PECUNIARY INTEREST (Member for Anson)

4.14 p.m.

The Minister for Law (Mr E.W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion*

*The Motion reads as follows:

That, as it appears that the Member for Anson has committed an offence or offences under section 31 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act (Chapter 49) in that -

(1) on the 17th day of March, 1982, he took part in the discussion of a matter in this House relating to the question of the policy of the Government on applications from non-citizen spouses of Singapore citizens to live in Singapore with their spouses (Question No. 1 on the Order Paper for the day).

(2) on the 19th day of March, 1982, he took part in the discussion of the same or similar matter in this House (Debate in the Committee of Supply on Head Q of the Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April, 1982 to 31st March, 1983), in which matters he had a direct personal pecuniary interest without disclosing the extent of that interest.

Parliament resolves that this matter be referred to the Attorney-General with a view to the institution of criminal proceedings against the Member. standing in my name as it appears in item 1 on the Order Paper.

Sir, I take no pleasure in moving this Motion because this is the first motion of its kind in this House and because it is against the one and only Member of the Opposition in this House. But Parliament is supreme and the rule of law must always prevail in our Republic and, above all, in this House. The powers of this House and the privileges and immunities of hon. Members are set out in the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act enacted as long ago as 1955.

But besides privileges and immunities, hon. Members also have duties and obligations which, unfortunately, do not appear in the title of the Act. One such obligation is that required by section 31 which provides as follows:

'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.'

It is a serious offence to contravene section 31 and a conviction under the section is punishable by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and imprisonment. This is provided in section 35 (1) (c).

You will recall, Sir, that on the 17th day of March this year, the Member for Anson asked an Oral Question No. 1 on the Order Paper for the day and the question was:

'What the policy of his Ministry [the Ministry of Home Affairs] is on applications from non-citizen spouses of Singapore citizens to live in Singapore with their spouses.'

The question and the answer by the Minister of State for Home Affairs are reported in Volume 41, No. 11, of our Official Report for the day, cols. 1033 to 1040.

The Member asked several supplementary questions and, whilst one was being answered, the Minister for Home Affairs rose on a Point of Order. His Point of Order was this.

Sir, I quote from col, 1037 of the Official Report:-

'Will he declare his direct personal pecuniary interest in his line of questioning? In other words, has he got cases of this nature representing non-Singapore citizens regarding application for permanent residence? How many cases has he got, acting as a lawyer outside this House or in the name of his firm "J.B. Jeyaretnam and Company"? Can he declare his interest?'

The Member for Anson replied, and again I quote --

'I have, as a Member of Parliament, raised about six matters concerning non-citizens who have married Singapore citizens and who have been asked to leave the country.'

I cannot speak for you, Sir, but the impression I got from the Member's answer was that he had raised these matters as a Member of Parliament and not as an Advocate and Solicitor.

The Minister for Home Affairs then produced a letter from the legal firm of J.B. Jeyaretnam & Co. of which the Member is the sole proprietor. The letter read:-

"We act for the abovenamed who is a Malaysian citizen.

Our client (not a voter) has been residing in Singapore for more than 10 years. On the 17th of May 1981, our client married Mr Latib Bin Ali who is a citizen of Singapore by birth at Johore Bahru by Muslim rites. She now resides with the husband . . .

We would urge you on compassionate and humanitarian grounds to grant our client an entry permit for permanent residence in Singapore. We would stress that our client's husband is a citizen of Singapore. As such if our client were to leave Singapore it would cause a break-up in the family . . .".

This letter was dated the 5th February 1982. It was shown to the hon. Member and he said it was signed by his assistant.

The Minister then produced an earlier letter from the firm in respect of the same client on the same matter signed by the Member himself.

When the Member rose to explain, you, Sir, were kind enough to suggest that he referred to section 31 before he committed himself any more on the subject. The Member rose and said, in column 1039:

'All I want to say is that this second letter that was handed to me was dated 30th May 1981. It is long before I became a Member of Parliament. It is dated 30th May 1981. Of course, it is my signature. But this signature on the letter dated 5th February 1982 is my assistant's signature. It is about this that I was talking. But the letter dated 30th May 1981, of course it is my signature and I wrote that letter.'

The explanation, if any, was in my view unsatisfactory.

Two days later, on the 19th day of March 1982, the Member for Anson once again took part in the discussion of the same or similar matter in this House. This was in the debate in the Committee of Supply on Head Q of the Main and Development Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 1st April 1982 to 31st March 1983. This is reported in our Official Report, Volume 41, No. 13, at col. 1281.

