COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Head U (cont.) 12.21 pm

The Prime Minister: Now without time constraints, Mr Speaker, Sir. If the Member for Anson were a powerful legal luminary, I would quiver at the charge that we have been acting unconstitutionally when we appointed Political Secretaries. I read about it last year and I thought my colleague, the Second Minister for Law, was so gentle. I do not have a gentle touch for hustlers.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You need knuckle dusters.

The Prime Minister: I do not need them.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You got the ISD.

The Prime Minister: I can deal with them the way I have dealt with them for 27 years.

Mr Jeyaretnam: And you are trying to deal with me.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, no one in this House, indeed no one at the Bar, has more experience of appeals on points of law, personally, than the Member for Anson. It is unprecedented. He has gone up to the Privy Council twice on such important matters of law, once in a civil action against me, another against the Crown in a criminal action.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Crown?

The Prime Minister: Against the Government. I am out of touch. When I practised at the Bar, it was the Crown. But my basic principles of laws are not out of touch.

Mr Chiam See Tong: There would not be a Crown in Singapore.

The Prime Minister: He has gone up on four or five appeals, to the High Court and the Court of -

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Prime Minister -

The Prime Minister: Please.

Mr Jeyaretnam: - by way of clarification, now that we have got the whole day. Does he know of the grounds on which the Privy Council have refused me special leave to petition? Does he know? It is all because of his law that he passed in Singapore, the Statute. The Privy Council held that under the Statute, the statutory provision, there was no further appeal from the High Court. How does that prove that I was wrong?

The Prime Minister: That he did not understand the simple words of the statute. Would he tell the House why his appeal against damages awarded against him was refused?

Mr Jeyaretnam: You have got the judgment. You read it. Circulate it so that everybody gets a copy of it.

The Prime Minister: That he was found to have been unwise in challenging the law and on fact that he was not telling the truth in the court in the first instance.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Privy Council did not go into that. Bring the Judgment out.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, he makes fantastic, absurd propositions, that, in order that a Political Secretary can be appointed, there must be a provision in the Constitution for his appointment.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That was made in 1966 as well by a present High Court Judge.

The Prime Minister: Please.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is the Prime Minister not aware that this same point was raised in the 1960s by a man who is now a High Court Judge, who said that he did not see any provision in the Constitution for the appointment of a Political Secretary?

The Prime Minister: Is that the only authority - that a Member of the Opposition in 1966, who is now a High Court Judge, said so, and therefore what he said in this House is a constitutional necessity?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Prime Minister -

The Prime Minister: What is your constitutional basis?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The constitutional basis is the Constitution itself, Mr Prime Minister. If you like, I will get you a copy of the Constitution now, and you tell us where in that Constitution is there a provision for the appointment of a Political Secretary? Do not point me to the definition section. Point to me the substantive provision in the Constitution which says that the Prime Minister or the President shall appoint a Political Secretary.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a Press Secretary. Tomorrow, if need be, I can appoint a Social Secretary. Is that unconstitutional?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, these are supposed to be political appointments. Does not the Prime Minister recognize the distinction between political appointments and other appointments? Of course, he can appoint his Private Secretaries, he can appoint anybody he likes. But these are political appointments.

The Prime Minister: I ask for his authority.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Constitution is the authority for political appointments.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask him to forebear and listen? The Constitution sets out those officers of State who must have membership of this House and who, having been appointed to office, then have control directly, or subordinately, of the civil service. The Political Secretary has not got to be a Member of this House. His is not an office of profit.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is he not paid?

The Prime Minister: His appointment could be by way of contract, could be on a month-to-month basis, whatever the Minister or the Prime Minister thinks fit.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is he not paid?

