POLITICAL NEPOTISM - COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

6.00 p.m.

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [15th January, l962] to Question [15th January, 1962],

"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 David Marshall).

Which amendment was,

`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."'. -(Deputy Prime Minister).

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Speaker: As has been agreed to, the debate continues not only on the amendment but also on the main motion, and all questions, if necessary, will be put at the end of the debate.

Mr Prime Minister was speaking.

6.02 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Sir, I would only wish to draw the attention of Members to the terms of the amendment and to point out that what we agreed to in principle, without even hearing the Member for Anson and the Member for Upper Serangoon, was that there should be a Commission to investigate any allegation of nepotism or improper political interference with the civil service and employees of statutory boards. We never agreed, Mr Speaker, to a roving Commission to find out what the gossip is in town and in the coffeeshops and if anybody has any gossip. The amendment makes it quite clear, to investigate all specific allegations. I give an undertaking here that if the Member for Anson has any other specific allegations which he forgot to list in his speech yesterday, all he need do is to put them down in writing, evidence can be let on them, and the matter will be investigated. But I would like to point out this: that it falls upon the Government, the Minister for Law and myself, to invite a member of the judiciary to head such a Commission. I think the Member for An son, not only from his experience at the Bar but also from his experience as a former Chief Minister, will know that Judges do not like to be asked to serve on Commissions with no specific purpose or task in mind. A considerable amount of time is involved in hearing and sifting evidence, and they must be convinced that there is something worthwhile investigating upon which they are required to adjudicate. I think no Judge would like to be put in a position of a collater and collector of gossip. On that understanding, I would like to say that any specific allegation made either in the course of this debate or subsequently by a Member of this Assembly in writing or of improper political interference will receive the attention of the Commission of Inquiry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chan Chee Seng): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe that the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister yesterday raised something that concerned me. He said that I had written some notes to a certain camp leader, that these notes would be taken as evidence, and that they had something to do with political nepotism. I will not talk too much on the conduct of our former Parliamentary Secretary, as my colleagues all know what kind of conduct his is. He was not a party member before the general elections. It was only when the general elections were held in 1959 that he became a member.

Here, I would like to read some very brief notes. I do hope that these notes, though they were written by some Members sitting opposite, will not be used as evidence to show something relating to political nepotism. These notes were written by the Barisan Sosialis Members recommending certain people to work in the Work Brigade. I think that in the course of a socialist movement, if one is a socialist and wants to help his country to become a socialist country, he will need to have more cadres in order to carry out the work of socialism. In producing these notes, I do not mean to attack Members in the Barisan Sosialis. My intention is to show that the notes written by them had nothing to do with political nepotism. Here is a note written by Chan Cheng Ying to me. At that time I was responsible for the Work Brigade. The note says that Han Ching like to be trained us a Work Brigade leader. Chan Cheng Ying recommended this. This note is very brief. We understand it is meant to recommend certain comrades or friends to join the Work Brigade and to work there. Another note here - a very brief one - was written by the so-called Chairman of the Action Committee of the Work Brigade which has been disbanded. He was then very active. His name is Wu En Pao. He wrote this to the camp leader at Paya Lebar, "One Yang Chen Pao in the camp wants to talk with Wang Chin San. He seeks permission to go home everyday in order to carry out his work." I have no intention to spend any more time on these notes. If I want to read out, I have many more notes to read out here.

Anyway, the purpose of my mentioning this is only to prove that the words uttered by the Member for Upper Serangoon yesterday were irrelevant and were taken out of context. At this time when we want to realise Malaysia, they are seeking out trifles in order to attack us in our work. Therefore, I now want to tell Members here that the Barisan Sosialis' attitude and tactics in all this should be understood by the people gradually.

Mr Wong Soon Fong (Toa Payoh): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, I did not intend to make a speech, but just now after we heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs say something which seemed to me to be unprincipled, I therefore want to give a reason. I want him to know.

I believe that what he has mentioned just now, when he referred to the notes mentioned by a colleague of ours, he did not mention the dates. He said the notes did not give the dates and times, and therefore could not be taken as evidence. On the second point, he should know that at that time, before we parted from the P.A.P., all our actions were done under the directions of the leaders of the P.A.P. Therefore, when I was appointed to the Work Brigade by the Minister for National Development, I received many notes, including notes from the Prime Minister, recommending P.A.P. members to work in various departments.

Just a few days before the Anson by-elections, I handed over some secret documents from the P.A.P. to certain officers of the Work Brigade to be brought to the Central Executive Committee of the P.A.P. These documents were marked "Confidential", and their contents related to recommendations by certain P.A.P. members recommending some other members. My actions then were done under the directions of the P.A.P. At the time when the P.A.P. was formed, we felt that if there was no democracy, we had to argue, and later on that led to our forming the Barisan Sosialis.

The Member for Upper Serangoon clearly told the House that we of the Barisan Sosialis raised all these issues. Everything is based on reason. The purpose of this motion is not to hit out at any members or Ministers of the P.A.P. We of the Barisan Sosialis have no such intention. I only quote this to show that whatever actions we did were all based on principle.

The Prime Minister: On a point of clarification.

Mr Speaker: The Member has sat down.

The Prime Minister: The Member may have sat down, but a serious point has been made against me, and I think I should surely be given the opportunity to clarify, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Order. The only way the Prime Minister can speak now is if he can satisfy the Chair that he has been misrepresented on an important aspect of his speech. I do not know whether he can bring his point of clarification within that.