The Member said:-

'My plea now this time is not for persons who think they are being wrongfully incarcerated in the drug rehabilitation centres but for the wives of Singapore citizens. I do not have to again, I hope, remind Members of this House that the right to marry a person of one's own choice is a personal right that belongs to the individual, and it finds expression in Article 16 of the Declaration of Human Rights to which we have subscribed.'

The Member for Anson may have an explanation. If he has, hon. Members will be pleased to hear him. The Member is new in this House and may not have been conversant with all our Standing Orders, rules and regulations and the Act which sets out our powers, privileges and immunities. Perhaps he may wish to express his regrets in which case I will not proceed with the resolution.

Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, on a point of procedure. One other matter which was raised by the Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs has been referred to the Committee of Privileges. That matter is now before this Committee of Privileges. This Motion by the Minister for Law refers to speeches made by me on other dates not covered in the matter raised by the Minister of State. I ask whether this matter should not also first be referred to the Committee of Privileges for the Committee to report whether, in their view, there was a direct personal pecuniary interest which required me to disclose that interest.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as you are aware, I have already made my submissions and appeared before the Committee on the other matter which has been referred to the Committee, in which I have stated why, in my view, there was no direct personal pecuniary interest. So my question is whether this matter should not also be referred to the Committee of Privileges before the House debates this motion.

Mr Barker: Sir, these matters complained of took place on different days and on different subjects. There are two ways in which Parliament can deal with alleged breaches of privilege. One is to deal with the breach itself, as has been done in the other matter complained of, and the other, if it is more serious, is to send it to the Attorney-General. Sir, the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, section 20, says:

'20.-(1) For any dishonourable conduct, abuse of privilege or contempt, on the part of a Member, Parliament may -

(a) impose upon him a fine not exceeding the sum of one thousand dollars;

(b) suspend him from the service of Parliament for the remainder of the current session of Parliament or for any part thereof; and

(c) direct that he be reprimanded or admonished in his place by the Speaker.'

and it sets out in section 21 the procedure in cases like this.

'21.-(1) If it is alleged or appears that any person has committed an offence mentioned in section 20 of this Act, Parliament may -

(a) if the offence is alleged to have been or has apparently been committed in the view of Parliament or in the precincts thereof when Parliament is sitting or in any committee, deal with the matter summarily, in the case of a Member, under the Standing Orders and, in the case of a stranger, . . .

(b) refer the matter to any select committee for investigation, consideration and report to Parliament; or'

This was what took place in respect of the other matter.

'(c) if the offence is an offence mentioned in Part V of this Act, refer the matter to the Attorney-General with a view to the institution of criminal proceedings against such person.'

The offence which we are dealing with today is an offence under section 31 of Part V of the Act and the procedure for such an offence is provided for in section 21 (c) - refer the matter to the Attorney-General with a view to the institution of criminal proceedings against such person.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware, of course, of the provisions both in the Act and the Standing Orders of Parliament. The Hon. Minister has said that, being new, perhaps I was not aware. May I assure him that I was aware of the Standing Orders before I took my seat in Parliament. And I was aware, of course, of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. I am aware of the methods of dealing with this matter as set out in the section of the Act that has been referred to by the Minister.

One of the methods is for it to be referred to a Committee of Privileges, and this is why I am asking whether this matter should not also be referred to the Committee of Privileges which is already seized of the other matter. The Motion before the House assumes that I had a direct personal pecuniary interest. My respectful submission is that the motion begs the question because unless this House is satisfied that there was a direct personal pecuniary interest that required me under the Act and under the Standing Orders to disclose, then it must follow that I was not in breach of the Standing Orders or the section of the Act. The question is, I repeat: was there a direct personal interest that I had which required me to disclose this interest? Sir, in my submission to the Committee and in my appearance, I have said why I had not, under the authorities and under the practice and precedents followed in the British House of Commons. May I pause here to say that I quoted these instances only because our Standing Orders themselves provide that in interpreting our Standing Orders, regard shall be had to the practice and precedents of the British House of Commons. And this is why I have raised this question -should it not, first of all, be decided whether there was a direct personal pecuniary interest which required me to disclose that?

May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not that I am loathe or reluctant to apologize or to express my regrets. If there is any reluctance, it is because I am myself not con- vinced at the moment that I was in breach of the Standing Orders or the section of the Act and, therefore, if I have to apologize or express regrets for something of which I do not think I am in breach, it would appear to be insincere. I would like to be shown that I was in breach, that it was quite clearly required of me under the Act and under the Standing Orders to disclose this personal pecuniary interest.