The Prime Minister: The fact that he is paid, as my Press Secretary is paid, does not make it an office of profit. Any of those named in the Constitution comes under one disqualification - that he cannot receive any salary from any other job. The Political Secretary is under no such disability. Hence, when the Member for Yio Chu Kang was Political Secretary, he continued with the Overseas Union Bank. But having become a Parliamentary Secretary, that would have been an office of profit. That would have given him access to the civil service, that would have made it unconstitutional for him to have held any other office of profit. 12.30 pm

The Member for Anson wants to know whether the Second Deputy Prime Minister is paid by the NTUC. He cannot be that ignorant of the law. I did not believe he was. I now believe he is, or he would not have asked that question. He is the Second Deputy Prime Minister and holding an office of profit. Therefore, he cannot receive -

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I clarify what I said?

The Prime Minister: Let me finish.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You got it wrong.

The Prime Minister: It is pathetic, Mr Speaker. He has the whole afternoon and the tragedy is he did not expect it. So he occupied as much time as possible to squeeze me out. Now he has not the chance to wriggle out.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Let us spend the whole afternoon on this.

The Prime Minister: If I am wrong about Political Secretaries -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Take it to the court.

The Prime Minister: Yes, please, as he has done to the Court of Criminal Appeal, to the Privy Council, to the Court of Appeal. There is a simple test, not what the Member for Farrer Park as he then was, Mr A. P. Rajah said obiter, in passing, making political points in this House. But what he would, sitting in judgment in the High Court considering the law and the submissions of learned counsel before him, have to rule. I am guided in this, not just by abstract principles with which all lawyers should be familiar, but also by the Attorney-General and his Chambers whose duty it is to see that this Government acts in accordance with the law. So what the Member for Anson is now saying is the Attorney-General and all his Legal Officers do not know their job.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes.

The Prime Minister: Say so. Bring your evidence.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I have asked the Prime Minister about Political Secretary appointments.

The Prime Minister: Give me your legal authority.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The legal authority, for the third time, is the Constitution. All political appointments must find a place in the Constitution, and I am asking the Prime Minister where is the provision in the Constitution for the appointment of a Political Secretary. It is no good saying that it is not an office of profit. It is not that and this. Their pay is being charged to the Consolidated Revenue and it is put under a political appointment. It is as simple as that. The taxpayer is asked to pay for this appointment of a Political Secretary and I say every political appointment must be spelt out in the Constitution.

The Prime Minister: I am asking for the legal authority for that statement.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, the Prime Minister says, "Take it to the courts." May I ask him, if he is really earnest about all this, would he ask the Attorney-General to present an originating motion in the High Court for the determination of this question in the public interest and then I will argue it contra?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, he has learned. He may be obstinate, he may be obdurate, but successive punishments of costs awarded against him has taught him one simple lesson. Open your mouth here, open your mouth to the press, but issue a summons at your peril. He issued one summons against the Senior Minister for defamation.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Which Senior Minister?

The Prime Minister: The one you hate most. Your bete noire. Libel, he said.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, I am glad he brought this up. I am very glad. Does the Prime Minister know why that action aginst the Senior Minister was dismissed? Does he know? Not on merits. Would he tell us if he knows why it was dismissed?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not worried why it was dismissed. All I know was we passed in this House an amendment which says that any political party that issues writs will be held, not only as a party responsible for those writs because the party can be made bankrupt, as he has made his Party bankrupt, but that the central committee members of that party who are not bankrupt can then be attached for costs. And if he had conviction, as the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party, he was doing right for his party and not making it further into debt, he would have carried on and staked his personal bank account against the writ. But he did not. Why did he not?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, we are straying. The Prime Minister, very deftly, is straying away from the subject. We brought an action against the Senior Minister. No, he was the supernumerary Foreign Minister in those days. The Foreign Minister could not be trusted to do the job himself, so he has had to have a supernumerary Foreign Minister to oversee the Foreign Minister. We brought an action against this supernumerary Foreign Minister for defamatory words uttered by him. The Party brought it. And something which is unheard of in other countries, a writ is commenced, a Bill is introduced in Parliament to affect proceedings which are already commenced in court retroactively, requiring the Party to lodge a security and the Party was unable to lodge the security.

The Prime Minister: Ha!