The Prime Minister: Well, he cannot be all that balanced. The point I want to make is this. To my recollection, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member mentioned Anson and my recommending some people to the Work Brigade. That I did, and I have, I think, about four or five of them still noted down in my diary. They were not members of the P.A.P. and I see no reason why I should have put them in a secret document to him. If that is what he is alleging - that that was nepotism - then he can put it down in writing and doubtless will be part of the specific allegations which the Commission will investigate.

Inche Ahmad Jabri Bin Mohammad Akib (Southern Islands): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, I say frankly that I oppose the amendment moved by the Government on the grounds that the spirit of the amendment seeks to frighten Members of this Assembly from expressing their views which will consequently result in such Members having to face the consequences. There has been intimidation of a reasonable extent of freedom of speech. Secondly, in the original motion, I see there is some merit which it is proper the Government should consider, because, as has been mentioned by the Member for Farrer Park, it is true that since the Government assumed office until today, there has been talk among the people of this nepotism. They say that only P.A.P. members will find employment, or at least P.A.P. sympathisers will find employment in Singapore today. Therefore, if the Government really feel responsible to the State of Singapore, there is no reason why this matter should be considered a loss to them. On the contrary, it should be an added prestige to the Government, because from the events which have taken place since the Government assumed office, we know there have been many splits even among their own members. It has become a public topic. If there is no wind, the tree will not shake, so the Malay saying goes. So there must be something about ex-P.A.P. members who have defected and who were responsible for this matter. We ourselves have heard this expressed in the Assembly. P.A.P. members have spoken loudly about the overwhelming majority they had then. We would like to know who really are sincere in looking after the interest of Singapore, which we all wish for. The Hon, the Prime Minister may say this motion is childish or puerile, or it is political tactics between political parties. But we in the Alliance, who are not involved in this dispute, are yet responsible to the people of Singapore, and we wish to know who are really responsible for these irresponsible acts. We do not wish these matters to be on the lips of the people of Singapore, because, Mr Speaker, that will lead to the disunity of the people, and that would be a very grave matter.

The Minister for Culture (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Mr Speaker. Sir, when the Member for Anson and the Member for Upper Serangoon jointly put down a motion implying political nepotism and jiggery-pokery in the civil service, everyone expected them to come out with awful disclosures of irregularities. After all, Sir, the Member for Upper Serangoon had been closely associated with the Government for two years as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. As such, he was in a position to know if anything irregular had been going on in the Government. Moreover, his twelve colleagues, some of whom were Parliamentary Secretaries, have had access to many files. As regards the activities of the Government, where there had been consultations with them, they, jointly pooling all their knowledge, could have made some awful disclosures, if there had been any. They could have spilt the beans, as it were, and shaken the Government with factual disclosures about political nepotism and other irregularities on the part of the Government.

Mr David Marshall: They will tell the Commission.

Mr Rajaratnam: We will be coming to the Member for Anson later on. But, Sir, not a single bean was spilt alleging anything reprehensible. The Member for Upper Serangoon, far from wading into the Government with startling disclosures of political nepotism, gave the impression - in fact he made an apology - that he was seconding the motion with vague reluctance. He said he had no intention of hitting out at the P.A.P. This cannot be because his Barisan Sosialis friends have developed a soft spot for the Government, since they treacherously deserted it. The truth is that the Member for Upper Serangoon has nothing to hit with at the Government. If he had anything to hit with, I am quite sure he and his Barisan Sosialis friends would not have hesitated to go for the Government. But once he knew that any allegation made would have to be substantiated, he dried up for words and allegations. Sir, it is one thing making broad allegations in places where they know they cannot be challenged, and quite another having to make allegations which they know they would be called upon to substantiate. Sir, it is characteristic of the Barisan Sosialis that they have developed a strong aversion for the open confrontation. As you know, Sir, they like monologues but shun things like forums like the plague, because any statement made at a forum, where there is no prepared script, can be immediately challenged and refuted. So the Member for Upper Serangoon was wise in not making allegations which he knows he cannot substantiate and which he knows are not true. So all that happened was that allegations of nepotism and irregularities have now turned out to be something vague and' nebulous.

Sir, the Member for Anson obviously had hoped for support from the Barisan Sosialis. But I am quite sure, Sir, that he is as disappointed as the newspapers are at what was disclosed yesterday. There was nothing for them. The Member for Anson spent some time enumerating the number of P.A.P. members and Assemblymen who had been appointed to statutory boards and other Government committee. He was able to do that through the courtesy of the Government which provided him with a list. All he said was, "There are two P.A.P. members on this committee. There are three P.A.P. members or Assemblymen on that committee," and so on. Sir, nobody has ever denied these facts. They have never been concealed from anyone.

Mr David Marshall: You never told us.

Mr Rajaratnam: Many of these committee appointments were gazetted.

Mr David Marshall: You never told us anyway.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Rajaratnam: They were published. They were openly made and were public knowledge. In no single instance did the Member for Anson suggest that these appointments were improperly made. What then is the allegation? Where is the evidence of political nepotism and other irregularities? It is true that the Government has appointed P.A.P. Assemblymen or P.A.P. members to boards and committees. Sir, there is nothing irregular about a government appointing people whom they know personally and trust as members of a committee or a board to carry out the work of the committee or the board. Is it suggested by the Member for Anson that we should pick names at random from a telephone hook and appoint them to boards and committees?

