary activities and leave your political duties and responsibilities by the side, then you, as the political head, must be responsible for the consequences that are bound to come.

I am sorry if this disclosure has frightened - according to the Member for Changi - corrupt diplomats from foreign countries. I hate to believe that there are corrupt diplomats from neighbouring countries. Unless it is proved to the contrary, I believe them to be honest men of integrity. But let no one be under the same misapprehension as the Member for Paya Lebar is that a P.A.P. Government will not know what is happening. The Chief Minister told us in this House that he did not know Mr Khaw Kai-Boh had already become an entitled officer and was going to quit. I did not believe him. I did not believe him because I could not believe that the Government can go on without knowing what is happening. I did not want to embarrass the Chief Secretary yesterday by asking whether he knew about the five others who applied and one who had become entitled. I did not want to press for their names. If and when it is necessary after the elections, we shall know what we want to know. But if you want the system to succeed and if you want men to assume responsibility, then you must give them full control. If you run a baby Austin with the driving instructor always changing into reverse gear when you want to move forward, then verily you must crash.

I am sorry for the Government. They never had a chance and the Chief Minister ought to know why. But I will say this for him and his Ministers. We are grateful to them for one thing. They opened Pandora's box. We know what is inside. We know every turn in this maze and we hope that when it is our turn to lead, we shall lead with firmness, resolution and purpose.

10.51 a.m.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Mr Speaker, Sir, when a piece of cake is thrown at a group of persons, the ensuing behaviour of that group shows their maturity. If they scramble for the cake and during the scramble they knock things over, the world sees that they are but children. If they are adults, they will realise the consequences of their actions. They will realise that the knocked-over things are more important than the piece of cake for which they scramble; and today we are in that position.

Let us take stock of Singapore today, Sir. We have had over 100 years of colonialism. After the war, we have had a few years of colonial stooges nominated to the Legislative Council but not having any responsibilities. Now, the elected Ministers have gone through a difficult period during these last four years, Sir, not only because the baby Austin is dual-controlled - as the Member for Tanjong Pagar said - whereby certain powers are with the elected Ministers and certain powers are not, but also because the hon. Member and his Party have not made things easy for the people of Singapore and for the Government. Memories are not short, Sir. We have gone through riots. We have gone through all sorts of difficult periods. We have gone through a period of tension with our neighbouring countries - with the Federation of Malaya - all because of certain members of the P.A.P.

Sir, in this scramble for power, the P.A.P. are willing to sacrifice what is most important of all, and that is the democratic system. We have lost all sense of values. Today, we are being judged by other countries in the world according to our actions, and our actions in the past do not show that we have reached maturity. Sir, a sense of proportion is important in political behaviour. Unfortunately, the P.A.P. do not seem to realise that. The hon. Member made a call for sanity, Sir. That call appropriately fits his own Party.

He actually boasted that it was his business to know what was going on in the Government and thereby showed that he condones this method of spying. It is certainly his business, as an Opposition Party Member, to know of Government policies and to oppose or support them as he pleases; but it is certainly not his business to get people to spy into confidential files of the public which are entrusted to Government departments, because that is the root of good government. If the rot sets in and if every bit of information that any Government department holds is available for use by politicians or by unscrupulous persons, then where do members of the public stand, Sir? How can we then have any confidence left in the Government of the country and in the politicians who may form the next Government of the country?

Sir, the hon. Member posed the question: "Why have a motion in the Assembly? The Government themselves could have appointed a Court of Inquiry." The purpose of the motion in this Assembly is to see how perverted thinking could be, how the Members of the Opposition would individually react to this despicable conduct of human beings in spying and passing on secrets entrusted to them. We have seen today - I am sorry, Sir, and I speak more in sorrow than in anger - the reaction of my former colleague, Mr Francis Thomas. It is strange, Sir, how people change overnight. I do not know the reason for this sudden change overnight of a man who was violently opposed to the P.A.P. But besides his political way of thinking - he may have fallen for the P.A.P. way of thinking-he opposes something that nobody in his right senses would oppose and he condones what seems to be despicable conduct.

Sir, Mr Chew Swee Kee never thought fit to confide in me about the money matters brought up in this House. He thought fit to confide in Mr Francis Thomas who was the first Vice-President of the Labour Front at that time. I was the second Vice-President then. But if he had confided in me, I would have thought twice before I gave out something that was confided to me in confidence.

Mr Speaker: Order. I ruled out that disclosure as being the personal conduct of an hon. Member outside this Assembly, and therefore it cannot be referred to under the Standing Orders except upon a substantive motion. It is personal conduct outside the Assembly.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: As you please, Sir.

Now, Sir, this scramble for power. At what price are we to get this power? Are we going to get that power at the price of sacrificing the livelihood of the people? This has got to be thought of, and a person who is a responsible person will think deeply before he takes action which will undermine the whole life of the country.

Sir, if that is an indication of the methods of the People's Action Party when they are in the Opposition, I do not know what will happen when they are in the Government. We already see the happenings in the City Council and They have aroused a lot of fear and resentment in the hearts of the general public who understand the deep significance of their actions.

Sir, the democratic system can only work if both sides play the game. So far we find in England that, however bitterly the Parties oppose each other, they stick to the rules and they play the game. If one Party does not play the game, then the democratic system will collapse and the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar knows it full well; he is out not to see that the democratic system works, but he is out to get a one-Party rule, That is not a statement made at random. I base that statement, Sir, on three facts. One is the goings-on in the City Council when peons can be asked to come in as an inquisition team and give evidence against a Councillor on a motion which has no relevance to the personal conduct of that Councillor. I dread to think what would happen if we had a Speaker here in the next Assembly Session - a Party man - who allows peons to come into this House and give evidence against Assemblymen. Is that the essence of democracy? The second basis for my statement that the P.A.P. are out to have a one-Party rule is the fact that the Member for Tanjong Pagar jibed at me two months back in this House when I moved amendments to certain Bills connected with industries. He jibed at me, Sir, saying that it was a come-down for me to have moved those amendments and I replied that I was no dictator. Now that again is the essence of democracy. If a Minister or a person responsible for the conduct of the affairs of a country is satisfied from representations made, from whichever sources they may be - whether from the Opposition or from outside - that what he intends to do is not ultimately going to benefit the country, and that certain amendments are necessary, it is his duty to make those amendments irrespective of whether he loses face or not. That is the essence of democracy, but the Member for Tanjong Pagar does not understand that. He jibed at me for making those amendments when I felt satisfied that the amendments were necessary. It is no shame, Sir, to own up that one can be wrong at times. A human being has his weaknesses and the human element is present in every form of action of a human being. A Minister can be wrong, a Government can be wrong, and individuals can be wrong too. But it is the essence of democracy, that when your actions are going to have an effect on the livelihood of the people and you recognise that you are wrong, you must make the changes and the kudos should go to the man who makes the changes voluntarily by himself, rather than be forced to do so. And to be jibed for doing that, shows the mentality of the person and of the Party.

The third factor, Sir, is the oft-repeated boast of the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar about his Party organization. He has said very often, "We have the organization." The basis of his democracy talk rests solely on the fact of the Party organization, not of what the people want, not of what the people think, but rather on the Party organization to fool the people into voting for them. Sir, that is something that can be developed into a thing that could be detrimental to the people. Not only Communism has that system, Sir, we had it in Nazi Germany, in Fascist Italy, and to a certain extent we have it even in Spain now under Franco. Once you get people with the thought that "It is the Party organization that matters, and nothing else", you have a system where you cannot even talk to your neighbour. You dare not, because you can never know what your neighbour might be - whether he might be spying on you and relaying what you have said to the Government agent. You dare not even speak to members of your own family! Your children may be spying on you and telling their teachers, who may be Government agents, of what you have said. Again, Sir, according to the Member for Tanjong Pagar, the essence of democracy is the Party organization, but I say it is not. It is the people voluntarily giving their opinion through the ballot. Not a Party organization that works like a machine and drives the people to give votes through intimidation, through - maybe the word is "hostage", though there is a much worse word, Sir, but I do not think you will allow me to use it - or lure of gold or promise of power. The Member for Tanjong Pagar may say that he is non-Communist, and I believe that he is non-Communist. But non-Communism is not the end. A man can be a non-Communist and yet be a dictator. The Japanese are not Communists, and yet during their occupation of Singapore, the people suffered because of their dictatorial methods, like the Kempeitai's. Hitler was not a Communist; in fact, he fought Communist Russia, and yet the people under Hitler were not happy. Sir, it is not only a matter of whether you are a Communist or not, but a matter of whether you are really a democrat or not. You can be a non-Communist and yet be a dictator. You can grind the people under the heel of dictatorship.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member has been talking in waves like a graph - he goes away from the motion and then comes back to the motion! I ask him to try and confine his remarks to the motion, or in some way relate his remarks to the motion.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: I am sorry, Sir. My emotions sometimes overtake me where the interests of the people are concerned, and I admire the Member for Tanjong Pagar who controls his emotions in order to control the people.