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, you laugh. It is a matter for laughing for you. The Party is unable to lodge the security and the High Court then says, "Well, you are unable to lodge the security, you cannot proceed." That is the simple truth about it. You asked: why does he not put up the security?

The Prime Minister: Why?

Mr Jeyaretnam: If you want to know, Mr Prime Minister -

The Prime Minister: I do.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The truthful answer is that I did not have the funds to put up the security. I am not ashamed to admit that.

The Prime Minister: So a Party with $14.90 in the bank issues a writ, and if it loses it has only got $14.90 to lose. But when it was asked to back its writ with a cost of what it would be to the other side, the Member for Anson -

Mr Jeyaretnam: You introduced that Bill.

The Prime Minister: Yes, indeed. Surely. It was not retroactive. It started from the day it received assent. In other words, any action that continued after that day, the Member was responsible for because he ensured that it continued.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It should have been specified in the Bill that it did not affect proceedings brought before that.

The Prime Minister: We now have this marvellous admission. "I have cheated you -"

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, you have.

The Prime Minister: "- by issuing a Bill before you could get at me because I am putting in front of me a bankrupt Party. I have made the Party bankrupt by bringing false actions, by being unable to pay damages. So I issue more reckless writs." What did we do in this House? We said if any Member -

Mr Jeyaretnam: By way of clarification, how many writs have we issued?

The Prime Minister: Against the First Deputy Prime Minister, one still on appeal. I am prepared to take a wager on the outcome of the appeal.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You know the outcome of the appeal.

The Prime Minister: Yes, indeed. I am prepared to put a wager on the outcome of the appeal because I know the law and the facts have been found by the Judge, and the facts cannot be overturned.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Startling revelation. The Prime Minister knows the outcome of the appeal.

The Prime Minister: I am offering him a wager.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Because you know what the outcome of the appeal is.

The Prime Minister: Three Judges - this is not the Philippines. There are three Judges. He has made scandalous allegations about the quality of justice when he kept on losing his cases.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Scandalous allegations, where?

The Prime Minister: That he was being pursued.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Where did I make these scandalous allegations?

The Prime Minister: In this House last year. I was waiting for it this year, under Judicature. Wisely, he did not. [Interruption] Please. The more reckless it becomes, the better it is.

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, it is not going to become reckless, Mr Prime Minister. The allegation that I made when discussing the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill - that was the main Bill that was being discussed last year -

The Prime Minister: It is a smear and you know that.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is not a smear.

The Prime Minister: Judicature.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Not on the Judiciary, Mr Prime Minister, if you will listen. The allegation that I made was that the prosecution was politically motivated. That was the allegation - that the prosecution of me and my Chairman was politically motivated. And the other thing I said was we were acquitted on three of those charges by the Senior District Judge and after he had written his judgment, because an appeal was filed by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal, he was transferred. He was transferred from being a Senior District Judge - a man who had been there for years and, as I said then and I repeat now, who would in the normal course have been translated to the High Court Bench because that is where people who held the post of Senior District Judge had gone in the past. You have got one man now who was a Senior District Judge. But this man was sent to the AG's Chambers and it was not a promotion.

I said, speaking last year, that there were eyebrows raised in public about this transfer of the man, and I asked for an explanation. So there were no scandalous allegations about the Judges or about the courts. I think the Prime Minister must understand what I said last year. I said the prosecution was politically motivated and I stand by it, and I wanted to know why this man was transferred.

The Prime Minister: Is the Member aware that transfer of Judges is in the hands of the Legal Service Commission under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Attorney-General is the No. 2 man there, and I said there were three administrative men there.

The Prime Minister: He now admits that the transfer was made by the Chief Justice in the Legal Service Commission in which the Government has no hand.

Mr Jeyaretnam: This is getting tiresome.

The Prime Minister: It is. 12.45 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, the Prime Minister should be aware, as I explained last year, that the Legal Service Commission consist of the Chief Justice as Head of the Legal Service Commission, the Attorney-General who is not a Judicial Officer (he is the Government's No. 1 Legal Officer), and then a High Court Judge and three others, or something like that. And I pointed out that they exceeded in number, the Judges, on the Legal Service Commission.

