REMARKS ON THE ADOPTION OF CHILDREN

6.30 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this House regrets that the Minister for Home Affairs should have attempted to mislead the House when speaking at question time on the 1&h March 1985 and again on the 29th March 1985 when moving the Adoption of Children (Amendment) Bill,

Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope sincerely that I do not have to remind Ministers and Members of this House of the importance and of the value of the principle that Ministers of the Government must never mislead Parliament on any matter requested of or addressed to them. The whole principle, the whole foundation, of parliamentary government and all that it implies, parliamentary control over the Executive, parliamentary checks on the decisions of the Executive, will be undermined if this principle is not strictly adhered to. I hope this is quite clear to the Ministers and to all Members of this House. We have adopted the British parliamentary procedure and system. Members will recall how, only quite recently, the British Prime Minister was very very upset at allegations that she had misled the House. There was a Minister who resigned because he made an incorrect statement in the House. So these lie, as I said, at the foundation of the parliamentary system of government, whereby the Cabinet, the Executive, is answerable to Parliament and its Members. And "answerable" means answerable truthfully to Parliament and its Members. Therefore, it is a matter of great regret to discover that the Minister for Home Affairs was less than truthful in this House on two occasions. And it is my painful duty to bring this up b&ore the Members this afternoon. I do not relish this, but it is important because of the principle behind it, because it undermines the whole Government, as we know it to be.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may move on now to what I say was the misleading remarks made by the Minister for Home Affairs. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the 18th March 1985, in this House, I asked a question (Question No. 12 which was answered) on the repatriation of an adopted child of one Therawardy s/o Mardan. It is reported in Vol. 45 of the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates, col. 830. The Minister in replying to this Question said as follows:

'Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason why this girl was asked to leave Singapore is that this was clearly an adoption of convenience designed to circumvent Immigration rules and regulations.

Sir, the adopted child is a nine-year-old Malaysian girl. Her natural parents and four of her siblings are also Malaysian citizens. She was first brought to Singapore in 1976 by her natural father. She was granted a Social Visit Pass for 14 days. Her Visit Pass was not extended and she overstayed in Singapore for more than six years. In other words, she wag an illegal overstayer and her illegal presence came to light in December 1982. By then, Sir, she had been legally adopted by Mr and Mrs Therawardy on 2nd October 1982.'

I do not need to read any further, Mr Speaker, Sir. The misleading statement is contained in those two sentences there, "In other words, she was an illegal over-stayer and her illegal presence came to light in December 1982. By then, Sir, she had been legally adopted by Mr and Mrs Therawardy on 2nd October 1982." It was quite clear to me, if it was not clear to other Members of the House, that what the Minister was saying was that until December 1982, the Government departments concerned in the adoption of this girl were not aware that her presence in Singapore was illegal. What else can these words mean, "her illegal presence came to light in December 1982"?

In Col. 832, the Minister says:

'What is wrong, Sir, is that there is a gap in the law in that neither the Attorney-General nor the Ministry of Social Affairs at that time had to comment on the immigration status of the child. This is the gap in the law that we are now seeking to remedy through the Adoption of Children (Amendment) Bill in which we propose that the immigration status and the immigration policy will become a relevant factor.'

The operative words which I say were misleading of this House are the words, "What is wrong, Sir, is that there is a gap in the law in that neither the Attorney-General nor the Ministry of Social Affairs at that time [that is, at the time of the adoption] had to comment on the immigration status of the child." Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned, when I heard the Minister, I thought this was a case where the petitioning parents had completely misled the court and the Attorney-General's Chambers when they presented the petition. That the true facts were not known to the court and to the Attorney-General's Chambers before the adoption petition was heard. May I inform Members of the House, as I said then and the Minister accepted, that the Attorney-General is always made a party to any adoption proceedings presented by any couple wishing to adopt a child. The petition is served on the Attorney-General and he appoints somebody from the Social Welfare Department. So I thought these parents had somehow completely misled the Attorney-General, the Social Welfare Department and the court, and they have got this order through that misleading. So I went back to my office and, sometime later, got all the papers that were in court. And what do I discover? I discover that all the facts were before the court when the Adoption Order was made on the 2nd October, 1982. The Attorney-General was aware and there was no question about them not being aware at all about her presence in Singapore without a visit pass at the time the Adoption Order was made. There is, first of all, the Adoption Petition. In paragraph 7 of that petition, the petitioner states that they are related to the said Gunasundry d/o Ramakrishna, the natural mother of the child is the daughter of the petitioners. So it is stated quite clearly there in the Adoption Petition, "the child that we are going to adopt is our grandchild." There is no hiding of the fact from the court or the Attorney-General's Chambers. The Attorney-General wrote to the Director of Legal Aid, by letter of the 23rd October 1981, in these terms, Mr Speaker, Sir:

'I refer to the above petition. I note that the petitioners intend to adopt their own grand daughter who is a Malaysian citizen.'

