LOSS OF TRADE UNION FUNDS (Call for Commission of Inquiry)

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Prime Minister if he will recommend to the President the appointment of a Commission with all necessary terms of reference to inquire fully into the loss of monies belonging to members of Trade Unions between the years 1975 and 1979 and to report in as full a manner as is possible in all the circumstances inter alia on (i) the total of all monies lost; (ii) the manner in which or how the monies were taken or lost; (iii) whether all recognized accounting practices and audit procedures had been followed in the keeping of the accounts; (iv) whether any officers in the member Trade Unions or the National Trades Union Congress should be held accountable for the loss/defalcation because of any failure on their part to take corrective measures to prevent any loss of monies and if so what action should be taken against them; and (v) the circumstances in which the former President of the N.T.U.C. Mr Phey Yew Kok was enabled to leave the country after he had been charged in the courts.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot recommend to the President the approval of a Commission to inquire into the matters set out in the question. It is a long question, with five limbs. They cover the six charges standing against Phey Yew Kok in the Criminal District Court - four for criminal breach of trust and two for contravention of the Trade Unions Act. There is a warrant out for his arrest for not answering to bail. I find it difficult to believe that as a lawyer, the Member for Anson is ignorant of the legal improprieties implicit in his suggestion that a Commission of Inquiry to investigate matters which, inter alia, must form part of the evidence on which these charges will rest.

As long as there are reasonable prospects of bringing Phey Yew Kok to trial, nothing should be done which can be said to jeopardise the process of law. The Member for Anson is inviting me to investigate the facts, or to appoint a Commission to investigate the facts, of a criminal case which is sub judice when, in his own civil suit, pending on appeal to the Privy Council, he took immediate objection to a completely neutral reference I made in this House to the implications of the outcome for him, without touching on the merits of his appeal. However, not to be the Government's own legal officer, I asked for the opinion of the Attorney-General. In a written opinion, he has advised against the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. I have made copies (Cols. 465 - 472) and handed them to the Clerk of Parliament for circulation to Honourable Members. copies - OPINION (Cols. 465 - 472)

Notwithstanding this, I can state that investigations made by the CPIB disclose that altogether $698,862.68 of monies belonging to SILO, PIEU and the NTUC Travel Services (Pte) Ltd, are unaccounted for. These investigations are not closed. I must add that there were no allegations, nor is there any evidence, of missing or unaccounted funds in the NTUC. There were CBT offences committed on monies belonging to the NTUC Travel Services (Pte) Ltd. This is a private limited company, totally separate from the NTUC.

Out of the CPIB investigations, ten other persons besides Phey Yew Kok were charged - nine convicted, one acquitted. I have made out a list of these persons, marked Annex 2, (Cols. 473 - 480) and handed it to the Clerk for Honourable Members. From the list, Members will see that three were officers of the trade unions SILO/PIEU, three were employees of SILO Multi-Purpose Co-operative Society Ltd, one the general manager of NTUC Travel Services (Pte) Ltd, one a public accountant (No. 10 in Annex 2), and one a Director of Savewell Supermarket (Pte) Ltd (No. 4 in Annex 2). Their charges, brief facts and the results are as set out in Annex 2. One (No. 3 in Annex 2) was acquitted. One (No. 11 in Annex 2) had been dealt with internally by PIEU and dismissed on 10th January 1978. The Attorney-General had advised against prosecution in Case No. 11. Annex 2 (Cols. 473 - 480)

As monies misappropriated have been traced and found to have been used as part of the purchase price of a house at 53B Lorong Ong Lye, now in the name of Madam Wong Chui Ping (Mrs Phey Yew Kok), a caveat has been entered against this property. Briefly, no wrong-doing has been covered-up, nor has any wrong-doer been let-off, as the question has sought to imply. If the Member for Anson wants to, there can be an inquiry on whether there has been a cover-up. But the inquiry cannot cover the evidence on which the charges against Phey Yew Kok are founded.

The Minister for Home Affairs will provide the answer in Question No. 10 on what happened to Phey Yew Kok.

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indebted to the Prime Minister for the lengthy statement. As I understand it, it would be contempt of court to inquire into it while proceedings are pending before a criminal court, but the trial has not begun as yet. It is, in m view, always open to the prosecution to withdraw for the moment the charge against Mr Phey Yew Kok and that he be discharged not amounting to an acquittal and then an inquiry held, and when Mr Phey Yew Kok is apprehended and brought into this country he can be freshly put on trial on those charges. Would the Prime Minister like to consider that?

The Prime Minister: I am asked, if I may state what the Member for Anson has suggested, to do the following: Get the Attorney-General to enter nolle prosequi or to withdraw the charges which -

Mr Jeyaretnam: A discharge not amounting to an acquittal.

The Prime Minister: There are two steps the Attorney-General can take - enter a nolle prosequi or withdraw the charges. Which does he propose the Attorney-General should do?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not suggesting that there should be a nolle prosequi entered. From my own experience it has very often been the case that the Prosecution - where a witness is absent or is not available to give evidence - consent to the accused being discharged, such discharge not amounting to an acquittal, and then the case is again brought up when the witnesses are found. That is my experience in the courts.

The Prime Minister: We are asked now to get the Attorney-General to withdraw the charges not amounting to an acquittal. The warrant for his arrest will then be automatically treated as lapsed, because there are no charges pending.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Warrants can be applied for again on those charges immediately after that, and it often happens that warrants are applied far from the courts and issued even when persons are out of the country.

The Prime Minister: As I understand it, I am now being asked to suggest to the Attorney-General to go into an elaborate subterfuge. In other words, the Member for Anson, in putting his question which is really to create a smear that there has been a cover-up, knew that he was suggesting something improper and had come prepared for an answer that this was being thwarted because it is sub judice, and therefore he proposes that we withdraw the charge; warrant will lapse; commission of inquiry is held, Phey Yew Kok's trial in effect is held by the commission of inquiry; all the issues involved are prejudged; the commission reports, charges are then reintroduced; warrants for arrest are reissued. Is that what is being seriously suggested - that a government should require its Attorney-General to do because a Member of the Opposition wants to satisfy his curiosity?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not attempting smears. I would ask the Prime Minister not to impute too readily motives to the Opposition Member. The terms of inquiry of the commission can be drafted in such a way as to exclude any inquiry as to the guilt or otherwise of Mr Phey Yew Kok. The inquiry can be directed as to how - I have set out some of the matters on which the inquiry can be conducted, and that is whether accounting and correct accounting and audit practices, procedures, had been followed and whether anybody else was aware of the manner in which these moneys were being taken from the amounts held by these unions.

The Prime Minister: The commission of inquiry was supposed to have terms of reference which would cover the question set out: to report in as full a manner as possible in all the circumstances, interalia, on (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v). This has been spelt out. I am suggesting to the Member that he must know that this is improper. It must cover the grounds on which the evidence against Phey Yew Kok rest, including the system by which he siphoned off the money. How can we have this elaborate deception of withdrawing the charge, allowing the warrants for arrest to lapse, have a Commission of Inquiry, find out how it was that monies were siphoned off, and then re-institute the charges? If the Member for Anson wants Mr Phey Yew Kok to have a good defence, that is exactly what he would do. He could then turn up and get the Member for Anson, or indeed any other lawyer in town, to go to court and say that a fair trial has been prejudiced.

Surely I am offering the Member, and perhaps he was not listening to me carefully, what he really wants to know is whether there has been a cover-up, whether anybody has been let off. I am prepared to have such a commission without touching the evidence against Phey Yew Kok because such an inquiry will be a credit to the Government. It will show how thoroughly and impartially an investigation was conducted against a very senior and close associate of several Ministers in the Government and of the President, and how it was relentlessly pursued until no evidence was left unturned and that he was not allowed to get away and abscond because the Government was afraid it would open up more horrendous skeletons in the cupboard. That is what I am offering, but without touching the evidence against Phey Yew Kok. Are you wanting that inquiry because I am quite happy to have it?

Mr Jeyaretnam: If the Prime Minister will let me know the terms of reference of this commission that he proposes to appoint, then I will answer him?

The Prime Minister: I am offering the Member a commission to investigate any alleged cover-up. He is alleging the cover up. Write it out without touching on the facts relating to Phey Yew Kok's charges, and he will have his commission.

The Second Deputy Prime Minister (Foreign Affairs) (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Why don't you write to London?

Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, are you asking a supplementary question?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am replying to the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker: You should put a supplementary question, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Prime Minister then refer the terms to me on which he proposes to appoint a commission? I will then answer him.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I know that he is at a loss for words. Take his time, compose himself, compose his thoughts, come back with the question at an appropriate time with an appropriate set of words which will exorcize the suspicions he has of any cover-up. Frame it in such a way that it does not touch upon the charges on which Phey Yew Kok has been brought to trial.