The Prime Minister: I am now entertained by a new theory that the High Court Judge and the Chief Justice were overruled by three Government nominees. I will write officially to the Chief Justice, as Chairman of the Legal Service Commission, to find out if there was any division of views on this. He has made another wild statement that because the man was a District Judge, therefore he should have been a High Court Judge, since his predecessor was. That is a fatuous remark.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would he tell us?

The Prime Minister: The man who now holds the position of District Judge is Mr Foenander.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He came from the Attorney-General's Chambers.

The Prime Minister: They all do. They all interchange. Is he entitled to go to the High Court? This is something new. Point out the constitutional provision. You want to bluff me?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister should know that there is no constitutional provision that a Senior District Judge becomes a High Court Judge. Of course, there is not. In which country do you find it?

The Prime Minister: Then why make this scandalous allegation?

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is not a scandalous allegation, Mr Prime Minister. Just try and think clearly. It is not a scandalous allegation. What I said was - and you can look at Hansard - was that prior to this there were two people who had held the post, who were translated to the High Court Bench. Oh, no, there were three, going back to 1963 days. That is right. Mr Choor Singh, you know. Mr Choor Singh went up from being Senior District Judge (in those days it was District Judge and First Magistrate). He went up to the High Court Bench. Then there was another man, as you have just mentioned. Then there was yet another man, who is now dead, who went up to the High Court Bench. And there was another man, who was a Senior District Judge, who was promoted.

The Prime Minister: Can I cut out this anecdotal? I want to make certain points before 1 o'clock. Let us cut out the anecdotal. Let us get down to basics. A smear was made that the man who acquitted him of a primary charge was not made a High Court Judge, and he having been there (I do not know) for four years maybe, was transferred.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I was not asking that he should have been made a High Court Judge. I am asking why was he transferred.

The Prime Minister: Therefore it was politically motivated. That the Attorney-General took up the appeal was politically motivated. That the appeal was allowed and the case sent for re-trial was politically motivated. That a man who is a lawyer, a solicitor and advocate of the court, let there be no mistake as to the ultimate gravity of the charge against him, he falsified accounts. He is in a cleft stick. I sympathize with him because he falsified the accounts and swore on it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Are you giving way?

The Prime Minister: I am not.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Because you are making scandalous statements.

The Prime Minister: There will be plenty of time. We have got the whole afternoon.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Good.

The Prime Minister: Nobody is trying to choke him off. But let me complete. He is in a cleft stick, is he not?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Never.

The Prime Minister: One, he had sworn this document.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is you who are in a cleft stick.

The Prime Minister: If it is false, he is in trouble. Two, if it were found that the document was not in the proper form, as I understand the law and I have discussed this with my Minister for Law, he will be asked to swear one. And if it is different from the original one, he has some explanation to do. And as an officer of the court, knowing the law, fiddling with the law, he has to answer as an officer of the court. And that is no light matter. And the Attorney-General knows that. It is his business to see that those with certificates to practise at the Bar maintain a certain code of honour and do not conduct themselves like scamps and scalawags.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, the technique is a familiar one. The Judiciary, of course, is honest. What is dishonest? The Government. Why? Because the District Judge was not promoted. But, of course, there was no obligation.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, because -

The Prime Minister: Because there is nothing new.

The Chairman: Mr Jeyaretnam, he is not giving way.

The Prime Minister: Please, on a point of order. Am I entitled, Mr Speaker, Sir, to continue and reply?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Because you are making false statements.

The Prime Minister: It is fabulous. He can make wild allegations, smears. He then wriggles out when confronted. But I am not entitled to give a rebuttal.

Mr Jeyaretnam: But you are making false statements and I will tell you why.