So here is the Attorney-General's Chambers writing on the 23rd October, 1981, almost a year before the Adoption Order was made on the 2nd October 1982.

'I note that the petitioners intend tO adopt their own grand daughter who is a Malaysian citizen. In view of this, please let me know: (a) when the subject infant was first brought to Singapore, the nature of her stay, whether continuous or not; the type of visit pass or other licence for her stay here. (b) whether the natural mother is residing in the same house as the petitioners and whether she maintains any contact with the infant or the petitioners.,

So there was an inquiry about her presence in Singapore: the type of visit pass that she was holding. So they were all aware of this. And the Director of Legal Aid replied to that letter on the 12th November 1981, a full eleven months before the Adoption Petition is heard and the Order is made. And the reply, Mr Speaker, Sir, is as follows:

'I wish to inform you that the infant in question was first brought to Singapore sometime in 1976 by her natural father and placed in the care of the petitioners. Since then the infant has been residing in Singapore continuously in the petitioners' custody and control. [And this is the most operative one] The infant had no travel documents. [That means there is no pass for the child issued by the Immigration Department.] She came to Singapore by virtue of an endorsement in her natural father's passport. The natural mother is in Malaysia and does not maintain any contact with the infant and/or the petitioners.'

So nothing could be clearer. The Attorney-General is told fully about the child's stay in Singapore. If he wanted to make any further investigations, he could have ordered it. He could have directed his mind to it. He could have told the Immigration Department to check all this. This is, as I said, 11 months before the petition was heard.

Then there is the affidavit of the Social Welfare supervisor, filed in the adoption petition proceedings. I read from the affidavit, Mr Speaker, Sir:

'I have made investigations and am of the opinion that:

(a) the statements in the petition are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief except there is no evidence that there has been a monetary transaction regarding the adoption.'

So she says "all that the petitioners have set out are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief." Then she goes on in paragraph 3 of her affidavit:

'The said infant was born on 11 the February, 1976, in Penang and according to the petitioners, she was first brought into Singapore by her natural mother sometime in August 1976. She has no travel documents as her entry was reported to be endorsed in her natural father's passport. There is indication on her certificate of inoculation against diphtheria, that she received her inoculations in Singapore as early as September 1976. Since then the said infant has been staying with the petitioners who are actually her grandparents. However, the said infant is unaware of her status and has been brought up to acknowledge the petitioners as her natural parents and the petitioners' children as her natural siblings. The said infant was observed to have a strong attachment with the petitioners and the rest of the family. She is well-loved and accepted by them. I see no objection to the adoption of the said infant by the petitioners provided [here we come again to the most important part of it) the court is satisfied that the said infant is deemed to be a resident of Singapore.'

Not only that, Mr Speaker, Sir - I am sorry, but I have to present my case for this - there is an affidavit by the male petitioner because the court, having seen all this, wanted further affidavit from the male petitioner as to the reasons why they were adopting their own grandchild. And this was filed in September 1982. The male petitioner says in his affidavit:

'I now explain the circumstances [i am skipping the first three paragraphs, Mr Speaker, Sir, because they are not very relevant]. The said infant was given to me in Singapore sometime in August 1976 by the natural mother who is my daughter. The natural mother wanted to give away the infant because the horoscope of the infant predicted that evil omens will b&all the family if the infant remains with them. Rather than allowing the infant to be with strangers, I agreed to take the child. The natural parents are in Penang with their four other children. The natural parents do not visit the infant nor is there any form of contact between them and the infant. Any contact would mean that the evil omens will befall them.'

