LEGAL SERVICE POSTINGS (Statement by the Prime Minister)

11.43 am

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, following the debate in the Committee Stage of the Budget Estimates on the 19th March 1986, I asked the Legal Service Commission for any minutes of the decision to post Mr Michael Khoo to the Attorney-General's Chambers. The Secretary of the Legal Service Commission has given this in a minute to my Principal Private Secretary. I shall read the relevant parts of the minute, which also refers to the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo and enclosing a photostat copy of the internal minute taken from the Legal Service Commission's file, and reproduced. The note is dated 20th March, 1986, yesterday afternoon. I received it this morning.

'I refer to the subject of transfers of legal officers brought up during the Parliamentary debate yesterday. The Legal Service consists of two branches. They are the Judicial Branch with 44 posts and the Legal Branch with 92 posts. The Head of the Judicial Branch is the Hon. The Chief Justice, while the Head of the Legal Branch is the Attorney-General. The organizational structure is given in Appendix I.

For their career development, Legal Officers are regularly rotated between the two branches as well as within the same branch. From 1983 to 1985 a total of 22 Legal Officers were rotated. For 1986 some 10 Legal Officers, including five from the Judicial Branch, will be rotated with effect from 1st April. Standing instructions on the conduct of transfers and postings of Legal Officers as well as other staff matters have been in force since 1 December 1965'.

The circular on those instructions has been annexed. On the transfer of Michael Khoo, a copy of an internal minute taken from the Legal Service Commission's files is in Appendix 3. I shall read Appendix 3: 'Legal Service Secretary LEGAL SERVICE POSTINGS I spoke to you last Monday evening regarding postings of superscale Legal Officers within the Legal Service. 2 Through the Registrar, Supreme Court (Mr R E Martin), the Honourable the Chief Justice has directed that the following postings be effected from Monday, 6 Aug 84: a Mr Michael Khoo Kah Lip Senior District Judge (Superscale D) Subordinate Courts To be posted to AG's Chambers b Mr Errol Carl Foenander Senior State Counsel (Superscale E) Attorney-General's Chambers To be posted to Subordinate Courts 3 Mr Martin has taken appropriate action under the Subordinate Courts Act to seek the President's approval for Mr Foenander to function as Senior District Judge, Subordinate Courts, wef 6 Aug 84. 4 Accordingly, the usual LSC's [Legal Service Commission] minute to effect the postings is at cover for your consideration/signature, please. (Signed) TAN ENG SIONG 1 Aug 84.' Mr Tan Eng Siong is the Personnel Director of the Legal Service Commission. His duties are to assist the Secretary, Legal Service Commission.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important that the impartiality and the integrity of the Judiciary, including the Subordinate Courts, is not lightly impugned and made the subject of politicking. I have gone to some length to trace all documentary and other evidence on this transfer. I now ask the Member for Anson whether he accepts that the removal of Mr Michael Khoo from the position of Senior District Judge was in the ordinary and proper course of the transfer of officers in the Legal Service and unconnected with the Prime Minister or Ministers of the Government.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, may I point out to the Prime Minister that it was not I who raised this question two days ago. It was his reference to what I said in this House in the debate on the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill that brought up this discussion two days ago. I then said, why were not all these produced last year when we were discussing this matter? Nothing was done but I will let that pass.

The Prime Minister says that transfers between the Legal and the Judicial branches of the Legal Service are quite normal. Of course, I know it is normal. I was once a member of the Legal Service. I was trans- ferred from the Subordinate Courts to the AG's Chambers, and then back again from the AG's Chambers as Head of the Civil District Court, and then as Registrar of the Supreme Court, and finally to the equivalent of the present post of Senior District Judge in the Subordinate Courts. I am well aware of that.

But may I ask the Prime Minister how many instances are there of the holder of the post of Senior District Judge and before that, District Judge and First Magistrate, being transferred to a post in the AG's Chambers equal in standing and grade to his post? I am not talking about promotion. As I said, there was once a promotion. But how many holders of this post were transferred to the AG's Chambers to a post on the same level? As I said, the post of Senior District Judge enjoys a status and a prestige which is much higher than that of the Senior State Counsel or the Senior Deputy Public Prosecutor.

Finally, the Prime Minister has quoted - I am not quite clear yet what is it he quoted - it was a note I gather from the Director of the Personnel Department.

The Prime Minister: Secretary of the Public Service Commission. Second last page, Annex 3.

[The Prime Minister handed copy of document to Mr Jeyaretnam.]

Mr Jeyaretnam: To the Secretary, yes. That was what the Prime Minister quoted. This is a note from one Mr Tan Eng Siong, who is the Personnel Coordinator of the Legal Service Commission, to the Secretary of the Legal Service Commission. It simply says that the Chief Justice has directed through the Registrar of the transfers that should take place.

What I did ask was whether the Hon. Prime Minister would make available as to how the transfer came about. Who originated it? Somebody must have originated it. And whether there was any reason given for the proposal that this man should be transferred. That is what I asked, whether there was a minute. I understood from the Prime Minister that the transfer was arranged or discussed between the Attorney-General and the Chief Justice because it had been delegated to them.

If he wants the whole thing to be made public, subject it to scrutiny, then should not all that be placed? If the Prime Minister is very anxious - I am glad that he is anxious - that there should be no criticism made of this, then perhaps the best thing would be to set up a Parliamentary committee, and let the Parliamentary committee go into it and then report to the House. I think that would be the best method, may I tell the Prime Minister, of satisfying any public disquiet about this movement. Because I will tell the Prime Minister - I have said this before - that there was public disquiet about this man being removed from the post of Senior District Judge, not promoted, but transferred to the AG's Chambers.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member has not directly answered my question. He now proposes a Parliamentary committee to inquire into the originator or the manner in which the minute was originated.

Mr Jeyaretnam: How it came about that this man should be transferred.

The Prime Minister: In other words, he still has suspicions, reservations, about the transfer of this man, that it was not in accordance with what the Chief Justice and what the Secretary of the Legal Service Commission have said.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the Prime Minister either refuses to see the principle involved or is perhaps unable to see it. He, as the Head of the Government, comes to this House and says there is no impropriety in this transfer. As I said, if the Prime Minister feels it is absolutely necessary that the whole thing should be cleared, then there is only one way to do it. I am glad that the Prime Minister is now offering to clear this. But will he accept what I tell him - that the only way to do it is for a Parliamentary committee to look into it?

The Chief Justice's note, of course, I accept. He says, "I directed it." May I also say that the Chief Justice's note was a personal note to the Prime Minister. I was a little taken aback that the Prime Minister decided to make it public. But let that pass. The Chief Justice's note, of course, I accept. I do not know what is in there. He said, "I directed it" or "I arranged it in consultation with the AG." But it still does not tell us enough as to who originated the transfer. What was the reason for it?

The Prime Minister: I take it that the Member insists that there should be an inquiry because he has grounds for raising his eyebrows and indeed he knows of other people who have raised their eyebrows.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I can only repeat, Mr Speaker, Sir, what I said a little while ago. I am afraid the Prime Minister is unable to grasp that. If the Prime Minister is anxious that it should be made to appear to the public that there can be no suggestion of any impropriety in this, then the ball is at his feet.

The Prime Minister: I assume therefore that he has grounds for saying that the ball is at my feet. It is in the penalty area and that he intends to kick the ball into the goal.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister now seems to have suddenly discovered the technique of playing football.

The Prime Minister: It is not funny.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am sorry.

The Prime Minister: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. I asked a very serious question whether the Member intends to pursue his allegation that there was something beyond what the Chief Justice has said, what the minutes of the Legal Service Commission have disclosed, and that he will produce reasons for his reservations before a Parliamentary committee. Because we are not going to have a Parliamentary committee to have a psycho-analysis of the Member for Anson. He must have hard evidence.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Prime Minister - I am sorry to have to repeat, Mr Speaker, Sir - completely misses the point, completely misses the point. In the first place, may it be recorded and, if necessary, get the Parliamentary report of what I said in this House when we discussed the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill. What I said was - and I stand corrected, of course, if the Report is produced - but going from memory, what I said was that there was disquiet about the transfer of this man four months after he had given a decision. And the Prime Minister must know, if he has read the report containing my speech, that what I was urging in that speech was the setting up of a separate body for District Judges to take them away from the Legal Service Commission, have a separate body which will determine their promotions, their transfers, so that they can be seen to be absolutely independent of the Executive in their decisions.

So the Prime Minister must first get his facts correct. I was not making any specific allegation. I was urging the need for the independence of the District Judges, whose jurisdiction was raised last year, to be jealously safeguarded so that, in the minds of the public, there would be no qualms at all about their independence and their ability to have regard only for the due and proper administration of justice, without worrying about anything else.

The Prime Minister: Can I make sure that I have understood the Member correctly, because they are very grave words spoken on a grave matter? He has just said and we have all listened to him, and I have with great attentiveness, that the system (never mind whether the Chief Justice initiated this move or not) is wrong, it does not guarantee independence of his Subordinate Courts and that there should be a separate body to ensure their independence and their freedom from any pressure to which they can be exerted under the existing system. Please confirm.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Of course it was. That is what I said, that under the present system the Legal Service Commission, which consists of the Attorney-General as No. 2 who is Head of the Legal Service, decides on the transfers, promotions, discipline, of District Judges. And I said it was desirable that the Attorney-General should be removed from that.

The Prime Minister: I assume therefore that the Member is saying that because the Attorney-General is a member of the Legal Service Commission and given the circumstances that he has narrated of Mr Michael Khoo, a Senior District Judge, being transferred out four months after he acquitted the Member for three out of four charges, there was in fact something wrong, not quite right; it does not ensure the independence of the Subordinate Court Judge, and that therefore we should have a Parliamentary committee to investigate this. You have said something very serious.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I stand by everything I say, Mr Prime Minister. I never resile from anything I say in this House or outside. But we had the spectacle of the Prime Minister on - was it Wednesday? - we had the spectacle of the Prime Minister resiling, shamelessly, from his word. There he was challenging the Member for Potong Pasir to suggest a percentage for the reduction in Members' allowances. The Member for Potong Pasir did not respond. But I stood up, and I said, "25% cut". I reminded him that last year I had proposed in a motion a 25% cut. But did the Prime Minister move his motion? I had to ask him three times. Did he move his motion? So who is resiling, may I ask? Not me.

I still stand by what I said, when speaking in this House on the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill, that I think, in my view, the District Judges should be taken out of the Legal Service Commission; leave the Magistrates alone. But perhaps even they should be removed. There should be a separate Judicial Service Commission, independent of the presence of any Executive member of the Government on that Commission.

The Prime Minister: I do not want to mislead the Member for Anson as to the purpose of this clarification. It is not to score a debating point. It is not to establish that I can out-argue, or be bolder, or be more impetuous and vehement than the Member for Anson. I want to establish the unassailable nature and attributes of our judicial system which has been impugned by the Member for Anson, even after the Chief Justice had given me a written note, even after the minutes of the Legal Service Commission (a photostat copy) has been produced as he requested. He asked that there be an inquiry to look into the nature of the system because it is at fault. Will he now draft the terms of reference of this inquiry? Because there will be one, and he can give evidence before this inquiry. Draft the terms of reference and there will be the inquiry.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is now proposing that there should be a Parliamentary committee to consider proposals to safeguard the independence of the District Judges? Is that what he is proposing? Because if that is what he is proposing, I shall be very happy to make my views known before this committee and to give my recommendations. I shall be only too happy to do that. And if he wants the terms of reference, I shall be delighted to send him the terms of reference.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, I did not propose an inquiry. I am completely satisfied that there was nothing improper, there was nothing out of the ordinary in the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo from the position of Senior District Judge. It is the Member for Anson who has insinuated that there are many things wrong. Confronted with the statement from the Chief Justice that he ordered the transfer out, supported by the minutes of the transfer in the Legal Service Commission files, he shifts his ground in two respects.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I did not shift my ground.

The Prime Minister: He says, "What is the motivation. What is the initiator?" Second, that the system is wrong because the Attorney-General is a member of the Legal Service Commission, and that there should be a Parliamentary inquiry. I now say, "Yes, let us have this Parliamentary inquiry." And he says it is my proposal to look into the system. It was his proposal. I am now asking him to draft the terms of reference. Let me have it. It shall be done.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought I told the Prime Minister that if -

The Prime Minister: Put it down.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You mean you want me to draft it now, right immediately, Mr Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: Say it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I do not think we should be too hasty about it. I will send it to you. Hold your patience for a little while, Mr Prime Minister. You know, terms of reference have to be carefully drafted out. You do not expect me, this very second, to scribble out something and hand it to you.