Mr David Marshall: Why do you not listen -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will have a chance to reply.

Mr Rajaratnam: I have to endure listening to him occasionally, Sir. P.A.P. Assemblymen and members, even from the list, i.e. the enumeration provided by the Member for Anson, constitute a minority in most of these committees. It is natural, Sir, for a government to have a few nominees whom it knows intimately, in order to know what goes on in the committees for which it is responsible. After all, Sir, if anything goes wrong in a committee or a board, it is the Government which must take the responsibility. Therefore, it is its duty to see that people whom it knows and trusts are in the committee. As I have said, they always constitute a minority of the members of any committee.

Sir, when the P.A.P. Government took office, it made it a point to see that P.A.P. Assemblymen, instead of being passive Back-benchers, were given a share of responsibility in government work. Every Assemblyman therefore was attached to one Ministry or other. That is public knowledge. We have stated so earlier on when the Government took office. Therefore, participation in committees and boards is one way of delegating responsibility to Assemblymen. Why then is the Member for Anson surprised to find P.A.P. Assemblymen openly and constitutionally appointed to boards and committees? What is the point of making a recitation that so many P.A.P. Assemblymen are in this or that committee? Is it suggested that it is irregular? Or is he stating a fact? Probably having no evidence, he just wants to leave an impression behind that somehow the whole thing was irregular and therefore there was political nepotism.

Sir, he contends that what disconcerts him is that there are too many P.A.P. members and Assemblymen in these committees and boards. How much exactly is too many of the 527 appointments which were made to these boards and committees? The P.A.P. Assemblymen and members constitute an insignificant minority. The Member for Anson knows it is not always easy to get suitable people to serve on boards and committees regularly, and for the most part voluntarily. It is natural and inevitable that some of the nominees should be drawn from party colleagues and workers whose worth and ability we have to acknowledge. Sir, where then is the nepotism? Were the P.A.P. members appointed to these boards and committees unsuitable or corrupt or inefficient? Or were these committees and boards used to line the pockets of P.A.P. members and Assemblymen? If that was true, then the charge of nepotism would be valid. But no such charge or allegation was made. So far the allegation was that so many P.A.P. members and so many P.A.P. Assemblymen were appointed to committees and boards. Equally, it was open to the Member for Anson to say that so many non-P.A.P. members were appointed to committees and boards. Both have no point to that. What is the significance to say that so many P.A.P. Assemblymen or members and so many non-P.A.P. members were appointed to this board or that board? In fact, Sir, from what the Member for Anson said yesterday, it is not clear what the allegations are or, what is more important, what precisely the commission of inquiry is supposed to look into.

The Member for Anson then went on to allege that P.A.P. members have been given government jobs in community centres, the Work Brigade, the Ministries and the like, and that the Party imposes a levy on such members. Sir, this again contains no specific allegation but vague charges. Of course, a number of P.A.P. members are in the employ of Government, just as before the P.A.P. Government came into power there were a number of P.A.P. members working in many Government Ministries and other Government bodies. Is the Member for Anson, therefore, suggesting that a man should not be employed in Government service or in the Work Brigade or in the People's Association just because he is a P.A.P. member? The point surely, Sir, is not whether he is or is not a P.A.P. member, hut whether he is qualified to do the job to which he is appointed, and whether the appointment is properly made. Merely to say that there are four P.A.P. members in the Ministry of Culture, as the Member for Anson said yesterday, or that there are so many P.A.P. members in this or that Ministry is not even prima facie proof of nepotism.

Sir, again a great deal has been made by the Member for Anson about the fact that some P.A.P. members who are in Government service are asked to contribute to the Party. As I have said, even before the P.A.P. became the Government, P.A.P. members, whether they are in Government service or elsewhere, have contributed as they like to the Party. Here again, Sir, the Member for Anson has tried to extract some sinister meaning out of all these. There is nothing sinister or unusual about Party sympathisers, whether they are in or out of Government service, making contributions to the Party. For example, Sir, it is a well-known fact that all Ministers and Assemblymen, on this side of the House at least, pay a part of their salaries and allowances to the Party as contributions. Similarly, if we ask members who may be employed in or out of Government to make contributions to the Party, why should the Member for Anson even suggest that this is nepotism?

Sir, even from the figures reeled off by the Member for Anson, as I remarked earlier, they constitute only a small fraction of the total number of employees in Government service. Therefore, the charge of nepotism by saying that a few people in the employ of Government are P.A.P. members is not proof or even prima fade proof. What needs to be proved to make the charge feasible or even reasonable is to show that the appointment was improperly made and that the person is holding a job which he is incapable of performing.

The Member for Anson and the Member for Upper Serangoon did none of these things. They brought no specific allegations for investigation and pronouncement by an inquiry commission. All that the Member for Anson could rely on was a general feeling. In fact, throughout the speeches, the terms were "They say; it is said; and there is a general impression" that these things are going on. Similarly, the Member for Anson used words like "People are saying, and there is an impression that there is political nepotism in the Government." In fact, Sir, to be quite frank, most of this business about "They say and it is said," originates in this Chamber. Allegations are made here that people are saying this and that in the coffee-shops. They are passed on to the newspapers and the next day they come back and say, yes they have heard somebody say that there is talk of political nepotism and that the Government is doing this and that. Very often, they listen to their own echoes and say that this is what the public say. There is no evidence produced that there is definitely such and such a person who is prepared to come forward and say the Government has done this, that or the other thing. All that we have is a vague reference to a possible existence of nepotism in the Government.