The Prime Minister: The questions of law are simple. They are to be settled by the courts. Whether he is ultimately found to be guilty and a criminal, that is his business. But to say that he is being prosecuted because it is politically motivated when the prosecution is in the hands of the Attorney-General is to give a twist which only a sick and a disordered mind is capable of.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will show you why it is politically motivated.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, he has brought this upon himself and I sympathize with him.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I do not want your sympathy.

The Prime Minister: He has made allegations of unconstitutional appointments, and he cannot support them. There is nothing unconstitutional. I have appointed a Press Secretary. It so happens that the present incumbent is a member of the public service. There was a time in the 1960s when I appointed a Foreign Correspondent, Mr Alex Josey, who accompanied me overseas. And he was paid for by the Treasury. That was a political appointment. I appointed him. He exercised no powers over the civil service. Is that unconstitutional? What are we talking about?

On the basis that he is an advocate and solicitor, therefore he lays down the law, with a dismal record of failed appeals, he comes here to tell my two colleagues, both lawyers, whose judgment I would rely on any day. Do we need to break the law if, in fact, we break the law? Just ask ourselves this simple question. Because these are basic fundamentals of how we run the system. We want to appoint Political Secretaries. If it is against the law, we can change the law. There is no problem about majority, whether it is simple or two-thirds. Need we break the law? Is it good that the Government should be flouting its own laws?

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are.

The Prime Minister: What sense does it make?

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are flouting the laws.

The Prime Minister: What sense does it make? It behoves us to ask ourselves whether a statement made and affirmed and reaffirmed and not rebutted, and emphatically rebutted, should be allowed in this House. I suggest that if the Member persists in this, the House should move a resolution to compel him to take an action and prove his case, or take disciplinary action against him in this House. He is accusing the Government of unconstitutional action and there may be a smattering of followers who believe, "Yes, this Government acts unconstitutionally." Why should it? Does it make sense? We have 77 out of 79 Members. Do we need to break the Constitution, if in fact it is against the Constitution. Where is the sense of it?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why did you not bring the case to the court to test it?

The Prime Minister: Because it has been the advice of the two Ministers that I have, and of the Attorney-General and his Chambers, that there is nothing amiss. If the Member believes that there is something amiss, it is up to him. He is, in fact, saying that we with a majority of 77 Members in this House persist in flouting the Constitution. Are we mad? Are we deranged? Do we want to be criminals?

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, his substantive point that we are overmanned. I ask him not to come here and make this sweeping statement because he has no authority for that. Do a quantitative analysis - number of political appointments, number of Ministers against population and GDP of a country. I have done so and my colleague, Dr Richard Hu, the Minister for Finance, last year worked out for me that with the GDP of Singapore, some 20 American public corporations (never mind governments) spent more on their top officers than this Government. Never mind other governments. We did not even bother to look into other governments. Now, come up with facts and figures and we will listen.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Give your figures of Ministers' salaries.

The Prime Minister: I answered him.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Did you? No.

The Prime Minister: We have the whole afternoon. Do we want to repeat it again? I am prepared for it, for another whole afternoon. There is nothing which I have done in 26 years of office which I am not prepared to defend publicly. If I feel I cannot defend it publicly, I would not have done it in the first place. When we say that the Government is overstaffed and we want to trim it down by 10%, we produce facts, figures, comparative analysis. When the Member alleges that we are overstaffed, I say, "Produce the facts and figures." But a wild allegation on his part does not make it so. It only makes him a wild man. And whilst there are moments when wild statements can bring hilarity, if allowed repetition without challenge -

The Chairman: It is 1.00 pm, Prime Minister.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will deal with that this afternoon.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend this Sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

Head U (cont.) -

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I took advantage of the break for lunch to inquire of the Public Service Commission whether they were instrumental, as the Member for Anson had insinuated, in the transfer of the District Court Judge. The Chairman of the Public Service Commission has told me that such internal movements of officers in the Legal Service, transferred from one branch to another is undertaken at the initiative of the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General. He had no part in the transfer. I have sent a message to the Chief Justice's Chambers and I hope in the course of this afternoon to receive his account of what took place.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought the Prime Minister was going to respond to all the other questions.

