BREACH OF PRIVILEGE

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise on a point of order for I would like to raise a point of order concerning a breach of privilege under section 31 of the Parliamentary (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, 1962, and Standing Order 62. Section 31 provides that:

'A Member shall not in or before Parliament or any committee take part in the discussion of any matter in which he has a direct personal pecuniary interest without disclosing the extent of that interest and shall not in any circumstances vote upon any such matter.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Sitting last Friday on the debate on the Estimates of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Member for Anson moved a motion:

'That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by the whole sum in respect of Subhead 01-02 of the Main Estimates.' relating to Drug Enforcement. He also voted on it. When speaking on the motion, the Member for Anson alleged inadequate safeguards when detaining drug addicts in the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) and maintained that an innocent person could be incarcerated up to 36 months. He alleged that there was a serious possibility of error on the part of the DRC doctor in making his diagnosis. He also said that he had received complaints of wrongful detention.

The Member for Anson cited a case of a person who had undergone such a medical examination. He read out the report of the doctor on his finding of definite withdrawal symptoms consistent with heroin addiction. The doctor had reached the conclusion after observing the person for three days, for five minutes on each occasion. The Member also read another report, this time by a private practitioner who commented that the DRC doctor's report did not set out what the symptoms were and, in the view of this doctor, withdrawal symptoms were not conclusive and should be supplemented by other tests.

At that time, although these particulars brought up by the Member for Anson sounded familiar because I had read the papers relating to two cases where the Member for Anson had acted as an advocate and solicitor outside on behalf of five persons on writs of habeas corpus in the High Court by way of Originating Motions for the release of the five drug addicts detained in the DRC, on Friday I was not sure that these particulars related to these two cases which the Member for Anson acted as a lawyer.

After the Sitting on Friday, I went back to the Ministry of Home Affairs to check the files, and I found out that, indeed, the documents were related to the two cases involving five different persons. I now tender affidavits of the DRC doctor as well as of the private practitioner employed by the Member for Anson's clients in these two cases involving five different persons. [Copies of Affidavits handed in to the Clerk.]

The first case is Originating Motion 47 of 1980 and Originating Motion 48 of 1980 involving two inmates. The second case was a case which went to three Judges of the High Court, Originating Motions 67 of 1980, 68 of 1980 and 69 of 1980. In the first case involving two inmates, the action was successful. In the second case involving three inmates which went before the High Court of three Judges, the case was unsuccessful and the Judge in the first case mention was overruled.

This being the case, the Member for Anson had, in fact, raised the matter in this House in which he had a direct personal pecuniary interest without first disclosing it to the House. The Member for Anson owes this House an explanation why he did not do so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at this stage, before I go further with my point of order, the Member for Anson perhaps should be asked to explain why he had not disclosed his pecuniary interest.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, do you like to say anything?

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, you will recall that I saw you either on Friday or Thursday when I said that I was considering making a statement about this matter that was raised in this House. It is my own view, having regard to Standing Order 62 which has been referred to by the Minister, that paragraph (3) of Standing Order 62 which is in point, says:

'(3) In deciding whether a motion for the disallowance of a Member's vote shall be proposed by the Speaker or Chairman, the Speaker or Chairman shall have regard to the character of the question upon which the division was taken and to the consideration whether the interest therein of the Member whose vote is challenged is direct and pecuniary and not an interest in common with the rest of the citizens of Singapore or whether his vote was given on a matter of State policy.'

Now, I was questioning the policy of the Government, the State. Sir, in my view, speaking for myself, even if I had any pecuniary interest, of course, subject to your ruling, in view of the qualification contained in Standing Order 62 (3), I cannot be disqualified. But as I say, I am subject to your ruling. So that is a matter of interpretation and the matter, of course, has to be looked at, if the Minister wants it to be looked at, by a Committee. I am prepared to state my views to the Committee.

The other thing is this. This pecuniary interest, as I see it, Sir, must be direct pecuniary interest at the time when the matter is being discussed. These cases that the Minister has referred to were dealt with by the courts in 1980. I think the last one was in December 1980. Sir, where is the pecuniary interest now, even if it applied, when all these cases were dealt with before 1981? The affidavits read, of course, referred to those two cases where the court had allowed the habeas corpus and that was even before December 1980.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member states, inter alia, that the two cases were old cases taken up in 1980. He once again misleads this House by wrong information when he suggests or implies that he has no pecuniary interest now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the second of the two cases that I referred to, Originating Motion 67 of 1980, it related to a person known as Subramaniam, son of Marie. As a follow-up of that Suit which was rejected by the court consisting of three Judges, another Civil Suit has been instituted for that same person and that suit is Suit 3949 of 1981 involving the same person where the claim is for damages for false imprisonment and wrongful detention. I pass this to you, Mr Speaker, Sir. [Document handed in to the Clerk.] This is a follow-up of a Suit instituted by Originating Motion for habeas corpus which was rejected. The same person instituted proceedings. Proceedings have been filed.