The Prime Minister: The Member for Anson made this proposal. I am not asking him for a legally crafted form of words. All I want is the subject matter of this Parliamentary committee of inquiry. What is the subject matter? Let us have it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, for the last time, may I say that what has been presented this morning are not the minutes. The Prime Minister keeps saying, "I produced the minutes." They are not the minutes. It is a letter from one Mr Tan Eng Siong, the Personnel Coordinator, who says that certain things have been arranged. They are not the minutes.

The Prime Minister: Let that also be the subject of the inquiry. Yes, all the allegations.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I do not know how many inquiries the Prime Minister is proposing.

The Prime Minister: You are going to be a hoist with your own petard.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I assure the Prime Minister that I have no fears for myself. I know what I am doing. He need not worry on my account. Again, may I repeat - it would appear that I keep repeating, it should not be necessary, but obviously it is necessary for the Prime Minister. I said to him that since he has taken the trouble to come this morning and he is anxious that, before the public scrutiny, the transfer should appear to be completely free from any impropriety, then if he is anxious on that score, the only thing for him to do and the proper thing to do would be to appoint a Parliamentary committee, so that the parliamentary committee will then look into it and issue its report and the public will know.

I did not suggest the Parliamentary committee of inquiry. The Prime Minister comes this morning and says, "perfectly above board." I said, if he is that anxious, then the only way to get the satisfaction would be to appoint a Parliamentary committee to inquire into it, and not just a committee from the

75 Members of this House who belong to his Party. May I also tell the Prime Minister that he has only got 75 Members of his Party in this Chamber in support of the Government. Because there is not only his Party in this House the Committee should also consist of the Opposition Members to look into this whole question.

But I am more concerned, as I was last year, with preserving the independence and the impartiality of the District Judges. I certainly would commend to the Prime Minister that there should be a committee set up to look into the whole question of the independence of the District Judges. The independence of the Judiciary on the High Court Bench is safeguarded. But we should now look into the question of the independence and the impartiality or fear from any Executive pressure on the District Judges who, because of the passing of the two Bills, will now be hearing criminal cases of some magnitude, cases which were previously heard only by the High Court. So I certainly would welcome a committee to look into this question and I shall be very happy to make my recommendations and my views known to this committee.

The Prime Minister: Do I understand that he wants the committee to look into the question of safeguarding the independence of the Subordinate Courts (the Judges)? But he is satisfied with the High Court Judges, that their independence has been safeguarded? He said so just now. I want to confirm that he said so, in case I misheard him.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The High Court Judges do not come under the Legal Service Commission. I am concerned with the District Judges. So it is they who have to look over their shoulders at the Attorney-General. That is why I think the District Judges' position should be safeguarded.

The Prime Minister: He does not want the committee to inquire into the circumstances in which Mr Michael Khoo was transferred out and whether there was impropriety?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Again, I told the Prime Minister, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if he is anxious, that is the only course. Of course, yes, if he agrees that this parliamentary committee should inquire into that, by all means.

The Prime Minister: So I now have it clearly it is to inquire into the present system which does not safeguard the independence of the Subordinate Court Judges and Magistrates. Am I right?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes.

The Prime Minister: Second, any impropriety in connection with the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo out of the position of Senior District Judge. Yes?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Inquire into the circumstances.

The Prime Minister: Impropriety, circumstances of any other subjects.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Prime Minister has not answered my question that I put to him earlier this morning. I realize, of course, that he may not be in a position to answer it this morning. I asked him how many instances have there been, prior to the removal of this man, of the holder of the post of Senior District Judge and before that, District Judge and First Magistrate, being transferred to the AG's Chambers, horizontally, not being promoted. That is why I said there was disquiet. One can understand if the man was promoted, but he was not. This is why I said there was disquiet. And I said if the Prime Minister is anxious to assure the public, then he should appoint a committee to look into it.

The Prime Minister: Therefore, really under subhead (2), the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo out of this position of Senior District Judge to the Attorney-General's Chambers is a specific investigation into precedents or previous instances, if any, where a Senior District Judge was transferred out to the Attorney-General's Chambers and was not promoted. Am I right? Put it in your own words.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister wants me to suggest what should be the terms of reference for this committee. All right, I will tell you now. One, to look into the independence - this is as he said is not the legal form of words but just what they should look into and if you like, I will draft it in legal form and send it to you. To examine or investigate the independence - I do not like the word investigate - to examine the independence and impartiality of the District Judges in the Subordinate Courts.

