POLITICAL NEPOTISM - COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

6.10 p.m.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, in moving the motion* standing in my name, it would be appropriate to make a word or two in explanation. The first matter is the question of the meaning of political nepotism. I want no misunderstanding on this aspect. What I seek, Mr Speaker, is not a re-hash of what has transpired before. Nepotism is favouritism towards one's relations. Political nepotism is favouritism arising from political relations. It is in this sense, Mr Speaker, and in this sense only that the words are used in this motion.

• The motion reads as follows:

That this Assembly calls upon the Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry consisting of at least one High Court Judge and two retired Civil Servants to investigate political nepotism and improper political interference with the Civil Service and employees of Statutory bodies and to make recommendations.

Another matter - in his speech on the Privileges Bill the Prime Minister indicated that he was under the impression that I brought up this motion at the request of the Barisan Sosialis. This is not correct.

I have for a long time been troubled by a growing impression, perhaps from minor things in themselves inadequate, but cumulative, leaving an unhappy impression that the P.A.P. Government is utilising its position and its ministerial responsibilities to plant P.A.P. men in key positions. When the strike of the People's Association employees took place, which the Government, like good capitalist employers, refuse to term a strike because the workers have no union, it became apparent that a vast number of the People's Association employees were P.A.P. members and that they were indulging in political activities in community centres with a view to shepherding our people and our youth towards the P.A.P. as a political Party, interlanded with perfectly legitimate activities.

It was because of this that I tabled my motion. As you are aware, Mr Speaker - unfortunately I am the only representative of my Party in this House -

An hon. Member: Shame!

Mr David Marshall: I agree with you. And as you are furthermore aware, Mr Speaker, a motion requires not only a proposer but a seconder before it can be accepted for discussion in this House. Therefore, it has been one of my trials at various times since my election to seek the assistance of Opposition Parties in this Assembly and the assistance of the independent Member for Joo Chiat to second motions of mine.

Mr Speaker: Order. To put the record straight, it is not a question of a seconder being required, but it is a question of a supporter under the Standing Orders.

Mr David Marshall: Indeed the word is "supporter". It is somewhat colloquially better understood as seconder. But the Standing Orders require one or more supporters. In fact, Mr Speaker, in the case of one Opposition Party, it was made clear to me that they would refuse to support or second - not a question of supporting in the House but supporting in writing any motion which is not brought up by a Member of their own Party -

Mr Speaker: Order. That seems to be quite irrelevant to the motion.

Mr David Marshall: If I might explain. Sir, my field is limited and that is why I obtained a seconder from the Barisan Sosialis, which fact gave the Prime Minister the impression that the motion is not mine, but that of the Barisan Sosialis. What I am seeking to do is to remove the suspicion of any - how shall I say it? - family dispute in this matter. I would like to assure this House and the Members on the Front Bench that in truth and in fact this motion is my motion.

Sir, at no time prior to seeking by letter and receiving by letter agreement to support this motion have I been in communication with the Barisan Sosialis or received information from them on this particular aspect.

On 23rd October, I forwarded the motion to the Clerk of the Assembly together with a question to the Prime Minister on the same date. It was tabled for the 16th November, and if you remember, Mr Speaker, it was very pertinent to this motion. It reads as follows:

`To ask the Prime Minister to state the number of persons appointed since 1st June 1959 by Ministers to public bodies, the names of such persons, the offices to which they were appointed, and their political affiliations, if known.'

The Prime Minister was good enough to send me a list of 527 persons appointed by the Ministers to various public bodies since 1st June, 1959. I ask the House to appreciate that the list which is now printed and which they have is the list of persons appointed by Ministers in pursuance of their powers and does not include a list of employees employed by various statutory bodies, and therefore does not include the vast numbers of P.A.P. members who were taken into the employment of the People's Association, or a list of the employees of the Work Brigade.

The Prime Minister, however - though he gave me the list - did not give the party affiliations of the persons appointed by the Ministers. If you remember the reply to the question - in order not to misquote - I quote in full:

`The number of persons appointed since June, 1959, by Ministers to public bodies is 527. Their names and the offices to which they were appointed are given in the list tabled in this Assembly. Their political affiliations, if any, are of no relevance to the duties they perform. Some are known to be members, and some are publicly reputed to be members, of both the Government party and Opposition political parties in this Assembly.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have sought assistance to ascertain who amongst these 527 shown in the list were P.A.P. members and I shall give you a detailed analysis. But before I do so, I want to make it quite clear that it is not my suggestion that the Government should not appoint a member of its Party to public office just because he is a member of the Party. Quite naturally, it can and does happen that a member of the political Party in office is, by virtue of his own merits, worthy of appointment to a public office. I recognise that those who are prepared to go through the travail of dedicating themselves to the ideals of a political Party often are sincere in their dedication to public service even though I may not agree with their political views or their political conduct. But what I do say, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that the number involved is of such a character that it legitimately raises a query as to whether, in fact, such appointments were made not merely on merit but took into account the fact that the persons in question were P.A.P. members in pursuance of a policy to seek control of all aspects of public life for party ends. That is the issue.

Now, Sir, as to the list given by the Prime Minister, I shall be giving the numbers of those who were P.A.P. members at the time of their appointment, which is a material time to consider what the Government had in mind. The fact that some of them have since defected is not a relevant consideration. The question is, were they P.A.P. members at the time of their appointment?

If I may take the list in the order in which it was sent to me - and I trust I will not try the patience of the Assembly - this is somewhat important. The first is the Ministry of National Development. The Board of Management of Nature Reserves - one P.A.P. Assemblyman out of five trustees appointed. The Board of Trustees, Singapore Improvement Trust - one person appointed, not a P.A.P. member. The Housing and Development Board - Chairman and one other member were P.A.P. members out of a total of five appointed. The Board of Architects - nine persons appointed, no P.A.P. members. It seems that there are no architects amongst the P.A.P.

The next is the Ministry of Finance. The Malayan Board of Income Tax and Income Tax Board of Review - I can trace no P.A.P. members. The Property Tax Valuation Review Board - I can trace no P.A.P. members. The Industrial Promotions Board - only one member appointed, not a P.A.P. member. The Economic Development Board - one member is a P.A.P. Assemblyman out of six appointments to the Board. The Property Tax Advisory Committee - all six members, including the Chairman, appointed to this Committee were and are P.A.P. Assemblymen.

The next is the Ministry of Culture. The National Theatre Fund Committee - this Committee consisted of one Chairman and nominees from various bodies. The Chairman was a P.A.P. member of this Assembly. The Committee was dissolved in February. The National Theatre Trust - the Chairman is a P.A.P. Assemblyman, and there is one other P.A.P. member out of a total of 11 members. The National Library Board - no P.A.P. member that I can trace.

The next is the Prime Minister's Office. The Rent Conciliation Board - 11 are P.A.P. members out of 30 appointments to the Board. Of these 11 P.A.P. members, 8 were P.A.P. Assemblymen, none from the Opposition Parties. The Urban and Rural Services Consultative Committee - everyone of the 15 members, including the Chairman of this Committee, was a P.A.P. Assemblyman. Four of these appointments were revoked on 21st July. 1961, the day after the debate in this Assembly, and these four are all now Barisan Sosialis Assemblymen. The Board of Management of the Malay Settlements of Jalan Eunos, West Coast Road, Ayer Gemuroh and Sembawang - I can trace no P.A.P. member, and it seems obvious that the Malays can protect themselves from P.A.P. infiltration. The Light Dues Board and the Pilot Board - I can trace no P.A.P. member. The Singapore Telephone Board - only one P.A.P. member out of five appointments. The Omnibus Services Licensing Authority - I can trace no P.A.P. member.

The Ministry of Labour. The Panel of Advisers to the Juvenile Magistrate's Court - three P.A.P. members out of 15 appointments. The Parole Board, Gimson School - one P.A.P. member out of ten appointments. The Probation Committee - I can trace no P.A.P. member. The Advisory Committee of the Singapore Amateur Sports Council - all members are nominees of sports organisations, and I could find no P.A.P. member except, I understand, the Secretary, but I wish to make it quite clear that I make no issue of this as he himself was not a nominee of the Government but a nominee of a public sports body. The Board of Visitors, Social Welfare Homes and Institutions - five P.A.P. members of whom three are members of the Assembly out of a total of 35 appointments. One of these, Mr Speaker, Sir, is an Assembly woman on the Opposition.

The Ministry of Health. The Leprosy Board - one P.A.P. Assemblyman out of four members. The Midwives Board - no P.A.P. members that I can trace. The Nursing Board - the Chairman is a P.A.P. Assemblyman. The Pharmacy Board - no P.A.P. affiliation that I can trace. The Trafalgar Home - I can trace no P.A.P. member. The Woodbridge Hospital Visitors - two P.A.P. members out of 15 appointments. The Medical Advisory Council - one P.A.P. member out of 13 appointments; that one had been previously appointed, and I am not suggesting that his political affiliation was a factor in his appointment. The Poisons Advisory Committee - only one out of five appointments. Again, he is a person who seems eminently fitted to be on the Committee, and I am not suggesting that in this particular case his political affiliation affected his appointment.

The Ministry of Law. The Muslim and Hindu Endowments Board - two P.A.P. members out of eight.

The Ministry of Education. The Education Finance Board - no P.A.P. member that I can trace. The Education Advisory Committee - 3 out of 16 are P.A.P. members, one of them an Assemblyman. The Lembaga Gerakan Pelajaran Dewasa - the Chairman and five other members are P.A.P. members including one Assemblyman (six out of a total of 14 appointments).

The Ministry of Home Affairs. The Board of Visiting Justices - I can trace no P.A.P. members. The Hotels Licensing Board - the Chairman and three others out of a total of nine appointments were P.A.P. members. The Chairman resigned; the present Chairman is not, in so far as I can trace, associated with any political Party. The Pawnbrokers Licensing Board - two P.A.P. members out of six appointments. The Singapore Citizenship Committee of Inquiry - one P.A.P. member out of four appointments. The Reformative Training, Singapore Advisory Committee - I can trace no P.A.P. member. The Cinematograph Appeal Committee - out of 19 appointments. 14 were from amongst P.A.P. members, including the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Board. The Hindu Advisory Board - the Chairman is a member of the Opposition (that is the second), but I can trace no P.A.P. members.

An omission from the list, as I have indicated, given to us by the Prime Minister is the omission of any reference to the Board of the People's Association which, by law, includes the Prime Minister as Chairman and one of his Ministers as Deputy Chairman, and another Minister as well as the Director of Social Welfare as members, but requires the Chairman to appoint other members. How many of the members of the Board are P.A.P. members?

My information is that this Board was constituted in 1960 and the People's Association took over the management and the running of all existing community centres and is now in charge of about 60 community centres, and of these the overwhelming membership of the Board are P.A.P. members.

We also know from information from the Prime Minister that the overwhelming majority of the employees are P.A.P. members.

With reference to the Work Brigade, I am informed that the Camp Supervisors who supervise all nine camps are, all three of them, active P.A.P. members.

Whilst on the subject of the employees, I regret to inform the House that I am reliably informed that it has been the practice of the P.A.P. to levy a monthly payment from employees in Government service and in the service of statutory bodies who obtained their employment as a result of intervention by Ministers, P.A.P. Assemblymen or P.A.P. Branches. This so-called voluntary contribution, which was collected by P.A.P. officials, was allocated to the P.A.P. welfare fund.

The number of employees so affected, in so far as I can ascertain - and they include car park attendants - as in June 1961 are as follows: Employees Ministry of Home Affairs 24 Prime Minister's Department, City Council 10 Deputy Prime Minister's Department, Vehicles Department 20 20 Ministry of Education 10 Ministry of National Development 8 and in the P. W. D. 17 Ministry of Culture 4 Ministry of Labour and Law 3 Ministry of Health 2 Ministry of Finance 1 People's Association 95 Singapore Harbour Board 1

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a allegation to make against the Party which is governing, and this alone should merit a Commission of Inquiry to ascertain the truth or otherwise. If the procedure has not been stopped, it must forthwith stop and the public are entitled to the full truth. It is a terrible thing that the Party in power should take advantage of its powers of patronage to inflict a private levy on public employees for Party finances, or by its conduct to suggest that it would only take into its employment those who are prepared to contribute to the Party's finances.

One other matter, Mr Speaker. I am reliably informed that the funds of the People's Association have been utilised by the P.A.P. political machine for purposes of hiring buses in order to send P.A.P. members and supporters to political rallies during both the Hong Lim and the Anson by-elections.

Mr Speaker, I would not wish this House to consider that the fact that some of them were sent to Anson is in any way a factor in my bringing up this motion. At the time I brought it up, although we knew that the P.A.P. sent its supporters by buses, we did not know that the P.A.P. was utilising public funds for the purpose. But whether it is Anson or Hong Lim or any other election, it is grossly improper for a political Party to utilise public funds entrusted to the Government or to its members in this fashion.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order, Sir.

Sir, the subject of the motion by the Member for Anson and the Member for Upper Serangoon is for an inquiry consisting of at least one High Court Judge and two retired civil servants to investigate political nepotism and improper political interference with the civil service and employees of statutory bodies. Sir, there has been no mention of the civil service whatsoever. May I ask in what respect the subject which has been touched upon comes within the ambit of this motion? I am not trying in any way to conscribe the scope of this debate. In fact, on reading serious the motion, I was under the impression that there were going to be serious allegations made as to misdemeanours, corruption, and so on. Therefore, beforehand, we moved an amendment taking into account the serious nature of these allegations, that we would accept this motion provided evidence would be let. I would very much like a ruling on this. If there is no evidence whatsoever, not even an allegation of political nepotism and' improper political interference with the civil service and employees of statutory bodies, then the wording of this motion must be definitely enlarged to cover the subject of the Member for Anson's present speech.

Mr Speaker: The point of order, I take it, is whether or not this allegation - that public funds were used for paying for buses to bring members of the People's Association to rallies - is covered by this motion. Is that it, Mr Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: I have been here only for a few minutes, Mr Speaker. As I understand the allegation, the impropriety, which is the subject of censure in this motion calling for an inquiry, is political nepotism, improper political interference with, first, the civil service, and second, employees of statutory bodies. There has been no statement of fact coming within the ambit of that subject. If it is alleged that there has been misappropriation or misuse of funds, then I say, let it be stated there.

Mr Speaker: I think the Member for Anson has touched on what he calls political nepotism. He has given a definition which might not be accepted by the Assembly. I take it he will be touching on improper political interference with the civil service and employees of statutory bodies. But I must say that his allegation now - that public funds were used for improper purposes by the Party in power - does not seem to be covered by the motion itself. Therefore, that allegation must be out of order if we are to debate the motion of which notice was given, unless the Member can assure me that the allegation comes within the ambit of the motion.

Mr David Marshall: I am obliged, Mr Speaker, I did not think it was necessary to spell it out. But if I might, Mr Speaker, the Chairman of the People's Association is the Prime Minister. I have alleged - and it will remain to be proved - that, in fact, the majority of the Board are P.A.P. men. Therefore, they utilised the People's Association funds, which are for public purposes, for political nepotism in order to support their own candidate by sending their men at public expense to his rally. Sir, it is political interference in the use of public funds for party political purposes, and the nepotism is favouritism towards their own members.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir -

Mr Speaker: Order. Has the Member finished?

Mr David Marshall: My explanation, Sir, but I have not finished my speech.

Mr Speaker: I would like to hear the Prime Minister again on his point of order.

The Prime Minister: As you know, Mr Speaker, Sir, as a result of this motion being tabled in this Assembly before the first sitting of the Third Session, we had a discussion, albeit informally, consequent upon which we moved the Privileges Bill under a Certificate of Urgency. We expected serious allegations to be made and wished to do the right thing in the circumstances. Sir, although the Bill is in Select Committee, you will recall that it has been agreed -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is leading into a debate. I would like to ask him whether or not he considers that the allegation of misuse of public funds by the People's Association Board comes within the ambit of item 11. That is the point I wish to decide.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I need hardly explain to you, with all your experience in the interpretation of words, that the first thing one looks at is to give every word its normal and ordinary meaning. We have come here ready to listen to charges of political nepotism; in other words, patronage for an improper purpose, improper political interference, seriously alleged, in the civil service and employees of statutory bodies; in other words, we are tormenting or otherwise doing improper things to them. All I have heard so far is the quite proper, correct and legal appointment of members to statutory boards, be they P.A.P. or otherwise. They are quite correct and constitutionally impeccable appointments of myself and my colleagues, as managers of the People's Association Board of Management passed in this Assembly. I now hear a charge that we have misused or misappropriated public funds in our capacity as statutory trustees of the People's Association. If that is seriously alleged, then I say, "Put that down," and the Member for Anson will have full opportunity to justify it.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Hon, the Prime Minister will have an opportunity of going on that tack. What I have to decide is whether or not the allegation does come within the ambit of item 11. I will give the Member for Anson one more chance to satisfy me that it does.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, the matter was raised on a point of order by the Prime Minister. In so far as I can see, he has not stopped to justify that point of order on that particular aspect, although it has been taken up by you. I will try to explain it, and if I might try to do it once more, Sir.

Politicians in the P.A.P., in Government, have utilised public funds for the support of their candidate. And I say, Sir, showing their favouritism towards their Party members and improperly using monies with which they were entrusted for public purposes.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid the Member for Anson is surely stretching the meaning of the words. To my mind, "political nepotism" does not imply an improper use of public funds, and "improper political interference" does not, to my mind, imply the improper use of public funds. Therefore, I rule that those allegations are out of context in so far as this motion is concerned. Of course, it is open to the Member for Anson on another occasion to move another motion.

The Prime Minister: May I suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if the Member for Anson wishes now to move an amendment, I have not the slightest objection to his expanding the scope of his allegations, but it must be spelt out seriatim.

Mr Speaker: No, I cannot allow that because, as I have always stated, an amendment must restrict the debate on any motion. This allegation certainly expands the ambit of the motion and, therefore, any attempt to amend it on those lines will be completely out of order. The other alternative is for the Member for Anson after his speech to ask leave to withdraw the motion, and then to put in another motion which will cover all his allegation.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, I would ask merely this. Is not political interference in the utilisation of monies for the purposes of one of their candidates political nepotism? Is that what you have ruled?

Mr Speaker: I have made my ruling.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Sir, I shall go on with it.

Mr Speaker, I do not think it appropriate to refer to the amendment until it is made, although it would be simpler if you would permit that I should deal with it. Could I have your ruling on that, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Order. I take it that the Deputy Prime Minister will, in due course, move the amendment. If he will, then I would suggest that the debate should from now on cover the proposed amendment so that any Member wishing to speak will speak not only on the motion but also on the amendment. And there can be one vote taken at the end of the debate - one vote on the amendment, and one vote on the motion as amended, if it has been amended.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker -

Mr Speaker: On a point of order?

Mr David Marshall: Point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Tun Lim Yew Hock: Sir, your ruling will therefore mean that every Member will have only a chance to speak only once?

Mr Speaker: That is the ruling, unless any Member wishes to dissent. It is not a ruling which I can impose on Members, but it is only for the convenience of Members.

No dissenting voice? Mr Marshall.

Mr David Marshall: If it please you, Mr Speaker, I think I have made it clear that there have been what I consider indications of abuse of the power of appointment. I have indicated Mr Speaker, that to my mind and there certainly are - how shall I put it?

• I recognize the existence not only in myself but in the people of Singapore a belief that there has been improper interference with members of the civil service. And the purpose of this motion, Sir, is to protect the public service from the abuse of power entrusted to Ministers. It is a very important principle, and that is why it is important that we appoint a Commission of Inquiry to investigate into these fears and suspicions, to ascertain and report on the truth, and to make recommendations for the future protection of our civil service.