The Member for Anson is acting as advocate and solicitor and his pecuniary interest is this - if he had been pursuing the line of questioning that he did, and if he had succeeded in eliciting from me an admission that there was a serious possibility of an error of diagnosis on the part of the DRC doctor, then this would have a definite bearing on this case which is now being instituted. It would have a bearing on the successful outcome of that case.

The Member for Anson, therefore, has again misled this House by hiding his personal pecuniary interest and by not disclosing, even on his response to my question and in response to my point of order, that he had a pending case. Let me also say that at the sitting on Friday, he said that he had received complaints of wrongful detention not only by persons detained but from the parents and relatives. This again is a subterfuge for I had personally checked with the Director of the CNB as well as the Ministry of Home Affairs officials as to whether he had any letters of complaint, written to the CNB or to the Ministry of wrongful detention. Let me say that he had not written any such letter except four letters which were written by his legal firm. All the four letters were asking for particulars and documents concerning persons detained in the DRC. None of these four letters alleged wrongful detention. As a Member of Parliament, he did write two letters. But these two letters were written to the Chairman of the Review Committee appealing for early release. In these two letters written as an MP there was no allegation of wrongful detention.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thus the only cases, and I repeat, the only cases, taken up by the Member for Anson of wrongful detention are the two cases involving five drug addicts which were taken up by him as an advocate and solicitor as well as the present pending Civil Suit for wrongful detention.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on these facts, it seems to me that there is a grave issue of a breach or abuse of privilege.

Mr Speaker: Do you wish to say any more, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, it would appear that I am to be subjected to an inquisition here, subjected to this. Whilst I concede that I have overlooked that there is this other action brought against the Government, that is a matter before the court at the moment. Even that, I think, was instituted before I became an MP. I may be wrong and I have to check on this. I stand corrected. But I still maintain, Mr Speaker, Sir (I am subject to your ruling) that in my own view, there is no breach of privilege as I see it, and if this matter has to be referred to a Committee, I will make my representations to the Committee for them to rule on this.

The Minister for Law and Leader of the House (Mr E.W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not risen to do battle with the hon. Member for Anson. But something similar happened years ago, in 1962, and I have with me the Second Report of the Committee of Privileges together with Appendices, Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings of the Committee. I do not intend to proceed to read the lot. Suffice it to say:

'On the 22nd day of November, 1961, Mr David Marshall, Member for Anson, having obtained the right to raise the matter of the case of Sardara Singh, former Acting Sergeant, Singapore Police Force, on the motion for the adjournment, stated that he had acted in a professional capacity for Sardara Singh,that the matter had ended, that Sardara Singh had left Singapore and that he (the Member for Anson) had no further pecuniary or professional interest in the matter, nor any personal interest apart from certain facts which he had gleaned and which, to his mind, raised very grave public issues. As it had been indicated that it might possibly be deemed improper for him to bring forward the matter, he welcomed a reference to the Committee of Privileges, whereupon the Leader of the House, Dr Toh Chin Chye, raised the matter as a matter of privilege and Mr Speaker, in accordance with the Standing Orders, referred same to your Committee . . . .

4. The question before your Committee was whether it would be improper for Mr Marshall, who had acted professionally in a matter for a fee, to raise that matter in the Assembly after that matter had been completed and Mr Marshall had no further pecuniary or personal interest therein.'

I do not propose to read the following paragraphs. The Member will be supplied with a copy later for his information. But paragraph 8 reads:

'it is well established that it is a breach of privilege for any Member to accept any fee or reward in connection with the promotion of any matter submitted or intended to be submitted to the House, and, to guard against indirect influence, the House of Commons has forbidden the acceptance of fees by its Members for professional services connected with proceedings in Parliament.'

Sir, to end, the Bar Committee was consulted, and I will read paragraph 21 giving one of their views:

'21. Thus, if a Member, who is also an Advocate and Solicitor, conducts himself in the Assembly in such a manner as is calculated to attract business to himself, he would clearly be using the protection of the Assembly to breach the etiquette of his own profession and for his own personal advantage. Your Committee are of the opinion that even if the Member referred in general terms to matters of public interest which he had gleaned during the course of his professional activities, it might well be that the notoriety gained by the Member in such matters would, even though no names were mentioned, relate his activities to such matters in such a way as could conceivably be thought to be in the nature of advertisement of his own activities.'

The Committee concluded in paragraphs 22:

'Conduct as described in the foregoing paragraph would tend to bring the Assembly into disrepute and could, in the view of your Committee, be rightly dealt with as being an abuse of privilege and as dishonourable conduct.'

and 24:

'It follows therefore [This is the penultimate paragraph] that had Mr Marshall raised the matter of the case of Sardara Singh in the Assembly and in the manner proposed, he could have come within the mischief indicated in the preceding paragraphs and could have been dealt with accordingly for abuse of privilege or for dishonourable conduct.'

Mr Speaker: The matter appears to me to be a matter affecting the privileges of this House and has been raised at the earliest possible time. I am therefore referring this matter to the Committee of Privileges.