The Prime Minister: I will.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Of course, I was aware, as I said in last year's debate because it is provided in the Constitution. Transfers, promotions, discipline of Legal Officers are entrusted to the Legal Service Commission. I do not need to be told that. It is in the Constitution.

What I did say, and this is where the Prime Minister gets me wrong time and time again, is that I did not say that he should have been promoted to the High Court Bench. That was not my plea in this House last year. My question was: he was transferred from a post that he had held with honour and credit after having been several years in this post, to the Attorney-General's Chambers.

An hon. Member: What is wrong?

Mr Jeyaretnam: And he was not promoted there. He was transferred to an appointment in the same scale. May I say that the appointment he was transferred to was lower in prestige and in status than that of a Senior District Judge. The post of Senior District Judge carries a prestige and a status.

The only other instance that I do know of where the head of the Subordinate Courts, at one time known as District Judge and First Magistrate and now known as Senior District Judge was transferred to the AG's Chambers, was when he was promoted to the post of Acting Solicitor-General. That is the gravamen of my point - that it was not a promotion for this man. It was just a transfer, and we all know that.

The Prime Minister: Can I seek clarification?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, you may. What is it that you want to know?

The Prime Minister: Did I mishear the Member when he said that the Government had three nominees on the Legal Service Commission and that they were responsible for this transfer? That is why I inquired of the Chairman, Public Service Commission.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I did not say that they were instrumental. What I did say, and I stand by it, is that the Legal Service Commission - get the Hansard - consists of the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General as No. 2, then another High Court Judge, and two others from the Public Service Commission. And I said the Attorney-General and the other two form the majority in the Legal Service Commission. Those are all facts and you cannot dispute those facts. If the Prime Minister wishes to justify this, the only way is to get the minutes of the Legal Service Commission when this transfer was considered, and let us see what discussion took place.

The Prime Minister: I am not trying to justify anything. A smear was made by the Member to suggest that here was a deserving officer who should have been promoted either to the High Court Bench -

Mr Jeyaretnam: You do not understand.

The Chairman: Let the Prime Minister reply.

The Prime Minister: - or to the post of Solicitor-General, but he was not. He insinuated that because the Government's men - I think there are 70-plus Members who heard it - the majority were non-judicial, therefore they were instrumental. I therefore thought it right and proper that the Chairman of the Public Service Commission who is a member of the Legal Service Commission should have his say, and he has had his say. I can only regret that the Member, instead of taking his medicine like a man and apologizing for it, now tries to shift the blame to some vague assertion of principle that, because he listed out the members of the Legal Service Commission, it was my wicked and devious mind that read this insinuation into it. Just be a man and own up, and say that you were gravely mistaken and that you will withdraw what you have said.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, it looks as though we are never going to get to my substantive motion in this amendment. We can go on for the next seven days arguing this if the Prime Minister so wishes. I am prepared.

The Prime Minister: You are prepared to?

Mr Jeyaretnam: If you want to argue this for the next seven days, I am saying that we are now sidetracked completely from the amendment.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is the point of order?

The Prime Minister: A scandalous allegation has been made that the Government through its representatives on the Legal Service Commission brought about the transfer of the Senior District Judge to the Attorney-General's Chambers. I knew nothing of the matter. I inquired of the Chairman, Public Service Commission. He told me that this was a routine departmental transfer in which the initiative was taken by the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, and the other members of the Public Service Commission concurred.

The point of order is this. A serious scandalous allegation has been made of interference by the Government through the members of the Public Service Commission on the Legal Service Commission. I think the Member for Anson should either justify that or render an apology. And before he makes more fatuous mistakes, there are in fact three members of the Public Service Commission on the Legal Service Commission - the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and one other.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I said three.