Mr Barker: Sir, we are not in Committee. If we were in a Committee considering whether or not there was a breach of privilege, we would have to decide. But this particular Motion, if passed, will go on to the Attorney-General and it is the Attorney-General who will decide whether there is a prima facie case against the Member, and it is the Attorney-General who will have to decide on the law and what is the meaning of "direct personal pecuniary interest." It will take us nowhere to argue in this House as to what that phrase means. It is for the Attorney-General, if he thinks there has been a breach of the section or an offence, to send the case to court, and there the Magistrate or Judge will have to decide what is meant by "direct personal pecuniary interest."

As far as this House is concerned, we are not preventing the Member for Anson from speaking. The particular section does not. He can speak on the subject provided he declares his interest, whatever direct personal pecuniary interest means. The reason for this Motion is that the complaint against the Member is more serious than the one before the Committee of Privileges. It is more serious because, first, he was asked whether he had acted as an advocate and solicitor in any of these matters. His reply:

'I acted for six cases but as a Member of Parliament.'

Shown a letter by his firm, he said it was signed by his assistant. Then he was shown another letter which was signed by himself, long before he became a Member of Parliament. But the fact is that he acted. He is the sole proprietor of his firm. He received money when he acts for his clients. So prima facie it is a receipt of moneys - direct, personal, pecuniary.

Question put, and before the votes were taken -

Mr Barker rose -

Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Barker.

Mr Barker: Sir, I would like to give the Member another chance. He says he is prepared to apologize provided he is wrong. Is he prepared to say that he had no intention of misleading this House and if he did, he expresses his regrets.?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to the Minister. I am grateful to him. May I assure you and this House that the last thought in my mind in speaking in this House was to further my practice in any way whatsoever. I have, as I said in my memorandum to the Committee, spoken on a matter of State policy, on a policy of this Government which I found very hard to accept. It was purely as a Member of Parliament trying to discharge my duties to those who had elected me that I spoke and, may I assure the House and the Minister, it was certainly not with the intention of advancing my practice in the field of law.

May I explain a little further, Mr Speaker, Sir, with your indulgence? As I understand it, I was not aware at that time but I have now come to understand that at Question Time a Member is not required to disclose his personal pecuniary interest even if he had one. That would appear to be the ruling in the British House of Commons. Be that as it may, I am not relying on that. Be that as it may, the question that I was asked was whether I was acting, at that moment of time, for anybody and I stated truthfully when I said that - because between the time that I was elected as a Member of Parliament and the time I spoke - I had seen persons (I said I remembered six or so) who had come to see me to complain about their wives being asked to leave the country. That was the only reason I spoke in Parliament. I did not have in mind any case in which I had acted and, of course, I was not aware of the letter written by my assistant. No doubt it was the same client for whom I had written a letter way back in May 1981. I had written that letter. But then I do not think I saw the person again, and then this letter written by my assistant was pro- duced. All I wish to say is that I accept that a letter written by the firm is my letter, notwithstanding that it does not bear my signature. There can be no quibble about that.

But concerning the question as to my intention in speaking, whether I had a motive, all I can do is to assure the House that it was not with that intention that I spoke, and it hurts me to think that there are people who think that I have come to Parliament to try and further my practice outside. May I tell the Members of this House and you, Sir, that my practice has suffered by my taking up the cause that I have been trying to take up for the last 10 years. It was not with the intention of furthering my practice that I have chosen to come into Parliament.

I have been asked whether I would apologize. If you, Sir, having considered the whole matter - because Standing Order 62 provides that the Speaker or the Chairman shall rule whether the Member is required to disclose his interest - if you rule that I should have in those circumstances declared my personal pecuniary interest, then of course I will accept that ruling and I will say sorry that I did not declare my personal pecuniary interest. But my only reason is that I did not think it was required of me and I still do not think it was.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, as the Speaker, I would not even know whether you have any direct pecuniary interest in any particular case. It was up to you to declare.

Mr Barker: Sir, I think the Member wants you to decide whether, on the facts as set out on what he said previously, he should have declared his interest in the matter, in that he had acted for this particular person relating to the same matter

Mr Speaker: As the Speaker here, I have to follow our Standing Orders. I think Mr Jeyaretnam should have declared his interest.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, if you rule, so be it and I accept that ruling. I say I am sorry that I did not tell the House that I had previously acted for this woman that my firm had written the letter. If that is your ruling, of course, I accept that.

Mr Barker: In which case, Sir, I withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn,