OFFICIAL RECEIVER (Appointments in private civil actions)

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Law to state the number of instances in which over the last ten years the Official Receiver has accepted appointment as receiver for the purpose of executing judgments of the courts in private civil actions where no element of public interest or public monies was involved.

The Minister for Labour and Second Minister for Law and Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar)(for the Minister for Law): Mr Speaker, Sir, the only instance in the past 10 years where the Official Receiver was so appointed as Receiver was the case of the Workers' Party. It was not a question of the Official Receiver accepting appointment. He was ordered to be appointed Receiver by an Order of Court dated 3rd June, 1982, upon the application of Mr Tay Boon Too, a creditor of the Workers' Party, who had not been paid his legal costs for many years. In the past 10 years or more, no other political party has kept its bank accounts with so small a sum as $18.47 in order to avoid paying costs it owed, thus making it necessary for this legal procedure to be invoked.

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, is it the Hon. Minister's statement that the Official Receiver was ordered by the Court to take up appointment as Receiver in this suit, or is he saying that the Official Receiver consented in the first place to accept appointment? May we know which one is it that he is stating?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have here a copy of the Court Order. It is clear that the Court ordered it, and I quote:

'it is ordered that the Official Receiver, Mr Lim Ewe Huat, be and is hereby appointed Receiver in this action subject to the usual terms to be settled by the Assistant Registrar of the High Court...'.

and so on.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, is the Minister saying that before the Order was made, the Official Receiver was not asked if he would accept appointment? And is the Minister going on to say that he did not accept such appointment but, nevertheless, was appointed by the Court?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson is raising questions of detail here which properly ought to have been raised in the Court hearing at the appropriate time. He should let us know whether he had raised legal objections when these Court hearings came out. Did he object to the appointment of the Official Receiver as Receiver? If not, why is he now trying to convert this Chamber into an Appellate Court for having failed to raise these questions in the Court?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, would the Minister please answer the questions that are put to him? Would he not agree that they are simple enough for him to understand? If they are not simple enough, then perhaps we can try and write them out for him in a more simple language.

Perhaps, Mr Speaker, Sir, before I asked my first supplementary question, I should have told you that I have no pecuniary personal interest in this matter but, of course, it concerns the appointment in my Party suit. Would the Minister say whether he agrees that the application was the suit of a private individual, and he was not even an MP at that time, against a private society? Would the Minister say whether it is one of the functions of the Official Receiver that he should accept appointment to enable private individuals to recover their judgments in Court?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member is raising the same point that he has mentioned in framing the Question. In other words, he is implying that this whole case was one where no element of public interest or monies was involved. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the contrary, I take the view that there is certainly an element of public interest when a political party which claims to be responsible, which wants to contest elections, which wants to form the Government and whose leader desperately wants to be the Prime Minister, nevertheless deliberately refrains from meeting its obligations arising from litigation which it itself has instituted.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Minister not realize that he is completely missing the point of the questions put to him? Does the Minister not realize that it was open to Mr Tay Boon Too, the defendant in that suit, to have got another receiver to accept appointment and the Court could have appointed this other individual? There are hundreds of accountants or other people in Singapore who would be prepared to accept appointment as receiver. The question is: why was it found necessary for the Official Receiver, a man who is paid from public funds, a civil servant, to accept appointment in a private suit?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, although I believe that these are points which he ought to have raised but failed to raise in the Court hearing, let me answer his point. It might have been possible for some other Receiver to have been appointed. I do not know why the litigant here had applied for the Official Receiver. My Ministry was not involved in this. But let me say that the Member for Anson, far from complaining, in fact, should express his gratitude because I am informed that the costs which he had to pay for the Official Receiver's functions were far cheaper than would have been the case if any other accountant or other official in the private sector had been appointed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, another supplementary question for the Hon. Minister. May 1, first of all, repeat my earlier questions and beg him to answer them. If he is unable to answer them, perhaps he might make a statement that he is unable to answer them. The question now is this. Does he not think that it is a corrupt use of public funds that the Official Receiver should have accepted appointment in a suit which did not concern the Government and where there was no public interest involved?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Anson sincerely believes that this is a case which involves corruption, can I ask him whether he has lodged a complaint with the police so that it can be investigated, and when did he lodge the complaint?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, is the Hon. Minister unable to realize that I am not talking about an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act? My question is: does he not think that it is a corrupt use of public funds, not acceptance by an official of monies for his own pocket but a corrupt use of public funds, that a public official should be appointed or should allow himself to be appointed to aid a litigant in a private suit?

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Speaker, Sir, is it in order for any Member of this House to question the competence of our courts?

Mr Speaker: I think it is up to the lawyers on this side of the House to answer the question.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, as I have said, the Member for Anson has obviously discovered that he ought to have made certain points in the court regardless of whether he would have succeeded. He failed to do so. He has now come to this House with two purposes, either to convert this into an appellate court or to convert it into a law tutorial classroom to receive free legal tuition. And I think either of these purposes would be contrary to our Standing Orders.

Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

Mr Speaker: Have you finished with your questions, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Jeyaretnam: One more point, Sir.

Mr Speaker: One more.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Does the Minister not realize, or is it beyond his ability or capacity to realize, that these questions do not question the competence of the court nor are these questions being raised in this House sitting as an appellate body over the court? Does he not realize that the proceedings in court are over now?

Prof. Jayakumar: Precisely! Proceedings in the court are over and therefore he ought to have raised these questions before the proceedings in the court were over.

Mr Speaker: Therefore the question is over! Mr Hwang.