Sir, in this House during the last debate, the Member for Tanjong Pagar boasted about his methods of getting information from the Government departments, and he said this about the Minister for Commerce and Industry (Hansard cols. 2135 and 2136):

"He has had four years working with the civil service, but I know more about how he runs his Ministry than he does himself. His Permanent Secretary is my colleague."

Sir, coming from the leader of the Party is this accusation against his own colleague. Though, Sir, my ex-Permanent Secretary is in the Opposition political Party, I, as a sincere and honest man, will say this: I have always held a high opinion of Mr Byrne and of his integrity. And I am sorry, Sir, that his own colleague, the leader of his own Party, indirectly accuses him of divulging information from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

Sir, the Chief Minister in the debate on the matter of a Police Officer retiring with compensation, at the last sitting of this Assembly, said, in cols. 2131-2 of the Hansard:

"Surely, they and their families and their families' families will not be so foolish as to cast their votes to bring into power a Government whose policy is going to be detrimental to their security and their well being. Their fate is in their hands. They should bestir themselves."

That was no threat. That was just an advice to those people who do not like this dictatorship system to bestir themselves and take advantage of the democratic system by casting their votes according to their conscience and their liking. That was twisted, Sir, by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar in his reply in col. 2134:

"...I would ask the civil service, since the Chief Minister was ill-advised enough to tell them how they can oppose the P.A.P."- oppose the P.A.P.! In the elections!

"to remember this. Keep your politics and your personal views out of your service. If you take the Chief Minister's advice"-

The advice was to vote for whom they like-

"and try to down the Government because you do not agree with it, then that Government will not tolerate it. Take the advice of the Opposition: Do your duty because that is right; do not try to 'fix' the Government." Now, Sir, that, read by anybody, seems to be a threat - a threat to the civil servants - "If you do not vote for the P.A.P. and try to fix the S.P.A. Government, then you beware!" If that is not the interpretation, and the interpretation is that you must be honest and straightforward to the Government of the time, and not to try and 'fix' it, or try to embarrass it or do anything against the Government, then the action of the person who gave all these leakages about the Minister was an action that could be interpreted as 'fixing' the Government in that sense of the word. As such, that action cannot then be condoned by any Government.

Sir, some mention was made by, I believe, the Member for Tanjong Pagar, of "looting wildly in protected places", or words to that effect. "There was no shouting from the Government Backbenchers. Now they are out to find out how it was looted" - or words to that effect, Sir I have not got the exact quotation. Sir, once looting takes place, it is just as important also to find the causes of the looting and to catch the looters, so that there will be no more looting in the future. Therefore, it is as important to find out not only what has been looted, but also to find out who has been the looter. And if the P.A.P. do not follow these principles, then a different government will be in power. The hon. Member's own words in the past have clearly indicated that they intend to be much more harsh on persons who try to 'fix' their government. Let us have a sense of sanity, as the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar wants us to believe that he would like to have. Let us try and work this democratic system in a fair manner. Today, we find many countries in Asia started the democratic system that was handed down to them on a platter - a written constitution - England never had a written constitution, a written constitution embodying all sorts of safety for its citizens. And what is in the hands of these countries today? They are in the hands of military governments although we might call it "a benevolent dictatorship". We, Sir, are trying the same experiment here. If we want to succeed, we have got to play fair on both sides. If we do not want to succeed, then the world is going to laugh at us, and we will probably find that our constitution may be suspended, or riots might start all over again, or the Federation of Malaya might have to step in in some place, because their security may he prejudiced due to our actions here. Things which certainly will not be beneficial to the people of Singapore and to their livelihood might happen. Then let us at all times in our actions remember that the purpose of politics is to enhance the livelihood of the people, and therefore the economic conditions of the country should be the first thought to be given to.

11.12 a.m.