Now, Sir, having made these charges from time to time, Members of the Opposition have been given an opportunity to come out with specific facts and make specific allegations, but none of them are prepared to take the opportunity. Again there is vague talk about feelings and impressions. Sir, the Member for Anson wants the inquiry commission to investigate not specific cases and instances of nepotism. This is because neither he nor the Member for Upper Serangoon and the other speakers who have talked since then have been able to pinpoint or crystallise their charges. It is like bringing a man to court on a charge of murder. When the defendant asks, "Yes, but what murder? Who am I supposed to have killed and when and with what?" He is told, "Well, how do we know whom you have killed and when and with what? That is for the Judge to find out. All we are doing is to charge you with murder in general, simply because we hope that the investigation may bring a murder to light." It is up to the defendant to defend himself, if he can, against a general charge. As far as the Opposition are concerned, they are not going to say whether a "murder" has or has not been committed except in a general and vague sense. They have a feeling and impression that something wrong has been done. This reminds me of - in fact, I will recommend the Member for Anson and many of the Opposition Members to read - a well-known novel by the Czech writer, Franz Kafka, called "The Trial."

Mr David Marshall: Have you ever read it?

Mr Rajaratnam: In "The Trial" a man called Joseph Kay came to town and was apprehended. A summons was issued against him that he was supposed to come to court for trial. The novel deals with the whole procedure of the trial that was gone through. The prosecution asked questions. Evidence was produced. But neither the Judge nor the defendant nor the prosecutor knew what the charge was. Yet the whole rigmarole ritual of a trial was gone through. This novel ended with the man suddenly being declared guilty. He was dragged Out. Two warriors came round, stuck a knife in the side of his belly and finished him off. Nobody knew what the charge was - not even the victim himself. The implication is that it was very easy, by just going through the procedure of a trial - the procedure of making allegations which are not specific - to find a man guilty. That is precisely the technique which the Member for Anson and others have adopted. No charges are made. But they say, "Yes, two P.A.P. members here, three P.A.P. members there. Therefore, there might be a charge of nepotism."

Sir, the Member for Anson made another allegation - it was not even an allegation but just a hint of improper political interference with the civil service. Sir, let me say this, that what he, in fact, has been trying to persuade me to do is to interfere with the civil service. He has been writing me letters complaining against the News Section of Radio Singapore and saying that he has been wrongly reported. For the information of the Member for Anson, I am told that yesterday he rang up the Head of the News Section of Radio Singapore saying, "If Radio Singapore in its 10.30 p.m. news reports that the House agreed that the Referendum Bill is to be postponed, I am going to bring up this question in the Assembly."

Mr Speaker: Order. In fact, I have received from the Member for Anson a complaint precisely in those terms which I am investigating, that Radio Singapore was alleged to have said that the Assembly agreed that the National Referendum Bill should be postponed, which, of course, was not the case. The Assembly did not agree. It was a postponement under the Standing Orders. I might as well inform the Assembly that the allegation is that the Member for Anson pointed out that that was a mistake - a false report. But in spite of his pointing out that it was a false report, the News Editor put it on again at 10.30 p.m. So I am investigating that complaint.

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not interested in whether that allegation is true or not. What I am pointing out is that the Member for Anson rings up a civil servant and tells him how he should carry out his work.

Mr David Marshall: On a point of elucidation, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: Would the Minister not consider it only fair to this civil servant that a Member of this Assembly should point out that he is wrong in order to give him an opportunity, knowing that it is coming on again at 10.30 p.m., to correct it? Is that not what he would, in fairness, do himself?

Mr Rajaratnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, that is quite a different proposition. If this charge is specifically made in the inquiry -

Mr David Marshall: It has been made.

Mr Rajaratnam: - then I have letters here - a long correspondence going on between the Member for Anson and myself. I would like to think that my letters, which are signed in black ink, are written in temperate language; whereas the letters of the Member for Anson are written in black ink and signed in green ink. But it gets more acrimonious.

An hon. Member: He is yellow!

Mr Rajaratnam: But the essence of it is this. He has been inviting me to get Radio Singapore to do things his way. He considers that it is not honest and fair reporting. And he rings up -

Mr David Marshall: On a point of elucidation, Sir.

Mr Rajaratnam resumed his seat.

Mr David Marshall: I am obliged to the Minister. Would he agree that he himself and the members of Radio Singapore have told me that they have no power to deal with any complaint - they hake no powers even to give me sight of a copy of their script - and that I must refer all matters to the Minister? Is this not true?

Mr Rajaratnam: It is not only true, but since then I have given instructions to the Head of the News Section that any interference by any Assemblyman who is not authorised to do so should he rejected outright. Just because the Member for Anson was a former Chief Minister, he cannot run Radio Singapore as though it was his preserve. If he wants to make any complaint, it should he properly directed to the Minister, the responsible authority. But nobody has a right to ring up and demand scripts as the Member for Anson has done. The News Section quite rightly says, "You are not entitled to have a look at the scripts. If you want to do so, get to the Minister." Since then I have re-emphasised that any attempt by anybody to intimidate any of the staff of the News Section of Radio Singapore should be ignored.

Mr David Marshall: Including the Minister?