The Prime Minister: No, you said two. Mr Speaker, there is something fabulous, fantastic, about the Member for Anson. His memory is elastic. But we have got the magnetic tape. We have got a video tape, not just audio tape. What did he say?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I said the Chairman and two other members of the Public Service Commission. Let us not quibble over that. If the Prime Minister says that there is nothing in it for the Governmnet to be ashamed of, I say produce the transcript of what took place when this transfer was discussed. He says the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General were responsible. Who initiated it? How did it come about? Well, come clean.

The Prime Minister: Will he then apologize, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have nothing to apologize. I am asking how did it come about, and I raised the disquiet that was felt outside this House when they saw about the transfer.

The Prime Minister: The Member behaves in a fashion which makes me feel really ashamed for the whole House. There are ways of hurting the Government. There are ways of hurting oneself. But there are certain ways not to demean general standards of honour and basic integrity.

I have a note here from the Chief Justice which he just sent to me, dated 19.3.86. It says:

'Michael Khoo was transferred from the Subordinate Courts, where he was the Senior District Judge, to the A-G's Chambers on 6th August 1984.

I made the decision to transfer him after consultation with the A-G. The authority to decide on transfers of any officer in the Legal Service was delegated to me as President of the Legal Service Commission and the A-G as a member of the Legal Service Commission.

(Signed) Wee Chong Jin'

Does he not owe an apology to the members of the Public Service Commis- sion, this Government, and the Chief Justice?

Mr Jeyaretnam: What apology do I owe? What is it that I have said?

The Prime Minister: You lied.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is it that I have lied about? I have said that the transfer should be explained. Now, you come out with a note from the Chief Justice. It was not brought at the last discussion in this House.

The Prime Minister: Otherwise you would persist.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It was not brought out. Was there a meeting of the Legal Service Commission? Let us have the minutes. Was there a discussion on this?

The Prime Minister: Is he impugning the integrity of the Chief Justice?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I accept what the Chief Justice says in his letter. But you are alleging a number of things.

The Prime Minister: He is asking for the minutes of the meeting, which means the Chief Justice is lying.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is the Chief Justice's note. It is quite evident, is it not?

The Prime Minister: It is quite evident that since the Member for Anson is calling for the minutes, the Chief Justice's note is patently untrue. What else does he want the minutes for? Be a man. Own up.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have nothing to apologize for. I keep telling you. It is because I asked for an explanation and now you give us this explanation. It was never given last year. Why was it not given last year? And what is wrong in asking a question on the transfer? Every time I ask a question in this House, I am told that I am making an insinuation or I am making an allegation. We heard this yesterday from the Finance Minister. We heard it this morning. If you have got nothing to be ashamed about, you reveal everything. Why was it not revealed last year?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, a very serious allegation has been made about a key institution in Singapore and the Member for Anson has refused, after evidence has been produced, to apologize. I move that this matter be sent to the Privileges Committee.

The Chairman: Can you file your complaint? You have to spell it out.

Mr Dhanabalan: Yes, we will spell it out.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have no desire to pillory the Member for Anson, nor his colleague. We just expect a certain standard of honour to be maintained. If the Member refuses, then this House has a right to insist that standards of honour be maintained.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just been looking into the Standing Orders. Standing Order No. 95 (7)(b) states:

'... any Member may rise at any time to make a complaint alleging a breach of privilege suddenly arising, and if the Speaker is satisfied that the matter complained of ... affects the privileges of Parliament and that it has been raised at the earliest opportunity, the same shall stand referred, without any question, to the Committee and no further proceedings shall be taken in the matter until the Committee has reported thereon.'

I move under this Standing Order, Sir, that this matter be referred to the Privileges Committee.

The Chairman: I can say I am satisfied that the matter complained of prima facie affects the privileges of Parliament and that it has been raised at the earliest opportunity. The matter shall stand referred, without any question, to the Privileges Committee and no further proceedings shall be taken in the matter until the Committee has reported thereon.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I point out that you are sitting as Chairman of the Committee of the House at the moment. You are not sitting as Speaker of Parliament, the whole House. We are in Committee.

The Chairman: I suspend the proceedings of this Committee.

Thereupon, pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (2), Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.