The Minister for Communications and Works (Mr M. P. D. Nair): Mr Speaker. Sir, I consider that a Commission of Inquiry as suggested by my hon, friend, the Member for Queenstown, is very reasonable in connection with the disclosures made by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar in his speech on the 4th March. Sir, to quote his famous words (Hansard col. 2155), he said:

"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."

Sir, it is not reasonable to have information of this kind coming from a person who is not entitled to that information. I feel that a Commission of Inquiry is fully justified, in view of the fact that any departmental inquiry would be inadequate for that purpose.

I also think, Sir, that this is of national importance and cannot be just left with a departmental inquiry. I was amazed when the hon. Member talked about the civil service. At one stage, he praised the civil service and at another he condoned the offences of the civil service. I regard the attempt made at the sitting on the 4th March, as an attempt to demoralise the civil service at the present time. This time is the time when the civil servants must be given encouragement to keep up their morale and to enable them to continue their service impartially with the incoming government. No government of any type repeated that, if they came into power, they would keep the civil service neutral, but on the other hand, attempts will be made to demoralise the civil servants. It was an indiscretionary act which, I believe, is regrettable indeed. At the same time, we must get down to the bottom of the truth and investigate into all the matters connected with the leakage.

Sir, I consider that the previous motion calling for a Commission of inquiry and this one are related, but surely the objects of the two are different. I felt that a Commission of Inquiry called for by the previous motion was justified, and similarly I feel that a Commission of Inquiry is also justified in this case, because this is of national importance and any effort by the civil service to do such an act, as had been done, should be nipped in the bud as the incoming government expects the civil service to be of a very high calibre and it cannot have any black sheep in it to spoil its fair name. Sir, I sincerely support this motion.

11.16 a.m.

The Chief Minister (Tun Lim Yew Hock): Mr Speaker, Sir, the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar said that it was not necessary for this motion to be moved, and that the Government could appoint a Commission of Inquiry. The fact that this motion is brought before this House is - I forgot his very words - that it is nothing but an election stunt. Sir, the hon. Member who tabled this motion felt very strongly about this disclosure, but he did not take part in the debate on the motion which was brought up at the last sitting by the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar calling for a Commission of Inquiry. The Back-benchers did not take part in that debate because they did not know the facts of the case and they could not contribute to the debate at all; it was left to me to reply on behalf of the Government.

The hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, as usual, was carried away by his eloquence. He said these words which are very significant: "If and when we are in the Government, the civil service will have no secrets from the Ministers." And he said this particularly in the context of a debate on an alleged disclosure in the Income Tax Department. The Income Tax law is very, very clear - there shall be no disclosure to anyone, not even to the Government of the day. And how firm that Department has been can be gauged from the fact that when one Ministry instituted investigations into allegations of corruption, it came up against the Income Tax Department which refused to disclose even to the Government the facts, or whatever facts there are, that are made available by the person concerned under the Income Tax law. And yet the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar would have it that "Law or no law, we are the supreme power, and we do what we like." That, Sir, is rather disturbing to the public of Singapore.

The hon. Member has since said something more about Mr Khaw Kai-Boh. I told him I was not aware that this officer became an entitled officer until November, when he sent in his notice of resignation. He found it difficult to believe me. I am not worried whether he believes me or not, but that is the truth. He did say one thing, Sir, "Let our sense of morality not get perverted." And yet he disclosed in the same speech that he has a lot of information at his disposal, that he could use it if he felt inclined, but he did not use it because he felt that it was not necessary in the interests of the civil service or of his Party. But surely, Sir, if he had such disclosures and if he wished to maintain an independent civil service with integrity, he could have reported such misdemeanours to the Government, and the Government would have the opportunity to look into the allegations of wrongful acts and thereby help to protect the civil service which he himself hopes to take over at the general elections.

Sir, it is indeed lamentable that as we - get nearer to the general elections, it is inevitable that our political opponents want to indulge in mud-slinging, and it does happen that in this clamour for power, a lot of casualties take place along the line. The hon. Mr Francis Thomas yesterday, in his speech, made certain disparaging remarks regarding the manner in which my office treats confidential documents. For the record, I would like to state that I am not aware that there has been any leakage from my office since its setting-up. I am satisfied, Sir, that the Confidential Registry in my office is out of bounds to unauthorised persons and Government personnel. If. as the hon. Mr Francis Thomas has alleged, this has not been so, I am indeed very surprised that he should only now choose to divulge this after he has resigned his Ministerial office and after he has crossed the Floor. He had every opportunity of bringing this matter to my notice, or, if not, at least to my Secretary's attention. But he did not choose to do so. Of course, now that he is on the Opposite Bench, he has not lost much time in regaling us with some of his dubious reminiscences regarding our alleged actions and omissions. But then we are well aware that Mr Francis Thomas himself has his own ideas of how to safeguard confidential information.

Sir, there is another motion coming up immediately after this and, as the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar has said, he has a lot of disclosures which he would like to make when he moves that motion. I would rather wait until those disclosures are made before I say anything further.

11.25 a.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think there is much for me to reply, as my Chief Minister and my colleagues have covered most of the points. But there is one thing: from this debate I have learned something more than what I actually knew. We all know that politics is dirty. Everyone of us knows that politics is dirty. But the surprising thing is that after this debate I learn that politics is so dirty that it can put a country at stake. It has come to this stage - our country now is at stake.

We have here politicians who are honourable Members, like the Member for Tanjong Pagar and the Member for Farrer Park, coming to this House to connive at and abet an offence which both of them were fully aware and fully know is against the law. They have come here to express that they are prepared to encourage civil servants to disclose secret and confidential information. Such are the honourable Members that we have in this House!

Sir, as I said, our country now is at stake. We have now come to the conclusion that there is a political Party prepared to plant stooges in the civil service. We now come to know that there is a political Party that is politically corrupt and prepared to do anything. For this, Sir, I now come to the conclusion that I must warn the people of Singapore, in the interest of our country, that they must realise the consequences of having such politicians if they vote the wrong Party into power. They must now vote wisely and properly. It is only a matter of two months before we go to the polls, and if they vote wrongly, they will find that they have voted traitors into the Government, traitors who are prepared to betray our confidence, traitors who are prepared to betray our country, and traitors who are prepared to betray our people and sell our country. Are we going to have such a government? Sir, I warn the people of Singapore, all citizens who have a right to vote to vote wisely, whoever he may be-

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Not to vote for Lee Choon Eng!

Mr Lee Choon Eng: - at least, whichever Party that comes into power, we do not want traitors, traitors who are prepared to disclose secret and confidential information which they have come, to know through their official capacity. The Member for Serangoon correctly stated that it is only people with influence and with positions who are able to get such secret and confidential information. As a man-in-the-street, can he get such confidential information? Certainly not! It is only those who are in high positions that can get such information. Then, if only people with high positions can get such information, how did the leakages come about? I am quite sure if such people can leak out information, they are always in the habit of leaking secret and confidential information either from the Government to the enemies - as I have stated, it is a betrayal of trust - or from Party to Party. I was very horrified to hear in yesterday's sitting that Mr Francis Thomas disclosed that there was leakage even from the Council of Ministers. It is really surprising and horrifying. Was he not a Member of that Council of Ministers? If so, then was it not his duty to report such a leakage, if there had been any? I really cannot understand. In all my four years in this Assembly. I have not heard of any leakage from the Council of Ministers. But today an ex-Member of the Council of Ministers comes here and tells us that there was even leakage from the Council of Ministers. It was his bounden duty to report.

If I am allowed, Sir, I would like to amend my motion, but since I am not allowed, I would ask His Excellency to extend the terms of reference of my motion, so that the disclosures by Mr Francis Thomas of the secret information from the Council of Ministers should also be investigated into. How come Mr Francis Thomas did not report those disclosures?

Mr Francis Thomas rose-

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr Francis Thomas: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the hon. Member will give way.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: No, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member has not given way.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Sir, he also said that he was not happy about this motion. He does not want a Commission of Inquiry because it is not necessary. I could see the reason why he does not want a Commission of Inquiry. We recall, Sir, that during the year before last, during the Budget sittings, we knew that a restaurant, which was Government controlled, did not pay rent which came to a very big amount. Sir, if Mr Francis Thomas is prepared to accept Commissions of Inquiry, another Commission of Inquiry may come up to find out why Mr Francis Thomas, as a Minister, did not call for an investigation into money that was not paid by that restaurant.

Mr Speaker: Order. On weighing those remarks, it seems to me that the hon. Member is, firstly, straying very far away from the motion, and secondly, he is making an imputation which, of course, is highly disorderly. If in fact there was an imputation, he must withdraw that imputation.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Mr Speaker, Sir, it was just a passing reference, but if it pleases you. Sir, I am prepared to withdraw it.

The Member for Tanjong Pagar said that he mentioned that file number because he wanted to expose, or to prove two things. That is, he wants loyalty in the service, and he emphasised again and again, even in introducing his motion about the $500,000, that he wants a loyal service. In another motion about Malayanisation, he also emphasised loyal service.

Mr J. M. Jumabhoy: Loyalty to the PAP, only!

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Then where is the loyalty when he is prepared to connive at and abet an offence, when the law says that under an oath of secrecy no information should be revealed or disclosed to any unauthorised person? Where is that loyalty he is expecting to get, if his Party comes into power? He is prepared to encourage his own officers to go against the law, and if he calls himself a legislator, then let us see how he enforces his law.

Another point he mentioned was that it is very simple to pick up a telephone and ask the Income Tax Department, "What is my file number?" I may agree with him on this point. It is quite simple. "Hello, is that the Income Tax Department? I am so and so. May I have my file number?" But that file number may mean nothing. It is the seriousness of the contents of that file that is involved. It is not G.S. 47909. What is that G.S. 47909? But what is recorded in that file No. G.S. 47909 is involved, not that figure. He may even have a four-letter digit lottery or whatever it is with that number. It refers to nothing at all. If he thinks that he can depend on that lucky number, let him depend on it. But we are involved in the contents that are recorded in that file. How did the Member for Tanjong Pagar get to know all those things, Sir? This fact is really shocking. As I said, since politics in Singapore has become so dirty, our country is at stake, and I would like to emphasise once again that when the people go to the polls, they should vote for the right Party, and not for a Party in which there may be traitors.

Question put.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Division, Sir.

The House divided and the Clerk proceeded to call out the names of hon. Members-

Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat: Aye.

Ahmad Bin Ibrahim: Aye.

Braga, A. J.: Absent

David, E. B.: Aye

Ede, John: Aye.

Fergusson, Ewen: Aye.

Goh Chew Chua: Aye.

Goh Tong Liang: Aye.

Jumabhoy, J. M.: Aye.

Jumabhoy, R.: Aye.

Lazarous, A. R.: Aye.

Lee Choon Eng: Aye.

Lee Kuan Yew: Aye.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Hear, hear!

Lim Cher Kheng: Aye.

Lim Ching Siong: Absent.

Lim Choon Mong: Aye.

Lim, R. C. H.: Aye.

Lim Koon Teck: Aye.

Lim Yew Hock: Aye.

Mak Pak Shee: Aye.

Mohamed Sidik Bin Haji Abdul Hamid: Aye.

Nair, M. P. D.: Aye.

Oon Khye Kiang: Aye.

Seah Peng Chuan: Aye.

Shanks, E. P.: Absent.

Soh Ghee Soon: Aye.

Tan Siak Kew: Aye.

Tan Theng Chiang: Aye.

Tan, William: Aye.

Thomas, Francis: No.

Mr Lee Choon Eng: Shame!

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has interrupted the Division twice. He is highly disorderly.

Wong Foo Nam: Aye.

Mr Lim Choon Mong rose-

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Mr Lim Choon Mong: Yes, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Will the hon. Member - raise his point seated? We are still in Division.

Mr Lim Choon Mong: I heard the hon. Member for Farrer Park speaking against the motion, and he has voted for the motion. I wonder if it is in order?

Mr Speaker: It is completely in order because Standing Order 43, paragraph 2 - it is on "Divisions" - reads:

'When a Member's name is called by the Clerk at a division, the Member shall answer either by voting for the "Ayes" or for the "Noes", or by expressly stating that he abstains from voting. A Member shall not answer in a manner inconsistent with any opinion which he may have expressed when the voices were taken collectively.'

I cannot recollect hearing the hon. Member for Farrer Park saying "No" when the voices were taken collectively. I only recollect one "No".

Mr Lazarous: May I speak?

Mr Speaker: Order. I have ruled on the point of order.

Mr Lazarous: On a point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order? Will the hon. Member speak seated?

Mr Lazarous: Sir, in my speech I never said I was against the motion. I was really supporting the motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. This is getting into a debate. I think everybody understood what the hon. Member said.

The result of the Division is: 27 Ayes; 1 No; 3 Absent.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

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.