So the court was fully cognizant of all the facts: that the child had been in Singapore for some five years, the child had no travel documents, no papers. The Attorney-General was aware, the Social Welfare Department was aware. I do not know whether the Immigration Department was aware or not, but the Attorney-General's Chambers was fully aware, and they raised no objections to the petitioners adopting the child. And the court, in exercise of its discretion, made an Adoption Order on 8th October 1982.

Everybody who had anything to do with the adoption petition was fully aware of everything, and this is why I find the Minister's reply in his answer to me at col. 831 "that her illegal presence came to light in December 1982" completely puzzling. When I first heard it, of course, I thought that there must have been some misleading of the Government departments. But now all I can say is that those words are a complete mis-statement of the true facts of the position.

Again he said it at col. 832: "What is wrong, Sir, is that there is a gap in the law in that neither the Attorney-General nor the Ministry of Social Affairs at that time had to comment on the immigration status of the child." I have just read out the affidavit of the Social Welfare Department's supervisor where she draws attention to the immigration status of the child in her affidavit. What do we make of this statement by the Minister: that neither the Attorney-General nor the Ministry of Social Affairs at that time had to comment on the immigration status of the child? There you have the comment by the supervisor of the Social Welfare Department in that affidavit.

That is the first, very serious, in my view, mis-statement by the Minister for Home Affairs. But it did not stop there. On 29th March,1985,some days later after answering that question in that sitting of Parliament, in moving the Second Reading of the Adoption of Children (Amendment) Bill, the Minister for Home Affairs had to say this and, Mr Speaker, Sir, I quote Vol. 45, No. 18, cols. 1773 to 1774, of the Parliamentary Debates, Official Report:

'The proposed amendment, Sir, is necessary so as to prevent adoptions of convenience. We have many examples where adoptions were used to circumvent immigration policies.'

Then he referred to the case that was answered on 18th March this year. I asked him, when I spoke on this amendment, about the number of people who brought children to Singapore to be adopted. I am sorry. I suppose I should have read a little bit earlier in his speech. At col. 1773, he said this:

'Sir, there have been many other such cases [that is, other than that] where Singaporeans have been approached, or attempted, to adopt their foreign nephews and nieces even though they already have children of their own, and there was no reason for them to adopt another child.'

"There have been many other such cases." So I asked him about the cases:

'May I ask whether he has the number of these cases, whether there is a large number of people sending their children in to be adopted by families in Singapore.'

I wanted to know whether there was a traffic of children coming into Singapore to be adopted. His reply at col. 1775 to my question is this:

'The first question is: have there been such a number of cases as to warrant concern to justify this legislation? [that is, cases of people bringing in children into Singapore to be adopted as in that case].'

And he said:

'The answer is yes. [A number of cases]. If it was not a problem which needed a solution by way of legislation, then we would not have recourse to this option.'

Then I asked from my place, "What is the figure?" And the Minister goes on to reply, at col. 1775:

'I do not have the figures but I can inform the House that the Immigration authorities were so concerned because people were arriving at the checkpoint with infants in arms requesting Social Visit Pass and longterm Social Visit Pass, and when they were asked why, they said, 'Well, we want to have this child adopted by this relative in Singapore." The numbers are sufficiently large to cause concern and to introduce administrative measures requiring these persons to undertake that they will not proceed with adoption proceedings. This is why, Sir, the case which was mentioned a week ago showed that some of the administrative measures are not fool-proof because of the large numbers of persons coming here on Social Visit Pass or long-term Social Visit Pass.'

So the picture that the Minister was attempting to paint to this House is that there was a constant stream of people entering Singapore with infants to give the infants in adoption to Singapore parents. At least that is the picture that it conveyed to me, and I am sure to anybody who heard him and anyone who reads this will agree that that is the picture. "I can inform the House that the Immigration authorities were so concerned because people were arriving at the checkpoint with infants in arms."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not let it rest. I tabled a question about the number of infants entering Singapore to be given for adoption to Singapore parents. This was asked in the sitting of this House on 14th May 1985, and I quote from Vol. 46, No. 1 of the Official Report. It is at col. 28:

'12. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law if he will give the number of foreigners who have arrived at immigration checkpoints for the whole of 1984 with infants for adoption in Singapore.

The Minister for Home Affair and Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my Ministry does not compile such statistics.'

I was very surprised at that answer and I asked him, through the Deputy Speaker:

'Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, has the Minister forgotten that when I spoke in this House on the Adoption of Children (Amendment) Bill, I asked the Minister for the number and he said that he would try and provide the number?

