SUSPENSION OF MEMBER

Order read for resumption of debate on Question [19th December. 1960], "That this House condemns the Member for Hong Lim for his dishonourable conduct unbecoming of an elected representative of the people in that he repeatedly used his privilege in this Assembly as a cloak for spreading malicious falsehoods to unjustly injure innocent persons both inside and outside this Assembly."

Question again proposed.

7.13 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister has brought three charges against me. First, I shall dwell on the subject of Mr M. R. Marcus. In the meantime, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to let me have a, look at the' circular paper which was stated to be issued by the Administrator, City Council, dated 12th November, 1959, contained in page 12 of the Legislative Assembly Debates - Official Report. Mr Speaker, Sir, this circular is quite relevant to me, and I would like to ask for a copy of the circular.

Mr Speaker: I cannot find the passage. Could the Member for Hong Lim indicate the passage again?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is on page 12, paragraph 3 of the Unrevised Singapore Legislative Assembly Debates - Official Report.

Mr Speaker: The difficulty I am faced with is that I do not know what stand the Member for Hong Lim is taking. Is he endeavouring now to justify his statement - to substantiate his allegations? If he is doing that, then the proper thing would be for this Assembly to consider whether or not it should take evidence so that the Member for Hong Lim may be given the opportunity of substantiating his allegations.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to substantiate all the things I have said.

Mr Speaker: So do I take it then that the Member for Hong Lim does not wish to withdraw his allegations; he does not wish to give any explanation of them, and his desire is to try and substantiate the allegations he made in this Assembly? Is that the course the Member for Hong Lim is taking?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Yes, Mr Speaker, I have nothing to apologise.

Mr Speaker: I have indicated to hon. Members that if that is the course which the Member for Hong Lim wishes to take, then it might be convenient that this Assembly resolve itself into a Committee to deal with the matter.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Could I just make a point, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, since Monday when the House stood adjourned, I have been busily occupied with preparing my speech for the motion today before the House. I would ask the House kindly to consider adjourning the sitting to Monday so that I could collect more facts and try to prepare my case.

Mr Speaker: The Leader of the House has already indicated, indirectly perhaps, that he wishes this matter to proceed beyond the Moment of interruption. The decision, of course, lies with the Members themselves as to whether or not they would like this debate to be further adjourned. Any Member is entitled to move that motion.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, the Member for Hong Lim has declared that he is prepared to substantiate the three allegations which are in this [Interruption].

You have suggested, Mr Speaker, that the proper procedure would be for this Assembly to resolve itself into a Committee. However, if the Member for Hong Lim pleads for time to substantiate his allegations, we are prepared. I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to suspend this sitting for 20 minutes while we consider whether we will adjourn the discussion on this motion.

Mr Speaker: Then I will take this Chair again at twenty to eight.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 7.20 p.m. until 7.40 p.m. . Sitting resumed at 7.40 p.m.

[Mr SPEAKER in the Chair]

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, on 15th December, the motion was first introduced. It was debated on 19th December-

Mr Speaker: Order. First, I think I must know whether the request of the Member for Hong Lim is being acceded to by the Government side?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I am coming to that point, Mr Speaker-

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid all these technicalities are a little bewildering sometimes. But the Hon. the Leader of the House cannot make a speech unless he assures me that the proceedings will be adjourned.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I wish to state, Mr Speaker, that we are prepared to concede to the plea by the Member for Hong Lim for time to study his case provided that he satisfies certain conditions. I wish to state now one simple condition, which is this: we would like to know what are the facts on which the Member for Hong Lim relies to substantiate his allegations. Let him state them as clearly and as categorically as I did in my speech on Monday, the 19th of December, so that we will know what are the facts in dispute in order that evidence can be taken in Committee upon them.

Mr Speaker: It may perhaps be convenient, and indeed the proper course to take, for the Member for Hong Lim to make his statement now in full, as has been done by the Leader of the House. That, of course, would not prevent him from supplementing that statement in Committee. That, I think, would be for the convenience of all Members concerned.

