MR PHEY YEW KOK (Steps to secure return to Singapore to stand trial)

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will outline all steps that have been taken to obtain or secure the return to this country of Mr Phey Yew Kok former President of the National Trades Union Congress to stand trial upon the charges instituted against him and on which he jumped bail.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Mr Speaker, Sir, Phey Yew Kok was charged in court on 10th December, 1979 on four counts of criminal breach of trust (CBT) and two counts under the Trade Unions Act. He was allowed bail. When the case was brought up for mention on 7th January, 1980, he failed to appear in Court. The bail of $50,000 and $45,000 respectively of the two bailors were estreated by the Court.

Phey Yew Kok was required to call at the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) on 2nd January, 1980. When he failed to do so, CPIB officers visited his house and spoke to his wife. She claimed that she did not know where he was. At the same time, CPIB officers also kept observation outside the office of his lawyers but could not locate him. They also called on union members who were close to him to question them on his whereabouts but they could not assist. On 7th January, 1980, when he failed to appear in Court, the Police were alerted to look out for his car. On the same day the car was sighted in the car park in front of Hotel Equatorial.

Subsequent investigations carried out by CPIB revealed that Phey Yew Kok had left Singapore for Kuala Lumpur by train on 31st December, 1979. From there he went to Bangkok where he disappeared. CPIB had contacted the Thai Police authorities for assistance to locate his whereabouts. However, the Thai Police authorities subsequently reported that they could not trace him.

Immediately after he jumped bail, a warrant for his arrest was issued. CPIB also made an immediate appeal in the local newspapers for information on Phey Yew Kok's whereabouts.

Interpol Headquarters was alerted and it notified all Interpol countries to arrest Phey Yew Kok. Should he be arrested in a country which has an extradition treaty with Singapore, his extradition will be sought.

The Immigration Department also cancelled both his International Passport and his Restricted Passport for travel to West Malaysia. All Immigration checkpoints have been told to seize his passport and refer him to CPIB if he were to pass through any checkpoint. Our overseas missions have also been informed of the cancellation of his passports and were instructed not to issue any passport to him. They are to immediately inform the Immigration Department if he tries to apply for one.

His present whereabouts are unknown.

When Phey Yew Kok eventually returns to Singapore, as he must if he wants to be with his wife and family again, he will have to face the charges against him. Each day he remains a fugitive, is a day of punishment, without it being considered part of the period for remission of any prison sentence he might have received. The Police had not expected him to consider it worth his while to jump bail and be a fugitive for the charges that had been brought. They made an error of judgment in not removing his International and Restricted Passports. It could well be that Phey Yew Kok made a greater error in deciding to jump bail. The question is: does he want to live as a fugitive, on the run and subject to extortion and blackmail for the rest of his miserable life? Or is it not better, like Wee Toon Boon, to face the courts, accept any punishment due, and rebuild his life?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has said that it was an error of judgment in not taking away Mr Phey Yew Kok's passport. Would the Minister say whose error of judgment it was and whether he had asked for any explanation from this man who made the error of judgment as to how he fell into this error of judgment?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, as a lawyer, the Member for Anson should know that it is not as of right that you can ask for the retention of a passport of a person who has been granted bail. It is a matter for the discretion of the Court whether to allow retention of the passport, and it is not normally given.

As to the specific question whether the police officer concerned has made an error of judgment, yes, he has made an error of judgment. Of course, in his opinion it was unlikely that a person of Mr Phey's position would jump bail. It is not something which you can blame the police officer in this case. As I have said, it is not normal to ask to impound the passport of a person who is granted bail.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether my supplementary question should be directed to the Minister or to the Member for Anson, but is it not right to say that there had been others who jumped bail even when their passports had been seized? In other words, there are other means of running away from Singapore.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is yes, there are also other means by which a person can jump bail even without a passport.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Mr Speaker, Sir, with the benefit of hindsight, it can now be said that there has been an error of judgment. But could I ask the Minister, or perhaps the Member for Anson, that without the benefit of hindsight, was it not quite natural for the officer to consider that it would not be necessary to impound his passport in view of the kind of offence that Phey Yew Kok was charged? My point is that Phey Yew Kok was an honourable Member of this House, and at that point of time the officer made a judgment which, I think, was quite fair. I am asking whether at that point of time that judgment was, in fact, an error of judgment. Of course, now on looking back and with the benefit of hindsight, it was an error of judgment. But who expected Phey Yew Kok to do that, and who expects any honourable Member in this House to do that?

The Second Deputy Prime Minister (Foreign Affairs) (Mr S. Rajaratnam): I can think of one!

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not go around punishing police officers for making an error of judgment. We only punish them if there is negligence on their part. I can assure the Member that there was no negligence on his part, civil or criminal negligence.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, is the Minister not aware that the first thing that the CPIB officers do is to impound passports of persons into whose crimes they are inquiring? I know this, Mr Speaker, from the cases that I have handled, that the first thing the CPIB do is to impound the passport. Would the Minister say whether the officer had asked for directions from the DPP or any other authority before he decided not to make an application to impound Mr Phey Yew Kok's passport?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, before I answer that question I want a clarification from the Member for Anson. What does he mean by saying that before the officer decided not to impound the pass- port of Phey Yew Kok, did he ask for directions from the DPP? As a lawyer, he should know that an officer must complete his investigations before he can consult the DPP. I do not know what the Member means by saying that as soon as a person appears before a CPIB officer, in the course of questioning, his passport is impounded. At that stage, how can the officer ask the DPP whether he should impound the passport? At what stage is the Member referring to?

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I answer that question, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Minister talks about impounding of passports after completion of investigations. Mr Phey Yew Kok was produced in court. I should have thought that all investigations were completed by the time he was produced in court. Why was there not an application made to the court to impound his passport? And if the CPIB officer or police officer decided that no application was necessary, did he seek the directions of any superior officer, either from the Attorney-General's Chambers or someone higher up in the police force? Because speaking from my own experience, invariably the CPIB seize passports and this had been a departure from the normal practice.

Mr Rajaratnam: A point of clarification, Sir. I am not speaking from any experience. In view of the sneaky proposal that the Member put earlier to the Prime Minister that the charges against Phey Yew Kok should be dropped, is he really serious in pursuing this particular question?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Now the Member's question is clear, and that is whether the officer did ask for directions to impound or not to impound the passport of Phey Yew Kok after he was charged in court. The answer is: yes, he did. The point is this. As I have said just now, it is not normal for the court to impound the passport of a person who has been granted bail and in their opinion, it is not necessary in view of the position of Phey Yew Kok. It may be an error of judgment but it is certainly not negligence on their part.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has said that the officer did ask for directions. May we know who he asked for directions from?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: He asked directions from the DPP.