LOSS OF TRADE UNION FUNDS (Investigations)

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Acting Minister for Labour (a) whether the investigations into the loss of monies belonging to Trade Unions between the years 1975 and 1979 have now been completed; and (b) what is the total of the unions' monies that has now been found to be missing or lost and how much of it has been recovered.

The Acting Minister for Labour (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, on the first part of the question, except for a case involving $1,320 which the CPIB has not been able to complete without questioning Phey Yew Kok, the CPIB has completed the investigations into the loss of money belonging to the trade unions, i.e. SILO, PIEU and the NTUC Travel Services (Pte) Limited between the years 1975 and 1979.

As to the second part of the question, the total of the unions' money lost between 1975 and 1979 is $704,173.93 or $5,311.15 more than the $698,862.68 already discovered in March 1982.

Sir, the sum recovered to-date is $557,864.76.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a supplementary question. This question by the way, Mr Speaker, was addressed to the Prime Minister because I asked him these questions about 18 months ago, and it is arising out of that that I raise these questions today. But I see it is being directed to the Acting Minister for Labour to answer. Be that as it may, Mr Speaker, Sir, we understood from the Prime Minister when he answered this that -

Mr Speaker: Let us have your supplementary question, please, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May we know what action has been taken to recover any of these monies? We understood that Mr Phey Yew Kok or his wife have some properties. Has any action been taken to recover these sums?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I am indeed surprised that he himself has raised the matter of having wrongly addressed the Question to the Prime Minister. We know his insatiable desire to be equated with the Prime Minister but I thought he would be very embarrassed to find that he has directed it to the wrong Minister and that the person in charge of Labour is myself. So it is no surprise to him and to the House that the matter was redirected to the Minister for Labour.

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not really see any usefulness in going into the details because the Member for Anson, quite obviously, in pursuing these tedious questions over two years has the objective of casting a slur or smear that there has been a cover-up and he has tried to create a myth, an impression, that only when he asks a Question that the Government begins to take action on this matter. So for the record, we should make it clear that long before he set foot in this Chamber and long before he espoused any interest on this subject, the Government has taken action to investigate, apprehend and prosecute the wrongdoers. And that record has to be emphasized to rebut the objective of his Question.

I have already mentioned the sums recovered. The details of the processes whereby these sums are recovered are matters left to the Unions and their solicitors. I do not think that this Chamber is the proper place for me to disclose the details of the various legal steps which the Unions are taking in consultation with the solicitors. The figures speak for themselves. They have been very successful in recovering close to 80% of the sums missing or lost. The Prime Minister did mention a property in the March 1982 answer (Hansard, 3 March 1982 (Vol. 41, Col. 364) with regard to which a caveat has been lodged. The action is pending by the Unions concerning the property in question. But I am not, in this House, going to divulge the details which must be left to the Unions and which only can be divulged with the consent of the Unions concerned.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like the Acting Minister for Labour to answer specifically to questions. Does he not realize that Mr Phey Yew Kok has been charged with embezzlement of sums of money? Has any action been taken by the unions, albeit on his advice, to proceed against properties owned by him in Singapore? Has it been done? Secondly, would the Acting Minister please tell this House whether it is intended to hold any public inquiry at all into the loss of these monies? Or is it not going to be held? It is no good saying that I am insinuating cover-ups. All I can say is that the cap fits. I am sorry about it. But you have got to answer.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member has asked two questions - whether any steps have been taken by the unions concerned to recover the monies. The answer is obvious - obviously yes, as the figures themselves demonstrate.

Secondly, he has resurrected his question of a commission of inquiry, which was fully answered by the Prime Minister. And to summarize the Prime Minister's answer, a commission of inquiry can be held if the Member's purpose is to insinuate cover-ups or that anybody has been let off. But if the purpose is to traverse grounds and evidence with respect to the charges against Mr Phey Yew Kok, that will be sub judice and a written Opinion of the Attorney-General was circulated in this House.

Mr Jeyaretnam rose - 3.30 pm

Mr Speaker: I am afraid it is half-past Three. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Order of the Day.