Mr Rajaratnam: We have always said so before that we run the News Section as we like. When the Member for Anson was the Chief Minister, he prevailed upon Radio Singapore to even report him opening small Labour Front branches, which at least, Sir, we have not dared to do. But that is a different proposition altogether, Sir. What I would like to say is this. We have never concealed the fact that Radio Singapore is a Government department. The Minister has a right to lay down policies and to give directives. We have never denied it.

Mr David Marshall: Including distortions.

Mr Rajaratnam: I understand that the charge of distortions is to come up before the Committee of Privileges and I shall have the privilege of quoting the Member's letters and my letters about distortions and other allegations. As a newspaperman, I can tell you that the charge he has made about distortion and unfair reporting has not two legs or even one leg to stand on.

Sir, on the charge by the Member for Anson about improper political interference, the only instance he brought up was Radio Singapore, in addition to intimidating some of the members of the News Section by saying, "If you do not do this, I am going to bring this up before the proper authorities." Apart from doing and saying that, he has not brought up a single instance of improper political interference.

Therefore, as far as I can see, none of the Opposition Members who have spoken on this motion on political nepotism have a single bit of evidence. What they hope for is to let loose a Commission of Inquiry with no particular directives. They do not know what to look for but they hope that they might eventually tumble on to something. If they stumble on one case of nepotism or of political irregularity, they are lucky. But if they do not, it is too bad. One High Court Judge has spent a couple of years hoping to unearth a piece of evidence about political nepotism or improper political interference. I am not a lawyer, Sir, but I have enough respect for the Judge sitting on a Commission of Inquiry to tell him, "Well, all we can tell you is that there is coffee-shop talk of nepotism. We cannot even tell you which coffee-shop it is. Would you please investigate? If you manage to get to the right coffee-shop, good luck to you; but if you do not, it is just too bad."

Sir, if that is the kind of Commission of Inquiry the Members of the Opposition are proposing, then I say that they are neither showing great respect for the Commission of Inquiry nor for the unfortunate gentleman who has to go around groping in the dark in the hope of unearthing something which might provide the Opposition with ammunition against the Government. But at the moment, there is nothing concrete. In fact, Sir, if you look up the newspaper reports on this - I am told the newspapers were looking forward with great glee to awful disclosures along the lines of Maria Monk to enable them to sell at least another five or ten thousand copies but they were very disappointed - the whole debate was limited to half a page. In fact, I can assure the Member for Anson - just before he starts blurting out that I had a conference yesterday, and I told the newspapers to keep it to half a page - that there is nothing worth reporting. As far as scandalous news is concerned, the newspapers are ready to print all the news that is fit to print. But as far as this motion on political nepotism is concerned, the tough cynical and hard-faced newsmen have been disappointed. They had been looking forward to the Member for Anson and his colleague, the Member for Upper Serangoon, to provide them with enough disclosures to titillate their breakfast readers.

I hope the Member for Anson, who is obviously bursting to say it out "in green ink", will at least, before he winds up, produce some concrete evidence of nepotism or irregularity.

Mr Ong Eng Guan (Hong Lim): Mr Speaker, Sir, today there are more grave and more pressing problems facing us. Two of them are firstly the question of automatic citizenship in the Government's merger proposals, and secondly the grave economic crisis into which this country has been plunged, including the aggravated unemployment situation.

Sir, we feel the Government should pay more attention to these problems and that we, in the Opposition, should press the Government for a proper solution.

Sir, we have experienced and we have seen in the past that reports of Commissions do not make an impact on the public. Neither do they have much value. They are not much noticed by the public. Neither do they help to sway the course of political events in Singapore. Sir, in addition to that, the cost, time and labour taken, and the efforts which the Government, Members of the Assembly and the civil service have to spend on Commissions of Inquiry do not warrant this Commission of Inquiry at this juncture in Singapore's political history. Therefore, we are not supporting the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry.

Sir, if this Commission of Inquiry sits, it will only help the Government to divert the attention of the public from the real and pressing issues which are facing us - namely, the question of automatic citizenship in the merger proposals and the present economic position.

Sir, we are therefore abstaining from both the amendment and the motion itself.

Mr Speaker: No other Member wishes to speak? Mr Marshall, in reply.

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is with deep regret that I heard the Member for Hong Lim from the Opposition Bench. I have learnt to expect neither understanding nor justice. We knock our heads and keep knocking our heads because it is our duty to try. Now and then we suceed in inflicting punishment which makes them tremble, even in minor matters which happened yesterday, but I have no real hope of converting people, like the Minister for Culture, who have displayed quite clearly that they speak the English language but they either do not understand it or they have no ear for truth that is unpleasant, to consciences that have gone dead. But the Member for Hong Lim, in talking about an economic crisis at a period of dynamic economic expansion, and that this House should not concern itself with matters affecting the very fundamental of the administration of a country, its civil service -

Mr Ong Eng Guan: Point of explanation, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

Mr Ong Eng Guan: In my speech I did not say this House should not concern itself with the running of the government. I said a Commission of Inquiry, appointed to go into matters which can be solved either at Question Time or by a motion in this House, will not only take days and weeks, but much money and effort will have to be spent.

Mr David Marshall: It takes centuries to build a civil service of integrity and efficiency. And no amount of effort and no amount of money at any time is too much to guarantee an honest civil service without which no politician, however able he may think he is, could possibly govern. It was and it is the intention of this motion not so much to seek to punish. You have seen, Sir, that we have sought to discuss it with restraint and this has been made the subject of jibes. It was not my intention to provide bits for breakfast tables. It is not even my intention to administer vengefully the odium of public opinion upon those on the opposite Benches. For let them know that there are few people in Singapore who would not want to wear a gas mask when they see a P.A.P. Minister walking by.