Secondly, would the Minister agree that he seriously misled this House when he told this House that [and I quoted what I had read].'

The Minister then replied to that, at col.29:

'Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is no misleading and there is no inconsistency. We debated this on 18th March as well as on 29th of March. I clearly said then that there were no figures.'

Well, he did not give the number but he implied quite clearly, at least to my mind, to anyone who can read that, he was saying that there was a stream of people coming through checkpoints with children. And then, on the 14th May 1985, he said that he had no statistics on this at all:

'I clearly said then that there were no figures. I did refer, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to examples of many instances at the check-points when such foreigners came.'

There again he stands by what he said: "many instances at the check-points when such foreigners came".

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Minister had no figures at all, apart from this one case, where is the basis for the statements that he has made in this House - that there were many instances (Immigration Department knows of many cases) of people coming through with children, infants in their arms, and saying, "Well, we want to give this child for adoption in Singapore."

Mr Speaker, Sir, to me, that is a gross misrepresentation of the facts of this case to this House, and it is a very serious misrepresentation. There was no need for the Minister to have misrepresented the facts to this House. It is not as though the Bill would not get through. Why then did we have the Minister not telling the House truly the facts of this particular case? The decision by the Immigration Department after a court in Singapore had made the Adoption Order upon all the facts that were before it, and known to the Attorney-General, have caused heartache not only to the child who is now abandoned at some place in Johor Baru but also to her grandparents. I suppose nothing will be done, although he comes to see me occasionally and says, "What can we do about this?" But I am raising this here because, to me, it is a serious matter that the Minister should have attempted to mislead the House.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

The Minister for Home Affair and Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion standing in the name of the Member for Anson is a serious motion or it should be taken as a serioUs motion. It is serious to allege that anyone, more so a Member of the Government, has misled. I listened to him carefully and, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will reply to the points that he has raised. But I would like to state at the outset that I categorically deny his allegations and I will show, point by point, that there is no substance whatsoever to his charge.

What he has said can be summarized as resting on two grounds. First, he asserts that all the facts were made known to the court through the affidavit and other documents, and that therefore I have misled this House on the various occasions I had spoken. A second limb on which his case rests is that, in not having compiled statistics for the whole year of 1984 in reply to his question, this was inconsistent with an earlier statement or statements that I had made concerning the debate on this question.

Before I deal with these two points, I would like to show that what he has adduced is totally incorrect. Let me recapitulate, Sir, that this question has arisen on siftings on 18th March, 29th March and 14th May. On the last occasion, he did say that I had misled the House and I denied it. Now he has been able to elaborate his charge,

As a backdrop, Sir, let us recapitulate that this case is about an adoption which we regarded as an adoption of convenience. The highlights of this case, as Members will recall, were, first, that this was a case of adoption of a person who had illegally overstayed. Her father was a work permit holder who, under the present rules and the rules pertaining at that time, would never have been allowed to bring dependants here for any significant period or length of time. I also showed the absurd consequences arising from this Adoption Order. I also showed that there was a gap in the law, and the gap in the law was that the Immigration policy and status was, in fact, not relevant to the Adoption of Children Act, and therefore not a relevant consideration for the court. I emphasized time and again on all occasions that there was no criticism of the court's decision.

Now, Sir, let me turn to his arguments on the first limb that I have misled this House by not disclosing the points which were raised in the affidavit in which he quoted. He sums it up by saying that all the facts were before the court, and the court was fully cognizant of all the facts, and so were the other agencies. Mr Speaker, Sir, he makes much ado about the phrase in the affidavit of the Department of Social Welfare, "She [referring to the girl] has no travel documents, as her entry was reported to be endorsed in her natural father's passport." From this, he concludes that all the agencies must surely have known that her presence was illegal. Bear in mind that the law as it stood at that time did not require the court to take into account immigration policy and Immigration status of the child. Immigration status - that is a very important point. The Member for Anson kept emphasizing this point - since it is said in the affidavit that she has no travel documents as her entry was reported to be endorsed in her natural father's passport, there you are, the Minister has misled. But I think all parents do know that when you travel, and if you have a child, you can include that child in your passport. That is what this sentence in the affidavit says: that the child entered Singapore without a separate passport for herself but rather her entry was endorsed on her father's passport. That is all that it says: that she did not have her own travel document but her entry was endorsed on her father's passport. The fact that this was brought to the attention of the court or to the other agencies does not in any way suggest that the girl's presence is illegal. All it says is that she does not have her own passport.