7.43 p.m.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, since this is the case, I must ask the House to understand that many of my statements will be made from memory, because since Monday, I have not had time to prepare.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will deal with all the three charges at one time. Sir, I had been a member of the P.A.P. since its formation, and I had also been a member of the Government since 5th of June, 1959. Earlier, in December 1957, I was elected Mayor of the City Council. During this time I learnt the workings of the City Council and how it was being run; and I came to learn about many of the senior officers of the City Council. At the same time, of course, I also had an intimate knowledge of the workings of the P.A.P. and of this Government.

Sir, there are eight Standing Committees in the City Council. Each of these Committees has an Assistant Secretary whose duty it is to take down the minutes of the meetings and send them for confirmation at future meetings. Sir, one of these Assistant Secretaries is called Mr M. R. Marcus. Mr Speaker, Sir, during my association with the P.A.P., I was always invited by the Minister for Labour and Law on occasions and parties, and at these parties I used to meet the Marcus brothers. Three of the Marcus brothers worked in the City Council and Mr M. R. Marcus was one of them. Mr Speaker, Sir, when I went to the City Council, as far as I can remember, Mr M. R. Marcus was occupying the post of Class IV in the Senior Officers' scale. Later we took steps to promote all the three Marcus brothers and one of those affected was Mr M. R. Marcus. I remember faintly that he was promoted from Class IV to Class III. The post was reclassified in order to give an increment to Mr M. R. Marcus. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure this Assembly knows of the City Council during the later period when I was there. During this period, we had differences with the three Marcus brothers. About the middle of April 1959, I resigned from the City Council, and there was a vacuum. I went back to the City Council on 5th June. In other words I took charge of the City Council again on 5th June. Between the time I resigned and the time I went back to the City Council, Mr M. R. Marcus tendered his letter of resignation. He had to give adequate notice and his resignation could only take effect from 2nd June, 1959. Mr Speaker, Sir, these are facts on which we agree in common between the Government and myself. In other words, Mr M. R. Marcus did not resign during the time I was in charge of the City Council. He resigned before I went back to the City Council.

The other fact on which we have no disagreement, Sir, is that Mr M. R. Marcus was getting more pay before he resigned. The Leader of the House has said on page 13 of the unrevised transcript of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly on 19th December, 1960, that he was paid $740 per month plus existing allowances, and that he was re-engaged on an all-in salary of $600 per month. Mr Speaker, Sir, he was getting $740 basic plus Municipal Provident Fund benefits, which came to about an average of 20 per cent before he resigned; and when he was re-engaged he was paid an all-in salary of $600 per month.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Leader of the House has said that there were seven officers who were taken back, and that is reproduced in Hansard, Vol. 13, No. 8 of 11th August, 1960, in columns 607-8. Seven officers were taken back and, in my opinion, out of them only Mr M. R. Marcus suffered a reduction in his total remuneration. Why should this be so?

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Nepotism!

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have never used the word "nepotism" against any of the two Ministers.

The third fact I wish to raise is that this is a new appointment. It is not asking an officer to go back. It is a new appointment. The qualification of the Secretary of the City Health Department requires the applicant to be a University graduate. Mr M. R. Marcus did not possess that qualification. Had the post been advertised and had it gone before the Public Service Commission, Sir, Mr M. R. Marcus would definitely not have got the job. The previous holder of the post of Secretary, City Health Department, was a University graduate and his application went to the Public Service Commission.

Sir, the other point I wish to raise is that from the same Hansard in column 607, it is clear that it took 13 months for Mr M. R. Marcus to be "reappointed" as a temporary officer with effect from 30th July, 1960. It took 13 months for Mr M. R. Marcus to be "reappointed". This time factor is very important, because between the time he resigned and the time he was reappointed, it would not be 13 months but it would be 14 months.

Mr Speaker, Sir, from the facts of the case, I have inferred and what I have said I sincerely believe is the honest truth about the appointment of Mr M. R. Marcus.

I shall now come to the appointment of Mr Kwa Soon Chuan.

Mr Speaker: Order. I just want to get the issue very clear. Is the hon. Member for Hong Lim then alleging that Mr M. R. Marcus got his job merely because he happened to be a brother-in-law of a Minister? Is that the allegation?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall now come to Mr Kwa Soon Chuan. When I was appointed the Minister for National Development on 5th June, 1959, the, Land Office was one department under this Ministry. Mr Kwa Soon Chuan was working in the Land Office. First of all, I must say that during the time he worked under me, I found him to be an officer who was non-corruptible. Mr Speaker, Sir, I must say that he is an officer who has great personal integrity and is very hard-working. During the debate on the Estimates, I never even mentioned the names of these two particular officers - Mr Kwa Soon Chuan and Mr M. R. Marcus. When I mentioned these two points, it was on a matter of principle. There was no malice whatsoever against these two particular officers. When I was in charge of the Land Office, Mr Kwa Soon Chuan was acting in a No. 1 post in that office. He was holding the post in an acting capacity. He was being paid on his substantive appointment at $960 per month. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to refer to page 9 of the Singapore Establishment Staff List dated 1st January, 1959. Mr Kwa Soon Chuan was being paid $960 per month, although he was acting in a post which, if he'were substantively appointed, would have given him a salary of $1,520. In other words, Mr Kwa was acting in a post which, if he were substantively appointed, would have given him a salary of $1,520, but because he was only acting in the post, he obtained $960. There was another officer who was Acting No. 2 in the Land Officer. I remember some time early this year before I went to the Federation for a holiday that the person who was acting in the No. 2 post was appointed by the Public Service Commission to fill substantively the No. 1 post, and Mr Kwa Soon Chuan had to revert back to his original substantive appointment. As far as I know, this has seldom happened in the history of the civil service. Mr Kwa was acting in the No. 1 post. Another officer was acting in the No. 2 post. The Public Service Commission reversed the position. Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand that when Mr Kwa learned of this reversal of position - which does not happen very often - he took leave from the Land Office. Sir, from the Establishment Staff List dated 1st June, 1960, it is clearly stated that Mr Kwa Soon Chuan was the Acting Deputy Commissioner (Valuation), Inland Revenue, Superscale G post, which carries a pay of $1,520 ... 24th May, 1960. Mr Speaker, I cannot remember the date when I went to the Federation, because I have not been allowed time to check on the date. I learned of the reversal of the two posts in the Land Office by the Public Service Commission. Since Mr Kwa Soon Chuan had been asked to go back to his substantive appointment in the Land Office, he took leave, and from the Establishment Staff List, I learned that he was transferred from one Department under the Prime Minister's Office, which is the Land Office, to another department of the Prime Minister's Office, which is the Assessment Department, and that is on the 24th May, 1960. Mr Speaker, Sir, these two departments are both under the control of the Prime Minister, although it is always stated in theory that the Valuation Department would one day be integrated with the Ministry of Finance. But having been a Minister in the Government, I understand very well that even in those departments which were supposed to be under my charge, the Prime Minister did sometimes take charge of staff matters.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember the Minister for Finance said during the debate on the Estimates that the post was circularised in July 1960, and that it was filled by Mr Kwa Soon Chuan in August 1960. It means, Mr Speaker, Sir, that Mr Kwa Soon Chuan was thus seconded to the Assessment Department by the Prime Minister for three months before his case was considered by the Public Service Commission. Mr Speaker, Sir, the substantive appointment of Mr Kwa Soon Chuan as Deputy Commissioner of Valuation would entail an increase in salary of $525 basic. Sir, I have been associated since the formation of the P.A.P. with the present Ministers of the Government, and I also knows and I also understand that three members of the Public Service Commission have been closely associated with the leadership of the People's Action Party and the present Ministers; two of them have been associated in financial assistance to the P.A.P. before the general elections, and one of them has given free medical aid to P.A.P. members, including myself. Mr Speaker, Sir, I sincerely and honestly believe from all these facts that what I have stated in this Assembly is what I believe to be the honest truth.

Mr Speaker: May I then try and pinpoint the issues in this other matter? The Deputy Prime Minister, when he moved the motion, had elaborated on the second and third charges. He suggested that what the hon. Member for Hong Lim meant when he said:

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to put it to the Minister that many of these recommendations - which I have read myself - are meant for the purpose of fixing up certain things.'. was that The Committee' - it is at the end of page 15 of the unabridged report-

`consisting of a Permanent Secretary and four departmental heads were improperly prevailed upon by political influence to frame the qualifications of the post to suit the appointment of the present incumbent.

In the Member's own words, these recommendations were "meant for the purpose of fixing certain things".'.

Is that a fair comment on it?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the five officers who formed the Working Party to look into the working of the City Council Assessment Department were these - the Permanent Secretary (Treasury) as the Chairman, the Comptroller of Income Tax, the Acting City Assessor, the Government Valuer and Assessor, the Head of the Organisations & Methods Branch of the Ministry of Finance. Mr Speaker, Sir, out of these five officers, two work in the Prime Minister's Office and three work in the Ministry of Finance. I have been associated with the Government for one year and I know how things are worked out. Mr Speaker, Sir, from my own, experience and from the fact that these five officers are under the control of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance, I sincerely and honestly believe what I have said to be the truth.

Mr Speaker: Can the House then take it that you are willing to substantiate this allegation, and that is that:

`The committee consisting of a Permanent Secretary and four departmental heads were improperly prevailed upon by political influence to frame the qualifications of the post to suit the appointment of the present incumbent.

In the Member's own words, these recommendations were "meant for the purpose of fixing certain things".'.

Is that what the Member for Hong Lim seeks to establish?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, from my experience in the Government and from knowledge of some of these officers, I have inferred from all the facts I have said just now about how the post was being put up.

Mr Speaker: Is the answer "Yes"? If the answer is "Yes" - am I right? I do not wish to say something which is perhaps wrong. Is the answer then "Yes", and that the Member for Hong Lim will endeavour or is endeavouring to substantiate the allegation contained in that paragraph?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg your pardon. Would you mind explaining to me whether it means I have to substantiate the first part of the motion or just on the Working Party?

Mr Speaker: The quotation from the speech of the hon. Member for Hong Lim is as follows:

`Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not wish to put it to the Minister that many of these recommendations - which I have read myself - are meant for the purpose of fixing up certain things.'

And the Deputy Prime Minister has alleged that there is an innuendo, or that means that:

`The committee consisting of a Permanent Secretary and four departmental heads were improperly prevailed upon by political influence to frame the qualifications of the post to suit the appointment of the present incumbent.

In the Member's own words, these recommendations were "meant for the purpose of fixing certain things".'.

Is that what the Member for Hong Lim meant when he said those words?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must admit that I am not very clear about the question, and that is why I have asked that this sitting should be adjourned to give me a chance to delve further into the matter.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member for Hong Lim is not prepared to answer at this moment. The second point made by the Deputy Prime Minister is in connection with what was said by the Member for Hong Lim, and the passage quoted is:

`In my opinion, there is nothing, as far as I know, to merit this transfer other than the fact that he is the brother-in-law of the Prime Minister.'

Is the Member for Hong Lim, quoting the words used by the Deputy Prime Minister, now alleging that "the appointment to the post was not made by the Public Service Commission or, if it was so made, that the Public Service Commission was subjected and guided to improper influence in making its recommendations for this appointment", that is to say, the appointment was made because the incumbent was the brother-in-law of the Prime Minister? Is he prepared to answer that?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, the question put forward by the Deputy Prime Minister is quite different from what I have said. And I also need time to give a more detailed reply.

Mr Speaker: Is the Leader of the House then prepared to move the adjournment of the debate?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, has the Member for Hong Lim any new facts? And can he state quite clearly in what way what I said is quite different from what he said, because I have quoted exactly and accurately from the transcript of the proceedings?

Mr Speaker: I take it the Member for Hong Lim has indicated that, if the debate is adjourned, he will be prepared to make his allegation more specific when the debate is resumed.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, may I enquire whether the Member for Hong Lim has any other relevant facts to substantiate the allegations he has made?