Sir, I ask for two retired civil servants to be on the Commission because it is my view that our civil service has been trained along the right lines of integrity and independence from political interference. And they are the best people to advise the Commission on means to protect the civil servants from any infringement of that tradition.

On the further issue of political interference, you will appreciate, Mr Speaker, that it is not appropriate, except before a Commission appointed to investigate, to make allegations with reference to individuals, nor is it permissible under Standing Orders to make allegations with reference to Ministers' private conduct outside this Assembly. To my mind, the conduct of officers in Radio Singapore gives cause for genuine concern as to the extent of ministerial interference in the departmental discharge of responsibility. It is also generally believed that the P.A.P. has interfered with little respect for the civil servant in all fields of civil service administration.

The Prime Minister: Sir, on a point of order. We have come here to listen with seriousness to what we expected to be grave charges and not to vague allegations of political policy of interference, or giving orders to officials of Radio Singapore. Let these allegations of misdemeanour or misconduct be spelt out seriatim or let them be withdrawn.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Member for Anson is entitled to say what he is saying under the terms of the motion. When the Prime Minister speaks, he can point out what he is now endeavouring to point out on a point of order. It is a matter for debate.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order. Purely as a matter of privilege, these are allegations made against the conduct, albeit indirectly, anonymously and collectively, of each and every Minister in the Government. Nine of us are responsible for the affairs of State, and exercise the powers of patronage formerly exercised by the Governor, the Mayor and the Chief Secretary. Sir, we are prepared to answer any charge of any misdemeanour in any place under anybody.

Mr Speaker: This is not a point of order. If the Prime Minister is rising on a matter of privilege, then I say, if he wishes to pursue the matter as a matter of privilege, he must move a motion in that respect, because I am not here to judge whether or not there is any truth or otherwise in the allegations. We are now debating a motion on political nepotism and a Commission of Inquiry. The Prime Minister will be entitled to argue this point when it comes to his turn to speak. I cannot see how the Member for Anson is out of order under the Standing Orders by saying what he is saying. Mr Marshall.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, I seek further elucidation.

Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: A very simple point. An accusation is being made which is to be investigated, as I understand it. I am asking from a man who is eminently knowledgeable in these matters to follow the simple rules of justice, namely, that an accusation must be made specifically; where, in what respect, in what department, at what time, was there impropriety, mis-demeanour, improper political interference. If a man is charged -

Mr Speaker: Order. That certainly is not a point of order for the Chair. That is a point of argument. The Prime Minister was possibly rising on a point of elucidation. As the Member for Anson sat down, the Prime Minister is entitled to ask for elucidation, "Will the Member for Anson give specific cases?" But it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr David Marshall: It is curious, Mr Speaker, Sir. We are here on matters of principle. Mr Speaker, I seek to speak on the general disquiet and dissatisfaction on the part of the public. It is not merely allegations that I make or allegations that another person makes that I seek to have a Commission of Inquiry to investigate. I seek to give an opportunity to the people at large, to the civil service, to make their complaints in proper form to a tribunal which will hear them impartially and which will adjudicate. That is the simple issue, Sir,If we accept the fact that there is disquiet, it may be that it is without reason. I am not so much seeking to condemn the Government-if you will notice the issue-as seeking to have the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry to investigate a general disquiet throughout the country with reference to the conduct of this Government in the particular field of interference with the civil service and with employees of statutory bodies. The Prime Minister says that I have not made specific allegations. I have already made some. It may be that with reference to some other matters, I will be able, in due course, to implement what I have said here, because I can assure the Prime Minister and other Members of this House that there is nothing which I have said here which I am not prepared to repeat and, within my ability in so far as I can, to amplify before a tribunal if and when it is appointed.

As regards the amendment, it is a curious amendment. The first is a simple and factual one. They delete the two civil servants. To my mind, Mr Speaker, a retired civil servant is eminently desirable to assist, not so much in the question of condemnation, but in the question of future protection of the civil service from attempts to interfere by the overbearing Ministers. I do urge the Government to recognise the value of having two retired civil servants attached to the tribunal for purposes of assisting in the making of recommendations. I am very happy to notice that though there is an amendment, it does, in fact, incorporate the spirit of my motion and that the Government does accept. But, Sir, you will notice a limitation which may well not have been intended. It seeks to limit the investigation of this Commission only to the allegation made in this House, to investigate all allegations and those who have voiced those allegations. It may well be that that was not the intention, and I hope that it is not the intention to limit the Commission's powers to investigation of allegations of nepotism that are made in this House and to shut out the cvil service, the employees of statutory bodies and the public from making their appropriate representations. Furthermore, Sir, it says the Commission will be held provided all Members will undertake to repeat these allegations before the Commission and to give evidence of such allegations on oath or affirmation, notwithstanding any provisions in any Standing Order or written law. Sir, in so far as I am concerned, I am very happy to give that undertaking. But it seems to me a little absurd, if you will permit me to say so, Mr Speaker, to incorporate it in an amendment. If one person is not prepared to give that undertaking, it does not mean that the people of Singapore should be deprived of a Commission, the principle of which is conceded by the Government. It is perfectly true that Members are protected from being compelled to repeat outside what they have said here. But I think, Sir, if we at times recognise that if we give Members the credit for having a sense of responsibility and accepting the fact that a Commission of Inquiry would be called and they would be subpoenaed to it, and if they refuse to give evidence, then they will be placed in an acutely embarrassing position vis-a-vis the Government. I can find no merit really, Mr Speaker, in this amendment except that the Government, seemingly to save face rather than accept my motion, has sought to amend it so that it seems that we are accepting its own amendment. I do urge the Assembly to accept the motion as it stands, a simple motion which seeks merely to investigate, report and make recommendations.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: It might be convenient if the Deputy Prime Minister moves now.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Seconder?

Mr Speaker: There is no seconder required to the motion.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: No, I am not moving yet.

Mr Chan Sun Wing (Upper Serangoon): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, speaking of personal relationships, the leaders of the P.A.P. have always credited me highly. It is a sorry matter that I should have inevitably parted ways with them on political lines. I know the Prime Minister is very angry over the motion on political nepotism. He takes it to mean that we of the Barisan Sosialis want to have a bout of Siamese boxing with him. In fact, we have no intention of hitting out at the P.A.P. on questions which do not concern any political principles.

Let me explain here why I signed as the seconder of this motion. There are two reasons which led me to do so.

First, it is because, after the 13 Assemblymen of the Barisan Sosialis have left the P.A.P., those who were serving in Government departments or statutory boards and who were not satisfied with the Right-wing inclination or political line of the P.A.P. leadership were oppressed by the P.A.P. in respect of their livelihood, and so lost their jobs. Among those who were forced to leave their jobs were the community centre district leaders of the People's Association, centre leaders and assistant leaders, members of the Work Brigade, car park attendants in the Vehicles Registration Department, temporary clerks in the Citizenship Registration Board, photographers and typists in the Ministry of Culture, and even receptionists in the Prime Minister's office. They were sacked as from 21st of July last year. The Government did not give any reason to explain the mistakes they had made in respect of their duties. The Government also did not point out where their ability did not meet the duties they shouldered. They were sacked merely because they would not attend the P.A.P. Branch Committee meetings to support the Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P. which had already changed its political nature. They were a group of very efficient people, as, for instance, the team leaders of the People's Association and community centre leaders. The Prime Minister had praised them. He said that if the work of rehabilitating the over 10,000 fire victims at Bukit Ho Swee had been carried out without the help of these people, and if it had depended only on the help of the police and troops, then there might very well have been violence and disturbances. These people had loyally supported the P.A.P. for many years. In carrying out their duties they did not haggle over the length of time. They wholeheartedly served the people. But on the 21st of July, they were sacked. On the contrary, the Government is paying about $1,000 salary every month to the former Labour Front Organising Secretary, Mr De Cruz, George Thomson and the like.

Since the P.A.P. is carrying out a kind of unprincipled political oppression and divesting the right of these people to serve in Government departments and statutory boards, why then should I cover up the P.A.P.'s practice of employing personnel for Government departments?

The second reason is that the Barisan Sosialis has acquired new evidence which shows that the P.A.P. is continuing to exploit its position in power to carry out improper actions in respect of the public services. Mr Speaker, Sir, here is a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs. It was written on the 27th of September, 1961, to Mr Chang Yuen Siang, who was a team leader at the Paya Lebar Work Brigade camp. This letter reads: `Comrade Yuen Siang, Chai Chee and Ang Chee are Executive Committee members of the Toa Payoh Branch. They had their supper earlier in order to go to the Branch to carry out their work. When they leave, please take over their work. It is my hope. Yours faithfully, Chee Seng.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to table this letter in order to comply with the procedure. It was on the 4th of October, 1961, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs wrote a similar letter to the camp leader of the Paya Lebar Work Brigade camp requesting him to release two P.A.P. members who were working in the Work Brigade so that they could leave the camp and have their supper earlier in order to enable them to go back to the P.A.P. Branch to work. From what I know, in July last year, the Paya Lebar camp of the Work Brigade had withdrawn all leave papers of its members, that is to say, it disallowed members of the Work Brigade to leave the camp at night at any time they liked. But these two letters explained that if the members of the Work Brigade were members of the P.A.P. and they were also executives of the Branches, then they would have a special privilege to leave the camp and go to the Branch to work.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have another piece of evidence. Let me give a copy of this evidence to the Clerk of the Assembly. This evidence is in a letter written by the Chairman of the P.A.P. Toa Payoh Branch to the camp leader of the Paya Lebar Work Brigade. This letter reads as follows: `Comrade Yuen Siang, Your members, Choo Chua Tee and Cheng Mao Shih, were absent from the camp on Monday because they had gone to the Toa Payoh Branch of the P.A.P. that day to help paint the table tennis table. So I hope you will excuse them and give them their pay during their absence. Kim Yuen Chee, Toa Payoh Branch Chairman.'

There is also the seal of the Toa Payoh Branch Publicity Section. It was dated the 8th of November, 1961.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether this can be considered as a sort of political nepotism. So long as a person is a member of the P.A.P., and at the same time he is a member of the Work Brigade, he need not go to the Work Brigade camp. He can absent himself and still get his pay on the day he is absent from work.

Mr Speaker, Sir, here again, I do not wish to talk too much. My Party has indicated to me clearly the importance of the neutrality of the civil service. The Central Executive Committee of the Barisan Sosialis has, by a majority, agreed that we must stop and correct the practices of the P.A.P. in engaging employees for the public service. We must do this in order to maintain neutrality in the civil service. Otherwise, all talk of neutrality is but humbug. Because of these two reasons I have signed as a seconder of the motion tabled by the Member for Anson.

Regarding the amendment moved by the Deputy Prime Minister, it is my opinion that I should endorse the views of the Member for Anson. I feel it is absolutely unnecessary to move such an amendment. In the meantime, I feel that to add this amendment to the original motion is an act to restrict people from ventilating their views, doubts and suspicions of Government policies. Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now table copies of the two letters I have quoted. I shall produce the originals, if necessary, to the relevant Commission of Inquiry.

Copies of the letters handed in to the Clerk.

7.15 p.m.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, Sir, I expected the Member for Anson or the Member for Upper Serangoon to divulge startling details of political nepotism, but actually what we have heard is nothing but a general ramble on certain appointments we have made, particularly to statutory boards and certain temporary posts.

Let me say this quite clearly: that the Government, in order to carry out its policy, must certainly have the means to be assured that its policy is going to be carried out. Part of the system of administration and the execution of policies of the Government is left to statutory boards. It is natural and stands to reason that when some appointments are made to these statutory boards we should include people who we believe will do their best to see that our policies are carried out. Certainly the Member for Anson does not expect the Government to appoint him to any of the statutory boards like the Housing and Development Board or the Income Tax Board. Let me put a simple instance before him. The House is fully aware of the previous Board constituted under the Singapore Improvement Trust. Under that Board, little was done in accelerating or building cheap houses. Since we took over, we have placed people in the Housing Board who we know are sympathetic - although not necessarily members of the P.A.P. - to the policies of the P.A.P. and who are sincere and honest in carrying out our policies. It is because we have done this that today the Housing and Development Board can claim to have put up the biggest number of houses for 1961 - more than at any time in the life of the previous S.I.T. Now assuming that we had no control over the Housing and Development Board, where would these houses be today? Assuming that we had no control over any other Board, the policies of the Government could be sabotaged and jeopardised. It is not enough for us to put up a Five-Year Development Plan or an election programme and say that we will do this and that for the people, if we do not have the means to ensure that these policies are going to be carried. The execution and administration of these policies is left in the hands, to some extent, of the statutory boards and it is necessary - desirable, in fact - to place in them people upon whom we can rely and people who we know for sure are sympathetic to our policies and our plans and who will honestly and sincerely spend a considerable part of' their time to see that they are carried out.

Let me add this. By the term "political nepotism", I have the impression that favours are granted to people because of their political affiliations. But let me tell the House that the majority of the Members of the statutory boards do not receive any emolument whatsoever. They do not receive a single cent. And let me tell the House too that many of the members who are on these boards and whom we trust have spent a considerable amount of their time and energy to attend meetings because of their dedication to public service. They have volunteered but they have not been compelled to become members of these boards. The House and the public cannot expect us to appoint Members of the Opposition to these boards. Instead of executing the policies of the Government, we will find that they will be using these boards to sabotage our development plans. That i3 the natural conclusion: What is the grumble? What is the fuss that the Member for Anson has kicked up? He read out a list of statutory board memberships - a list which had been given to him by the Prime Minister - and tried to examine how many members of these boards are P.A.P. members. From his speech today, he has acknowledged that in many of these boards there are very few P.A.P. members.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the difficulties that we face in this country is the paucity of people who are prepared to dedicate their time in the public service without receiving any reimbursement for the time and energy they spend in the public service. Is it not natural, therefore, that we should, as a first recourse, look towards people whom we know and who are prepared to come forward and serve on these public boards; and if these persons should also be members of the Party, are they not more reliable? In fact, many of those whom we have appointed to these statutory boards have been appointed not solely on account of their party affiliation but, as the Member for Anson has acknowledged, there are a number sitting on these statutory boards who have been recognised for their merits.

The Member for Anson has suggested that there has been improper political interference with the civil service. Does he suggest then that any political Party which comes into power should draw a clear-cut line between the Government and the civil service? Are not the policies of the Government to be executed through the civil service? If stopping corruption in the civil service means raising its efficiency, if insisting upon the civil service to be more polite and more prompt in their public relationship with the people is regarded as interference, then I say that such interference is warranted. Members of the House will accept that even civil servants are not infallible and they are not robots. They are not machines on which you press a button and orders are carried out. They are human beings with human failings. With several thousand civil servants, is it not possible that there is a minority whose efficiency is suspect, whose integrity may also be suspect? In fact, it is customary for me to receive letters - albeit anonymous and which I therefore do not treat seriously - alleging inefficiency and corruption. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, you yourself could be aware of letters appearing in the daily Press complaining of inefficiency in some departments of the civil service. They appear periodically in the Press. Therefore, it is up to the Government to see that these inefficiencies are removed. How would you expect them to be removed? Should the Minister himself go and do the job of the civil servants? It is humanly impossible. Therefore, we have appointed certain Assemblymen to some Ministries to ensure that the civil service is always kept on its toes, that all complaints of inefficiency and any allegation of corruption can be immediately investigated.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have in my amendment deleted the appointment of civil servants on the Commission of Inquiry. Sir, the reason for that is very simple. If you put civil servants on a Commission of Inquiry - whether they be retired or not - it is tantamout to asking civil servants to sit upon the heads of the Government or to sit upon the heads of elected leaders of the country. That is a contradiction which must not be allowed to get through. Another reason is this. Any recommendations or any conclusions arrived at by such a Commission which includes civil servants will always be suspect, because however the Commission makes its findings, there will be people who are bound to say that the civil servants are prejudiced against or biased for the Government, and it is solely in the interest of a fair judgment being arrived a by such a Commission that we are prepared to appoint a High Court Judge to constitute this Commission. As everybody knows, the Judiciary is independent of the Executive. Allegations which are made must be specific. No Commission can spend its time listening to fairy tales or stories. The Commission, which will consist of a High Court Judge, will have its patience sorely tested if it has to listen to general ramblings all round. It is therefore important that such a Commission must investigate specific allegations.

Lastly, Members of this House are called honourable Members. It stands to reason that if honourable Members are prepared to make specific allegations in this House, then they are also honour bound to put them down in writing and to produce the evidence before such a Commission.

Mr David Marshall: Hear, hear!

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Therefore, I have inserted in my amendment a clause saying:

`provided that all members who have voiced these allegations in' this Assembly will undertake to repeat these allegations before the Commission'.

Mr Speaker, I know full well that under the Privileges and Immunities Bill, which is now in Select Committee, no Member of this Assembly can be compelled to attend a Commission of Inquiry. Now, if we were to stick solely to laws, to rules and regulations, any Member in this House today under the pretext of privilege could utter anything under the sun and utter any falsehood.

Mr David Marshall: No.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Therefore, I say to hon. Members of this House that it is not enough for a person to stand on a soap-box and say certain things and before a Judge say other things, knowing full well that what he says on a soap-box will be treated quite lightly and he may get away with it. But if you say certain things on oath before a Judge, then there is also the possibility of being charged with perjury. Therefore, I have included that proviso in this amendment. I ask hon. Members who are going to speak on this motion, if they are going to speak, let them undertake to repeat all their allegations before the Commission on oath.

Mr Speaker, I beg to move an amendment,

To leave out from the word "Inquiry" in line 2 to the end and there to insert -

"of one High Court Judge to investigate all specific allegations of political nepotism and improper political interference with the Civil Service and employees of Statutory bodies and to make recommendations, provided that all members who have voiced these allegations in this Assembly will undertake to repeat these allegations before the Commission and to give evidence of such allegations on oath or affirmation before such a Commission notwithstanding any provision in any standing order or written law giving protection or privilege to any Member of this Assembly.".

Mr Speaker: The original Question was,

"That this Assembly calls upon the Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry consisting of at least one High Court Judge and two retired Civil Servants to investigate political nepotism and improper political interference with the Civil Service and employees of Statutory bodies and to make recommendations.".

Since which an amendment has been moved,

To leave out from the word "Inquiry" in line 2 to the end and there to insert -

"of one High Court Judge to investigate all specific allegations of political nepotism and improper political interference with the Civil Service and employees of Statutory bodies and to make recommendations, provided that all members who have voiced these allegations in this Assembly will undertake to repeat these allegations before the Commission and to give evidence of such allegations on oath or affirmation before such a Commission notwithstanding any provision in any standing order or written law giving protection or privilege to any Member of this Assembly.".

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." And as has been agreed, the debate shall proceed to cover both the motion and the amendment, and the Question, if necessary, will be put at the end of the debate.

7.36 p.m.

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me straightaway make it quite clear that I am against the amendment for two reasons. Firstly, the amendment seeks only to have investigated any allegations of political nepotism made in this Assembly; secondly, the proviso, to my mind, is completely objectionable, in that it seeks to hamstring Members of this House into agreeing to something which the law says nobody can hamstring them into.

The Prime Minister: There is no law yet.

Mr Rajah: I think that is most improper, Mr Speaker, Sir,I am surprised that the Leader of the House, instead of protecting the privileges of Assemblymen, seeks, by virtue of this amendment, to destroy it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I should have thought that the Government having conceded that there should be such a Commission - and they must have thought about the matters carefully - then they would have decided that the wider the scope of the Commission, the better for the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have very often heard from a number of people whose opinions should be respected about the P.A.P. Government, about what it is doing, about what it is not doing, and about all the difficult and hard things the P.A.P. Government is doing. We hear all these things. They have been a matter of market talk and coffee-shop gossip for the last two years. But as responsible Assemblymen, we do not bring such talk and such gossip into this Assembly and voice them because we are not quite sure whether they are correct or not. But from the point of view of the Government, the important thing is not, I venture to suggest, whether what I have been told is correct or not, but that it is being said. If more than one person is saying it, if quite a lot of persons are saying it, then it becomes a matter of importance for the Government to clear itself. I hope this Commission will clear the Government, Mr Speaker, Sir. But if the Government puts restrictions on the Commission, then people will doubt whether the Government is honest in its statement that it wants a Commission.

I think the Member for Anson has been quite fair in his motion. What the Government want is this: they want allegations to be made here, and only for those allegations to go to the Commission. They also want the persons who make allegations to go and give evidence. But what we want in this Assembly is not for Assemblymen to go and give evidence, because we Assemblymen are not the ones who can give evidence. The people who know and who suffer the difficulties are the people outside. This Commission is intended to protect those persons who go before the Commission and give their evidence, not to protect Assemblymen. A civil servant might have a just grouse against a Minister. But under the rules governing the civil service, he is not entitled to talk; he is not entitled to open his mouth. This Commission will give him scope, and I hope that -

The Prime Minister: On a point of information, Sir.

Mr Rajah resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Am I to understand now that the wording of the motion is such that the idea is to have a Commission in which civil servants can go before it and have a grouse? I was under the impression that a serious allegation has been made against the misconduct of the Government, and the Commission is to investigate such misconduct; not for the civil servants just to have a general grouse - a Complaints Bureau!

Mr Rajah: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the motion here, the motion as moved by the Member for Anson:

`That this Assembly calls upon the Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry consisting of at least one High Court Judge and two retired Civil Servants to investigate political nepotism and improper political interference with the Civil Service and employees of Statutory bodies and to make recommendations.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, if this Commission were appointed!, the first thing it would do, I take it, would be to meet and put out a statement through the Press and the radio, inviting anybody who can give any evidence on this particular matter to send in either written statements or to appear before the Commission. Now, I may be silly in this, Mr Speaker, Sir. Who can better give evidence about this than the civil servants themselves and employees of statutory bodies? What evidence the Member for Anson can give - he is not a civil' servant - and what evidence the Member for Farrer Park, can give, Mr Speaker, Sir, would' be purely hearsay.

The Prime Minister: It is not even hearsay.

Mr Rajah: Oh, yes, I have heard a lot, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going to repeat it here, because I am not quite sure of the facts. I am not going to make any statement in this House which, to my own knowledge, is not true. And the Prime Minister is not going to bamboozle me into making statements which I do not want to make in this House. The best persons to make those statements are the civil servants. And if the Prime Minister is really sincere in getting the name of his Government cleared, then let it be an open Commission, not with these restrictive provisos attached to it - we shall only investigate what has been said in this House and then only if the Member alleging it will go forward and say it. No, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not support the amendment at all.

The Prime Minister: I am often surprised to find the finer instincts of the Member for Farrer Park carried away `in the wrong direction. Not only do I share the same democratic and liberal training that he underwent, but we went through a harder school - that of the smear and Siamese boxing. And I say this to him - this is my frank and honest opinion - that if we work on the basis that the Opposition is honourable (we call ourselves honourable in this Chamber), then we shall waste the time of the Judges, their secretaries, the court ushers, and other people who give valuable time for a public cause. You do not appoint a Commission of Inquiry just because somebody bellyaches and wants a Commission of Inquiry. You appoint a Commission of Inquiry because there is a prima facie case for it. The Member for Hong Lim made some fantastic allegations. We forced a Commission of Inquiry upon him in order to clear ourselves. I would have thought, Mr Speaker, Sir, that particularly our erstwhile colleagues in the P.A.P., the 13 Barisan boys, would have known better than to believe that the P.A.P. is not prepared for the closest scrutiny. This is basic and fundamental. If one's conduct bears political scrutiny under any magnifying glass, then one can stand up in any form, unblemished and undislodged. For that reason, I say to the Member for Anson when he mentioned all those appointees. So what? I supplied him with the names of those appointees and their political affiliations. I am proud they are my friends. I supplied him with a list in this House when the Member for Hong Lim was casting all kinds of serious aspersions on the Government.

Sir, if we appoint a Commission of Inquiry, just a roving Commission - let us hear whether there is any rumour, let us hear whether there is any truth - I say this. This is Commission number 4 on the list, as I answered earlier in the afternoon. The Member for Farrer Park knows there are five Puisne Judges in the High Court. One Puisne Judge will have to sit down and spend no less than about 30 sitting days discussing and listening to evidence and cross-examination. He will probably spend another week sifting the evidence and writing a report. We are not doing this for fun. It costs public money and effect. As the Member for Hong Lim's allegations cost effort. It costs him a lot of effort and many other things beside. It costs us some effort too to dig up a few things.

Mr David Marshall: It cost you Hong Lim!

The Prime Minister: That is all right. But I would rather lose a thousand elections than go under false pretences. That is the quality of this Government. The Member for Upper Serangoon is the man who came back from Israel, and I want him in the witness box for very important reasons. He alleges nepotism when he is the man who practised it in the People's Association. We sent him off to Israel on a youth training course in order that he could come back and the better discharge his duties in the People's Association. I am prepared to give evidence on oath and cross-examine him under oath. He came back and told me that he had been to see Histadruth, the Israeli trade union organisation, and the Israeli Labour Party. He says the way to do it is just to ignore all these things and pack the whole thing with your party men, the whole Government. I say this in this Chamber. I will repeat it on oath. He will have to repeat it on oath. I am not meaning this for the Member for Anson. As the Minister for Culture has just told me, "If we start talking about vague allegations and `I have heard it said in the market place that some chaps are certifiable.' " But does that mean that we should have a Commission of Inquiry to investigate whether it is true that some chaps are certifiable?

Mr David Marshall: Maybe the Prime Minister!

The Prime Minister: Or an hon. Member of this House? For we should all be coin pos mentis in this House. Quite frankly, I say this. We put down this amendment. I expected some fierce allegations to be made after the fashion of the Member for Hong Lim. And we say, all right, let them say whatever they like. But let them go up before this Commission, take the oath, and repeat it.

I was really not interested in the Member for Anson, because, after everything is said and done, he does not really fight Siamese style. Once in a while he does land a blow below the belt, but then he apologises' for it. But the Member for Upper Serangoon is brought up in a different tradition. He claimed certain property in the Upper Serangoon Branch as his - sewing machines, printing presses and other furniture. He removed them. We said it was theft. He brought an action. He went to the Police Court. There he discovered, for the first time, that if he gave evidence on oath and claimed that the property was his he would have to go to a Judge, because, being a member of the Government, if he took bribes from his constituents and never reported them -

Mr Speaker: Order. It seems to me as though there must be another Commission of Inquiry. Is all this relevant to the motion?

The Prime Minister: It is relevant. A man claimed property belonging to the P.A.P. He stole it. We said he stole it. We claimed it. The police impounded it. He claimed it in the Civil District Court.

Mr Speaker: Order. Is that political nepotism or improper political interference, or does it come within the amendment? I cannot see how it does.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been at pains to explain the obvious. I must apologise, for sometimes I assume the obvious. We are making this proviso in the amendment, that a man who makes his allegations here must repeat them before the Commission, because we have experience of people, making charges lightheartedly. In particular, the Member for Upper Serangoon had made a serious claim that certain property was his when he stole it.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Point of order.

Mr David Marshall: I have no brief for the Member for Upper Serangoon though he seconds my motion. But I would draw the attention of the Speaker to the fact that there is a Standing Order which precludes hon. Members from making reference to the conduct of Members outside this House except on a substantive motion.

Mr Speaker: The Standing Order is Standing Order 46, which refers to the personal conduct of Members:

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

I do suggest to the Prime Minister that his allegation that the hon. Member for Upper Serangoon stole something is a serious allegation, which is not within the ambit of this motion. If he wishes to make an allegation, then he should make it by way of a motion. If the Member for Upper Serangoon wishes to take it up, then it is a matter probably for the Committee of Privileges.

The Prime Minister: Surely, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Upper Serangoon having claimed certain property which we said he stole. But what I wanted to point out to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the obvious, why we have moved this amendment. He claimed it. When he went to court, he dared not go into the witness box to claim it. And he surrendered the property. Why? Because he discovered in the course of the proceedings that if he had gone into the witness box on oath and sworn that the property was his, then he would have been charged for having received gifts without consideration as a member of the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, people make all kinds of fantastic statements. But when they know that they have to repeat them on a certain formalistic ritual, they think twice. I am prepared to meet the Member for tipper Serangoon. I have nothing personal against him. This is all highly political. But I will tell him this, through you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Political or not, there are certain standards of honour and conduct. When a man incites me to nepotism and I check him, and he comes here and moves a motion and says that I am guilty of nepotism, then I say I want that man in the witness box.

Mr Rajah: That is your tragedy, Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Indeed. And I have paid so bitterly and dearly for it, as indeed all those who make mistakes must pay. But I am suggesting that the Member for Upper Serangoon is making a grave error of judgment for the things he said. I did not bother to listen to his rigmarole because I thought if I stayed behind I might act as an inhibition to some of the more flamboyant things he would say. I wanted him to say everything he wanted to say in order that it could stand up to the test of close scrutiny. We say by all means have this Commission of Inquiry. The Member for Anson - I really was not concerned about him - knows just how far he can go. He is as well trained as the Member for Farrer Park. He says, "I was told, this and that." Generally - there is the "generally". There is a general belief. The Minister for Culture informed me as to the wrong estimation of one's sanity and so on. [Interruption] I do not want to be ruled out of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. There is cunning behind all this calculated insanity. But the Member for Upper Serangoon blunders into this. I say here and now that he incited me to nepotism when he came back from Israel. We sent him on a training course, and he said the whole approach was wrong. In fact, you could never implement anything through the civil service. Sack the whole lot. Appoint all P.A.P. chaps, then you can implement it.

Mr Chan Sun Wing rose ---

Mr Speaker: On a point of elucidation?

Mr Chan Sun Wing: Yes.

Mr Speaker: If the Prime Minister will give way?

The Prime Minister resumed his seat.

Mr Chan Sun Wing: (In Mandarin): I think it is necessary to clarify certain points which the Prime Minister has raised. Perhaps the Prime Minister was too excited. I did not say the things he mentioned just now.

The Prime Minister: This is important. Cher sie hua wo ping mei yu na yang chiang. [Certain things I did not say]. Say exactly in that way. But many things were more or less like that. That is on the record, it may not appear in the translation. But I repeated it for the purpose of memory. Iu i sie hua wo ping mei yu na yang chiang. But more or less, he was inciting me. And I say a man who has the perfidy to ask me to do something which I was against and then comes to this Chamber and acts as a seconder to a motion calling for a Commission of Inquiry to investigate wrongs which he - very fortunately for me - failed to get me to commit - I say that takes the cake. What I would like to do is to meet him under Queensberry rules, Mr Speaker, Sir, - on oath - in order that the truth can be ascertained. We have appointed all these chaps to various posts. So what? What is wrong with it? But when the Member for Anson says - and I was watching the Member for Nee Soon very closely - that I, as Chairman of the People's Association, wrongly used or misused the funds of the People's Association to bring P.A.P. members to Anson and Hong Lim rallies, then I say, he puts it down in writing, he produces his witness, and we shall question the witness.

There has not been one single word on the real nub of this motion, which is what the Member for Farrer Park has talked about - political nepotism and interference with the civil service. With people trained in the English democratic traditions, it is a very serious matter when you intimidate or otherwise undermine the morale and integrity of the civil service by unlawfully or improperly interfering with it. Not a single word of that from the Member for Anson, let alone from the Member for Upper Serangoon. Strangely enough, I do not know whether this is a failing of the Member for Upper Serangoon or whether he reflects the 13 Barisan Members. As I understood his ten-minute speech which I heard before I left the Chamber in order that he would not be inhibited, what he was bemoaning was not the fact that he got all these various chaps jobs in the People's Association but that after we discovered he was up to no good, we got him out and we got rid of his chaps. That was the complaint. I should have thought the proper wording for the motion by the Member for Upper Serangoon would have been that "This House condemns the P.A.P. Government for not allowing all those persons - community centre leaders, assistant leaders, watchmen and so on - recruited by him and the Member for Nee Soon to carry on and act, not at the behest of the Board of Management's rules, but, I would say, to the tugs and pulls of the chaps who installed them in their jobs." They are two different matters entirely. The Member for Anson is worlds apart from the Member for Upper Serangoon. They signed the same motion, Mr Speaker, Sir, but they were talking of two completely and entirely different things in two different languages. And I want to say, in brief, that we are prepared, as indeed any government which desires to maintain its integrity as a matter of honour is prepared, to have any Commission of Inquiry or any scrutiny into anybody's conduct. For only in that way can we justify acceptance of the fact that whatever we do, be it right or be it wrong, is not for personal advantage and personal interest. But I say, when it comes to a thing like this - and we have gone through all this rigmarole with the Member for Hong Lim and whatever that Commission of Inquiry achieved or did not achieve - that is a debatable point - a year has since elapsed and we have heard no more' about all these wild allegations. They have stopped.

8.00 p.m.

Mr Speaker: Order. Moment of interruption.