What is crucial and what the Member for Anson does not point out is this. Does the affidavit inform the court that the girl has illegally overstayed by several years? Does the affidavit say that the father, having brought the child, went back and deliberately did not renew the child's pass, as is required by the law? Is there a reference to that in the affidavit? Secondly, is there a reference in the affidavit to the fact that the father is, in fact, a work permit holder? And was that point brought to the attention of the court? So the Member for Anson is the party who is misleading us into believing, when he says, that "all the facts were placed before the court." The most important fact here is not that she did not have a travel document of her own but that she had been an illegal overstayer for several years. Nowhere is it stated that the original pass on which she entered had expired a long time ago.

Sir, under the Adoption of Children Act, as it stood at that time, the court has to be satisfied that the person to be adopted is a resident. That is true. He makes much ado of the fact that in the affidavit of the Department of Social Welfare, it ends off: "I see no objection to the adoption of the child by the petitioners provided that the court is satisfied that the said infant is deemed to be a resident." So from this, he concludes, "Here you are, there is some doubt about the child's residence which is placed before the court." This is a phrase which is used in nearly every adoption petition. I have asked at random 16 other affidavits, also filed by the Department of Social Welfare, all of them have this concluding paragraph: "i see no objection to the adoption of the said infant etc. provided the said infant is deemed to be a resident." I have ascertained from the Attorney-General's Chambers that there is no definition of "resident" in the Adoption of Children Act and the court will be satisfied so long as it is adduced to the court that the child has been physically staying here, for even as short a period of four to six months.

Now, the key point to bear in mind is that the legislation never made Immigration policy or the status of the child a key factor for the consideration of the courts. The court is concerned primarily, as I have mentioned before, with the welfare of the child, and this is the gap, Sir, which I referred to when moving the Second Reading of the Adoption of Children (Amendment) Bill, namely, we here in this House pass an amending Bill to make it expressly a relevant factor. So henceforth, all the agencies and the courts would have to direct their minds to the Immigration status. Is the child here lawfully? Illegally? On what pass? Did her parents bring her illegally? Has her visit pass expired? Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson, therefore, is grievously wrong in telling us that the court was made fully aware of the child's illegal status.

May I now move on, Mr Speaker, Sir, to his other allegation. And that allegation is that there was some major inconsistency in my saying that we do not compile figures at the check-points for the whole year of 1984. Let us recall. He asked me on 14th May if I could give the number of foreigners who arrived at the Immigration checkpoints for the whole of 1984 with infants for adoption in Singapore. I replied that my Ministry did not compile such statistics. His allegation that I have misled the House will stand if any of these are established: (1) if I had said that I had statistics and then failed to produce them. (2) if I had said that there were statistics for the whole year of 1984 about persons coming to the checkpoints. (3) if I had promised that I would produce some statistics of the nature that he had sought. Were any of these three points met? No. In fact, I categorically stated that I do not have the actual figures. And I said that quite clearly, unequivocally.

Incidentally, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is interesting to note that on 14th May, although I said that I did not have the figures, this is what the Member for Anson said:

'I asked the Minister for the number and he said that he would try and provide the number.'

Where in the Hansard can the Member for Anson say that I said this? I quote him again:

'. . . he [referring to me] said that he would try and provide the number.'

If he can establish that, then I would say that he has a case. Nowhere did I say that I would provide the kind of figures that he wanted. On the contrary, I said that I did not have the figures and I will indicate soon why that is an absurd request.

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, his simplistic thinking is this, "The Minister said that there were examples of persons coming to the check-points, and I asked him what were the figures for the whole of 1984 and he said that he did not have the figures. There you are, he has misled the House." Just by examining what was said in Parliament, there was no misleading. I gave examples, yes.

Now, let me show how absurd his request is and how ridiculous his charge is. The Controller of Immigration like other law enforcement officers, in order to carry out his responsibilities, has to be observant, has to be careful and vigilant about anyone trying to circumvent our Immigration regulations. He and his officers are highly experienced and observant. And when they tell me that there is a trend or cases or even one case of a new method of circumventing our Immigration laws, I am not going to ask them to compile one year's figures before waiting to implement any corrective measures. While I gave examples of cases - and I have examples of cases where persons at the check-point were observed seeking entry for infants - it surely does not mean that every one who wants to violate our Immigration laws will come to the check-point and openly confess their intention to violate our Immigration laws. This is absurd.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is what you say.