Mr Speaker: If the Member for Hong Lim has completed his explanation, then it is now up, to the Members to decide whether or not he should be given further time to make supplemental explanations.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, as the House will at a subsequent date resolve itself into a Committee and witnesses will be called to give evidence on oath, the Government is to submit to you a list of witnesses which we intend to call in Committee. To be just to everybody all round, I would now ask the Member for Hong Lim also to submit a similar list of his witnesses whom he intends to call to give evidence on oath in Committee.

Mr Speaker: Is the intention to move that this matter be dealt with in a Committee of the whole House? I take it that is the intention.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Yes.

Mr Speaker: The Standing Order would be Standing Order 41, which reads:

`(1) Whenever in any matter, other than matters considered under procedure on Bills, or financial procedure, a Member desires that the matter be considered in a Committee of the whole Assembly, he may move, without notice, that the Assembly shall immediately or on a future sitting day resolve itself into a Committee of the whole Assembly to consider the matter.'

And if it is the intention that witnesses should be called, then this Committee must be given power to send for persons, papers and records. These are matters of procedure, but if there is to be an adjournment now, the adjournment can just be that the debate be now adjourned, under the relevant Standing Order 24. Then the Speaker will call upon the Leader of the House to name a date when the debate can be resumed, and on that day a motion to resolve the Assembly into a Committee of the whole Assembly could be moved. I hope I have made myself clear.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, I have just stated that I have here a list of witnesses which I will give to you, and these witnesses will be called by the Government to present evidence on oath in Committee, to be set on a date to be named. Likewise, the Member for Hong Lim ought to give you a similar list. That is what I am asking now.

Mr Speaker: I think if the Member for Hong Lim wishes to call witnesses, he will have to submit a list of witnesses in order that the Clerk may be in the position to summon those witnesses to appear. That must be done if the Member for Hong Lim is going to call any witness. If he is not going to call any witness, that is the end of it. Is the Member for Hong Lim anticipating that he will call witnesses?

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, a Member of the Opposition is not in the same position as the Government.

Mr Speaker: Order. If power is given to send for persons, papers and records, then the Committee has power to summon these witnesses to appear. It is up to the Member for Hong Lim, if he wishes to call any person, to submit his name to the Clerk and a summons could be issued.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will consider the matter, having regard to their present positions.

Mr Speaker: I have indicated the course.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, let us be clear on this matter. Will the Member for Hong Lim state categorically whether he will be calling witnesses or not? That is all we wish to know.

Mr Speaker: I do not think we can insist on the Member for Hong Lim saying now that he will call witnesses. I do not think we can insist on that at all. It is up to him entirely. He is now, as I have said earlier on, in the position of a defendant, and he is now seeking to substantiate certain charges. To do that, it is up to him to consider whether or not he should call witnesses to substantiate his allegations. If he does not call witnesses to substantiate his allegations, obviously then he relies on his own statements. Then it is up to the House to consider whether or not the allegations have been substantiated. I do not think we can force him now to name his witnesses.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, there must be at least a day by which time he must have a list of witnesses - if the Member for Hong Lim wishes to call them - which should be delivered to the Clerk of the House, and I think that day must be fixed.

Mr Speaker: Is the Leader of the House suggesting then that if the Member for Hong Lim does not give a list of witnesses, he will not be able to call the witnesses? Is that the suggestion?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: No, Mr Speaker. The only difficulty is that unpleasant inferences may be drawn from this.

Mr Speaker: As far as I see it, the Member for Hong Lim is on trial. He is a defendant. It is up to him. He has now made certain allegations, and he has said that he is prepared to substantiate his allegations. What the force of the evidence is which he can bring up, it is up to him to decide. If he just relies on his statements, then it is up to the House to decide whether or not, on his statements, on his words, the charges are being substantiated. If he does not wish to call witnesses, the strength of his case would depend entirely on his own words supplemented by extraneous evidence.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, I will accept your ruling on this matter. Shall I now move the adjournment of the Assembly?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Resolved,

"That the debate on the motion be adjourned and on the resumption of the debate the Assembly do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole Assembly to consider the matter raised in the first part of the motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister and that the Committee do have power to send for persons, papers and records."-[Dr Toh Chin Chye].

Mr Speaker: Resumption of debate, what day?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: 29th December.

Mr Speaker: Please move the adjournment.