Sir, it was my intention and it is my hope that the gravity of the charges should be adequately recognised. The question is to protect the civil service from the continuance and the perpetuation of an evil tradition which undermines the entire basis of government. To give you an example of the incapacity of this Government to hear, and a pathological urge to vary, I would ask you to remember what you heard in this very debate. Last night I heard what I believe to be a false report by Radio Singapore. I immediately pointed this out to the News Editor and said, "This is wrong. If you don't correct it, I will have to report it." That is transformed, Sir, into intimidation by a former Chief Minister throwing his weight, not an effort by a citizen and an Assemblyman to give an opportunity to Radio Singapore to correct a grievous error, because it was going on the air again at 10.30 p.m., and to avoid the need for referring the matter to Select Committee. That is the way their mentality works, Mr Speaker. Again it was said, "Do you want us to go to the telephone directory? Are we not allowed to appoint P.A.P. members?" Mr Speaker, be indulgent for a few moments whilst I repeat myself to show you to what extent they are incapable of hearing.

I want to make it quite clear - this was my speech, Sir, in moving it - it is not my suggestion that the Government should not appoint a member of its Party to public office because he is a member of the Party. Quite naturally, it can and does happen that a member of a political Party in office is, by virtue of his own merit, worthy of appointment to 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 conduct. But what I do say, Sir, is that the numbers involved are of a character which legitimately raise a query as to whether, in fact, some appointments were made not merely on merit but took into consideration 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.

Sir, the extraordinarily revealing thing in the debate is that the Deputy Prime Minister himself admitted the charge. He has said to us, "It is our duty as a Government to control these statutory bodies." This is indeed, Mr Speaker, an extraordinary admission, an admission made out of ignorance of the constitutional position. I am, in fact, charging the P.A.P. with seeking control of public bodies for party ends. Is he not aware, Mr Speaker, that the very reason for separating statutory bodies from the Government machinery is that they should be free from political control and political interference? Take a case in point, Mr Speaker. The Deputy Prime Minister sneeringly said, "Does the Member for Anson expect us to appoint him to the Income Tax Board of Review?" (Laughter] "Ha, ha, ha!" And why should I not be if I had an adequate knowledge of income tax? Would the fact that I am a Member of the Opposition and have this strong repugnance for gibbering gibbons, affect my judgment in deciding the justice of a claim by the Comptroller of Income Tax or by the taxpayer? If that is what he has suggested, then he in fact admits, Sir, that he has his own men in in order that their judgment should be prejudiced, and affected by their political affiliation. Because that is the total idea.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Were you in the -

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the Leader of the House knows the Standing Orders. If he wishes to intervene, all he has to do is to stand up and I am sure the Member for Anson will give way.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Sir, I have always been -

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker -

Mr Speaker: Order. Will the Member for Anson take his seat? The Deputy Prime Minister has risen on a matter of elucidation. I do not know whether the Member for Anson will give way.

Mr David Marshall: No, Sir.

Mr Speaker: All right. Will the Deputy Prime Minister sit down?

Mr David Marshall: He must expect no more courtesy than he gives.

The Deputy Prime Minister says, "Does the Member for Anson expect to be appointed to the Housing Board?" And why not, Mr Speaker? Do I want housing any less than they do? If I had the qualifications, if I had the knowledge, if I had the ability to be of service to the Housing Board? Does the fact that I belong to an Opposition Party make it impossible so to appoint me? Sir, the very sneer, if analysed, indicates the basis of their thinking - that a member of a political Party on a statutory board must necessarily be biased and seek political interference in the justice or otherwise of what that Board seeks to do. And I want to make it clear, Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope that there is no impression in anybody's mind that I seek to be appointed to any statutory board by this Government.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: You have no chance.

Mr David Marshall: I am so glad.

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Point of elucidation, Sir.

Mr Speaker: If the Member will give way.

Mr David Marshall resumed his seat.

Mr Byrne: There is a vacancy on the Woodbridge Hospital Board. Does the Member for Anson want to be a member of that Board? [Laughter]

Mr David Marshall: Mr Speaker, Sir - [Laughter]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr David Marshall: I grant courtesy and I receive porcine insults. I shall remember it.

Sir, the position is this, according to the Deputy Prime Minister - that it is the duty of the P.A.P. to appoint to statutory boards those who would boot-lick the Prime Minister and wag their tails in every P.A.P. board in order that they should have control of all aspects of Singapore life. That is what I am charging.

Mr Speaker, I am impressed, genuinely impressed, by the cold, contained fear emanating from the Front Bench since yesterday when we started on this motion, and the puzzled sighs of relief that we have not been flinging chunks of mud but instead have been dealing with principles. I can understand they are more at home with mud. I can understand they expect a lot of mud because I have no doubt they have many skeletons in their cupboard and they anticipate I have information of some of them. It is their guilty conscience which sighs with relief and which crows. But let us again recognise the aim of this motion is not to fling mud. It is to seek the protection of statutory bodies and the civil service from interference by men - who call themselves men -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Like the Member for Anson.