Prof. Jayakumar: This is absurd. We have examples. But if the Member for Anson wants my Immigration officials to interview every one with infants in arms, the queue will end up in Johor Baru. The Immigration Department relies on surveys, observations, surveillance. And random surveys by the Immigration Department have led them to estimate that about 1,400 foreign infants under six years of age enter Singapore daily. 3.6% of them are not accompanied by their parents, ie, at least 50 children under six years of age arrive daily unaccompanied by parents. These are very telling statistics. The fact that they were not travelling with their parents at such a tender age would arouse the suspicions of Immigration authorities anywhere in the world, not just in Singapore. Suspicion strengthened by actual cases of adoption of convenience has led to the Immigration Department to take administrative measures, since June 1983 to discourage foreign children on social visit pass or other passes from becoming subjects of adoption of convenience. This condition has been imposed on more than 31,887 foreign children in Singapore. And the condition is:

'That this pass is issued subject to the condition that holder hereof shall not be proposed for adoption proceedings convened in Singapore.'

If my officials tell me that they have observed certain trends, should I as a responsible Minister ask them to wait and compile for me one year's statistics? I must act to plug the loophole. It is absurd for me to ask them to compile such statistics and to interview every case.

Sir, as I said, it is estimated that there are now 31,887 foreign children in Singapore on student pass, extended social visit pass or extended short-term pass. All of them have had their passports endorsed with a condition.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has, as I said, a case built up essentially on two limbs. The first limb was that the court and other agencies were fully made aware of all aspects of the case. And as I pointed out, this is not the case. I pointed out that the affidavit did not say that the pass had expired. The affidavit did not point out that the father was a work permit holder who had deliberately not renewed the child's pass and that the child had illegally overstayed. The law at that time did not make Immigration status and policy a relevant consideration. All that the court had to do was to look at the welfare of the child. Was the child physically in Singapore? Yes.

And the fuss that he has made over the fact that the child was supposedly having no travel document, as I pointed out, that itself does not tell us anything. All it tells us is that the child did not have a travel document of her own and the fact that the affidavit ended up by saying, "the adoption is not objected to if the child is deemed resident" which is a stock phrase used in nearly every affidavit.

As to the numbers, I have already pointed out that it is ridiculous to expect my officers to compile figures for the whole of 1984.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as Minister for Home Affairs, I am, of course, charged with the responsibility for certain subjects and some of the decisions that I have to take inevitably may be unpleasant, unsavoury, to some of the parties affected. In this case of adoption, the Government's position is not against adoption per se. It is against adoptions of convenience or an abuse of our Immigration laws. We know that it is difficult in Singapore, given our family planning programme, to find suitable Singaporean children for adoption. And that is why the Immigration authorities and the Government, before as well as now and in the future, will be sympathetic to genuine cases of adoption, particularly where a couple do not have children for various reasons or unable to have children. But this is not such a case. And when we have instances where we have to take unpleasant decisions, as Minister for Home Affairs, I do not relish takin the decisions but the responsibility must be exercised. This is a blatant case of illegal overstaying. We had to act. We acted. Otherwise, I would have failed in my responsibility.

The Member for Anson asked, "How many cases? Why don't you have checkpoint statistics for the whole of 1984?" My answer is: even if there was only one case, I would have had to act. If officials in charge of narcotics tell me of one case of a new method of smuggling in drugs, I am not going to ask them to compile one year's statistics. As Home Affairs Minister, I must act. If the Police tell me that they have discovered a new way whereby people bring in smuggled arms whether for Singapore or transhipment elsewhere, am I to wait for one year's statistics? No, I will act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have demonstrated that there is nothing that I have said at any occasion which has been inconsistent with a subsequent occasion. I have made it clear that there was no criticism of the court. But there was a gap in the law, and there indeed was a gap in the law. And it was the Adoption of, Children (Amendment) Act which sought to fill that gap.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson's charges are wholly baseless, and I think that it really constitutes an abuse of the process of this House.

Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

Mr Speaker: You have already spoken, Mr Jeyaretnam. What are you going to say now?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I wish to reply to this, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: You are replying. All right.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid that the Minister, as we say in court, with all due respect to him, has totally failed or missed the point of my charge against him. I was not saying that he had to have a number of cases before he should bring in a Bill to amend the Adoption of Children Act. As he quite rightly says, he does not have to wait for statistics. One instance would be enough for him to change the law if he thought it necessary. But that is not what I am saying. I am not criticizing him for bringing the Bill. What I am criticizing him is that, on two instances, he failed to give the House the true facts. That is my criticism, not because he brought the Bill or because he sent the child out. That is not the criticism.

My first part is that, speaking in answer to the question on the 18th March, he had misled the House when he said that the illegal presence came to light in December 1982. I am sorry but I am amazed at the Minister's reply. He would appear to be saying in his answer, "I am right in what I said because before the adoption order, we did not know that her presence was illegal." All I can say is that I am amazed at that reply.

I have pointed out that the entire facts were with the Attorney-General's Chambers, were with the court. Who is it who determines whether a person's presence in Singapore is illegal or legal? Is it left to the person himself to determine that? Or is it left to the Immigration Department and the Attorney-General's Chambers to determine that? The Minister's complaint would appear to be, "look at their affidavits. They don't say that she is an illegal stayer in Singapore." How are the grandparents to know whether she is an illegal stayer or a legal stayer? It is for the Immigration Department to determine that. And the Attorney-General's Chambers had all the facts as early as November 1981. They knew that she had come into Singapore on her father's passport. They could have found out when the father left Singapore. And the child had obviously not gone back with her father. So the child was illegally overstaying in Singapore. But it is for the Department of Immigration and for the Attorney-General to say that. The Minister says, "Oh, we did not know." What an answer.

The facts are laid before them, the competent authorities, who have to say whether the child is an illegal stayer or not. They do not say it. And then they say, "Oh, we did not know that she was an illegal stayer." I cannot accept that answer, I am sorry. It does not make sense because the Attorney-General should have determined whether her presence was illegal or not. He could have sent a memorandum to the Immigration Department to check this: "Is the father still here? Call up the petitioning parents. Where is the father? He has gone back. Well, then, how is this child staying here? No social visit pass. Nothing." They all say that: she had no travel documents. So it is for the Attorney-General's Chambers to say that she was an illegal overstayer, not for the petitioning grandparents. So I am sorry, I cannot accept the answer. The Attorney-General's Chambers was fully aware that her presence was illegal. If they were not aware, they should have been aware; they ought to have been aware.

The thrust of my charge is that the Minister is misrepresenting to this House when he says that her illegal presence only came to light in December 1982.

The second part of my charge relates to his statement made on the 29th March 1985. It is true he did not say -

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, just one minute. There is some irregularity up in the Gallery. May I find out what is wrong there, please? Someone has fainted. Mr Jeyaretnam, please sit down for a while.

Mr Jeyaretnam resumed his seat.

Mr Speaker: All right, carry on, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is true that the Minister did not say, "I have the statistics." But he said this on the 29th of March, "I do not have the figures." I took it that he did not have the figures with him at that time. That is how it appeared to me:

'I do not have the figures but I can inform the House that the Immigration authorities were so concerned because people were arriving at the checkpoint with infants in arms requesting Social Visit Pass and long-term Social Visit Pass, and when they were asked why, they said, "Well, we want to have this child adopted by this relative in Singapore." The numbers are sufficiently large to cause concern and to introduce administrative measures.'

What does that convey? That the Immigration Department had numbers of people which had caused concern to the Ministry. The Immigration Department had told them that there were hundreds of people who were arriving here, And how could they know that unless they had kept a record of people who were coming with infants in their arms? Yet when I asked on the 14th May, he says, "No, we do not have any such figures. We do not keep an such figures." I do not want to go on. That is a gross misleading of this House.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I just wish to ask one question again of the Member, since he is the one who has alleged that I have misled. Can he give me an answer to the question as to where in the Hansard, and I know he has a copy of the Hansard, where did I say that I would try and provide the number?

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, you did not say that. But I expected you to give the figures because when you said, "i do not have the figures but the numbers are sufficiently large", I expected the Minister, as an honourable Minister, a responsible Minister, to let me have the figures.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, then we must conclude that he has admitted that he has misled the House.

Ouestion put, and negatived.

Motion accordingly negatived.