Mr David Marshall: The charges have been made and I am indeed grateful to the Member for Farrer Park - I do not know if he is present - for the lucid and fair manner in which he expressed what I sought to say to this House: the place for the specific allegations is the tribunal and is the Commission of Inquiry. The Member for Farrer Park drew attention to the most curious feature of the Government's fears which were put into words by the Prime Minister when he said, "Are we going to allow the civil service to bellyache to the Judge? "Bellyache". Mr Speaker, why this word "bellyache"? There is an arrogant tendency on the part of the Front Bench to denigrate their civil service and particularly on the part of the Prime Minister. That word "bellyache", I remember, being first used in this House -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: By the Member for Anson.

Mr David Marshall: Never. That is a complete inaccuracy. As you can well know, Mr Speaker, you have been here all the time. I read of this word "bellyache" by the Prime Minister when he termed the complaint of the civil service about the ruthless, unwarranted and unheralded paycut as a bellyache. Now, it is "bellyache" if they complain to the Judge who chairs the tribunal. The very words of the Prime Minister are indicative of my charge that the civil service is being intimidated, and improperly intimidated, by these men of the day.

Mr Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister asked whether checking civil service inefficiency is interference. How very clever! Did anybody suggest it? No, Sir. But if they cannot knock down honest arguments, they put up their own specious and fallacious arguments, and knock down their own skittles to the amusement of their own mates. Mr Speaker, what we do say is that there is a constitutional procedure of which the Minister for Culture seems to know little; a constitutional procedure whereby and only whereby, the civil service should be checked. We are against P.A.P. thuggery being employed by any future Party in office. We want to protect the Civil Service from the P.A.P. type of thuggery. Again, Mr Speaker, the extraordinary pathological arrogance of the P.A.P. is transparent in the Deputy Prime Minister's remark that the Government cannot have retired civil servants on a Commission because that would be asking former civil servants to judge the present Government. What extraordinary pride! What fantastic ego! Mr Speaker, all I can say is that, for us normal human beings, we watch with amazement things like that being confessed to publicly before the Press. Is it not recognised by this Government that amongst our former civil servants are men of integrity, men of training, men who have dedicated their life-time to the service of the State, men from whom you can obtain not only a just decision but who, having been in the civil service, can understand where the shoe pinches and can understand how to recommend the protection of the civil service and the maintenance of its integrity? No, Sir. "We, the P.A.P., can never be judged by anybody who is a mere civil servant retired." That is the mental approach of the so-called socialists of the Front Bench. This contempt for the civil service, this arrogant superiority on the part of the Government to the civil service is something that no Member of this House not blinded by party affiliation like the Minister for Culture could ever tolerate.

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Mr Speaker, in a point of elucidation.

Mr David Marshall: No, Sir.

Mr Speaker: No.

Mr David Marshall: You have seen what has happened to me by granting courtesies. I learn by my mistakes. I was saying, Sir, that one other feeble and pathetic excuse made for refusing to give us two civil servants on the Commission is that the public might think they are biased in favour of the Government. That is funny, Sir, because they know as well as I know, as well as everybody in Singapore knows, that the contempt for the P.A.P. on the part of the civil service could not be greater. It is only their loyalty, their sense of discipline and their dedication -

Dr Toh Chin Chye: Hear, hear!

Mr David Marshall: - which has prevented them from bringing into the open their dissatisfaction and their unhappiness, except those who have resigned and now keep silent in dignity. I urge this House to recognise that even more important - in fact, the reason for ascertaining whether there is, and to what extent there is, political nepotism and to what extent there is political interference - is to know how to prevent it in the future.

Sir, it is very difficult for a man in this Assembly, having made a stand, to change his mind, although constitutionally the democratic process is intended to give an opportunity for logic, reason, good sense and persuasion to attempt to vary existing attitudes. I do appeal to the members of the United People's Party to recognise that, despite any personal experience, and in fact because of the leader's personal experience, a Commission of Inquiry does a great deal of good in clearing the air and in helping the people -

The Prime Minister: Hear, hear!

Mr David Marshall: - to a recognition of the reality. There is tremendous value in a Commission of Inquiry. The money spent and the energy that goes into it is well worth while when the topic is of major importance to the welfare of this country. This Commission of Inquiry is sought not in a punitive spirit, as the one that was sought against the Member for Hong Lim. It is sought in the spirit of seeking an improvement of our ad, ministration and the protection of our civil service not only from this Government but from any other government that seeks to use these methods. I do earnestly appeal to them. Their vote does count; their vote is vital; to recognise that they hold the balance in this matter, and it is important for us that at least on this subject we should have -

Mr Byrne: Who is the mover?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr David Marshall: It is curious, Mr Speaker, again and again we have this superficial levity in matters of gravity, for this is a matter of gravity, allegedly accepted by the Deputy Prime Minister who puts in an inept amendment which, in fact, seeks to limit the scope of the inquiry only to matters that have been specifically aired in this Assembly. Sir. let us recognise again what the Member for Farrer Park has tried to explain - that the people of Singapore are the people who will know what has happened to them. The civil servants particularly, of whom there are none present here today, and the members of the statutory boards, should have an opportunity to make complaints to this tribunal. The Prime Minister says, "We are not afraid of any Commission any time anywhere."

The Prime Minister: Sure.

Mr David Marshall: But then why not let us have this Commission without the absurd limitations that this amendment seeks to have? Any Commission! Let us implement that proud boast.

The Prime Minister: Make the charges.

Mr David Marshall: We are asking for this Commission, Mr Speaker, Sir. My charge is that it is my firm belief that there is political nepotism. It is my firm belief, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there has been improper interference by this Party amongst the civil servants.

The Prime Minister: Such as?

Mr David Marshall: I am so sorry, Mr Speaker. They want particularisation. They want me to have the knowledge of all the people. I tell you, Sir, that the people should have the opportunity. I ask every Member of the Opposition to recognise that it is our duty to give the people this opportunity to make their complaints in the appropriate place.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Government finds itself cornered and the heat is on, "We will have any Commission any place, any time."

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr David Marshall: And then when you pin them down, the "any time", Mr Speaker, turns out, according to the Prime Minister, to be the never, never time of the indefinite, nebulous future, if and when the Government finds itself a Judge. That is the "any time" of the Prime Minister. Let me say this, Mr Speaker, Sir. There is power in this Government to appoint acting Judges. And there are able men in the State Advocate-General's Department and at the Bar who could well fill that function. I say, let us appoint acting Judges to the High Court and use existing Judges for the number of Commissions that we require in order to facilitate the business of this House.

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

Mr David Marshall remained standing.

The Prime Minister: A very serious suggestion has been made -

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must not intervene like this. He knows it is against the Standing Orders. Mr Marshall.

An hon. Member: Afraid!

Mr David Marshall: Somebody says I am afraid, Mr Speaker. I hope he will have the courage to stand up. I will make way for him to repeat that remark. No. One coward! Mr Speaker, I will end.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr Speaker: Point of order.

The Prime Minister: Would it be discourteous to this House, if I am prevented from speaking on a very serious matter of elucidation, to have to repeat it outside because I was prevented from saying it in this House? It has been suggested that I should appoint -

Mr Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. Mr Marshall.

Mr David Marshall: I am much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Prime Minister was not present, Sir, and that is the reason we should excuse him for seeking clarification. He was not present to see the treatment I received at the hands of his Ministers and colleagues. [Laughter] Ah, a matter for amusement! I shall remember that too. Let us end. It is not a question of personalities. It is not even a question of condemnation of this Government that I seek. I seek an impartial tribunal with retired civil servants who know from their own traditions how to protect the civil service for the welfare of Singapore, to protect them from improper political interference and to protect statutory bodies from the type of conduct to which the Deputy Prime Minister has admitted.

7.30 p.m.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr David Marshall: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 20; Abstentions, 3; Absent, 3. Ayes. Noes. Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Abdul Hamid bin Haji Jumat. Buang bin Ahmad Jabri bin Omar Junid. Mohammad Akib. Byrne, K. M. Bani, S. T. Chan Chee Seng. Chan Sun Wing. Chor Yeok Eng. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Goh Chew Chua. Lee Siew Choh. Goh Keng Swee. Leong Keng Seng. Hoe Puay Choo, Lim Yew Hock. Madam. Lin You Eng. Kandasamy, G. Low For Tuck. Lee Khoon Choy. Marshall, David. Lee Kuan Yew. Ong Chang Sam. Lee Teck Him. Rajah, A. P. Lim Cheng Lock. Mammen, John. Ayes-cont. Noes-cont. Mohd. Ariff bin Seow Peck Leng, Suradi. Mrs M. Ismail Rahim. Sheng Nam Chin. Ong Pang Boon. Tan Cheng Tong. Rajaratnam, S. Tee Kim Leng. Ramaswamy, S. Teo Hock Guan. Sahorah binte Thio Chart Bee. Ahmat, Madam. Wong Soon Fong. Tan Kia Gan. Toh Chin Chye. Abstentions. Wee Toon Boon. Lingam, S. V. Yaacob bin Mohamed. Ng Teng Kian. Yong Nyuk Lin. Ong Eng Guan. Absent. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Koh, C. H. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, "That the words proposed to be inserted, be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment accordingly agreed to.

Original Question, as amended, put.

Mr Bani: Division, Sir.

The House divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 13; Abstentions, 10; Absent, 3. Ayes Noes Ahmad bin Ibrahim. Bani, S. T. Buang bin Omar Chan Sun Wing Junid. Fung Yin Ching, Miss. Byrne, K. M. Lee Siew Choh. Chan Chee Seng. Leong Keng Seng. Chor Yeok Eng. Lin You Eng. Goh Chew Chua. Low For Tuck. Goh Keng Swee. Ong Chang Sam. Hoe Puay Choo, Sheng Nam Chin. Madam. Tan Cheng Tong. Kandasamy, G. Tee Kim Leng. Lee Khoon Choy. Teo Hock Guan. Lee Kuan Yew. Wong Soon Fong. Lee Teck Him. Lim Cheng Lock. Mammen, John. Abstentions. Mohd. Ariff bin Abdul Hamid bin Suradi. Haji Jumat. M. Ismail Rahim. Ahmad Jabri bin Ong Pang Boon. Mohammad Akib. Rajaratnam, S. Lim Yew Hock. Ramaswamy, S. Lingam, S. V. Sahorah binte Marshall, David. Ahmat, Madam. Ng Teng Kian. Tan Kia Gan. Ong Eng Guan Toh Chin Chye. Rajah, A. P. Wee Toon Boon. Seow Peck Leng, Mrs Yaacob bin Mohamed. Thio Chan Bee. Yong Nyuk Lin. Absent. Chan Choy Siong, Madam. Koh, C. H. Mohd. Ali bin Alwi

Original Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Assembly calls upon the Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry 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.