The Prime Minister: Not Magistrates?

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, we will include the Magistrates. I think for good measure let us include the Magistrates as well. I think perhaps they should be included, yes. Whilst we are on this exercise, we might as well include them.

And to see whether the present system provides adequate safeguards for their independence. And whether a better system should be now created to ensure that judicial officers in the Subordinate Courts are freed from any fear of Executive displeasure that would affect their promotions or career advancement. And to look into all the circumstances leading to the transfer of the then Senior District Judge in April 1985 to whatever post he was transferred to in the AG's Chambers.

The Prime Minister: I thought he mentioned specifically the non-promotion of this person. Does he not want to investigate that?

Mr Jeyaretnam: No. I was going to say for goodness sake but I suppose I should avoid saying for goodness sake. Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought I made it clear on Wednesday that I was not saying that the man should have been promoted. I know enough about the workings of the Legal Service Commission. And I would not be so rash and imprudent to come here and say, "The man should have been promoted." I never said that. What I did say was that the man was not promoted but he was transferred to a post on the same grade but less in prestige and status. So I do not want a committee to look into why he was not promoted. No.

The Prime Minister: Would he like the investigation to be into the circumstances why he was transferred into a position or job less in prestige and status?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I thought I have already spelt it out - into all the circumstances for the transfer of this man to the Attorney-General's Chambers, to a post on the same scale. Of course, it would not appear in the Establishment List as being less in prestige and status. But I say quite clearly the post of Senior District Judge is higher in prestige and status.

The Prime Minister: Is he sure he has no other items that he wants included in the terms of reference? Because then I want to move to the next question of the committee of investigation, or examination, or whatever he likes to call it, inquiry? Has he no other items? All the raised eyebrows?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think there is anything else. I think it adequately covers it. I think the main part of it is the one which I first spelt out, the safeguarding of the independence of the District Judges and the Magistrates. That is the main one. But as I told the Prime Minister that if he still wants my help, I will send him the terms of reference spelling out in detail what the committee should investigate.

The Prime Minister: I look forward to receiving it because it will not be I who will draft it. It will go to the draftsman who looks after these matters in the AG's Chambers.

Can I now ask him how many members there should be on this parliamentary committee, and who they should be? His proposals. It is completely above board. I want this exchange to be on the record.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I welcome that. I have no intention that it should be anything than above board. I said a Parliamentary committee.

The Prime Minister: Who?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Do you want me to name them now? I think we have to think about it. You are not going to leave it to me, are you? I am being flattered, extremely. I do not know why I have been suddenly given this honour this morning of naming the committee to be set up by the Government or by Parliament. But I would also commend that perhaps we should include on to this committee one or two people perhaps from outside of Parliament, people like the Dean of the Law Faculty, and perhaps the President of the Law Society, and three or four Members from Parliament; and certainly it should be an all-Party Committee from Parliament.

The Prime Minister: There should be the Dean of the Law Faculty, President of the Law Society, an Opposition Member -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Both Opposition Members.

The Prime Minister: How many other Members? Name them.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I do not think we want this to be too unwieldy. We do not want 17, 19 members of the Committee. I should suggest about seven, Mr Speaker, Sir.

The Prime Minister: Name them.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why do you not give me a bit of time for me to think who should go on to this committee? It is not that I am shirking away from it. But, you know, it needs a little bit more thought. I just cannot say "that man, that man" or "that Member, that Member". I think you should give us a little bit more time.

The Prime Minister: How much time would the Member like? I am prepared to wait.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Not on the spot. Next week I will send it to you.

The Prime Minister: This afternoon perhaps? Can I ask whether he thinks it is proper that he who questions the goings-on of the transfer should be sitting in judgment over the proceedings?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Prime Minister is serious, I am glad, may I assure him, that he is taking it seriously. If the Prime Minister is serious about the independence of the Subordinate Judiciary, and I have suggested that that should be the main task of this Committee, I cannot see any objections to including the two Members of the Opposition on this committee because we happen to come from different parties. If the Prime Minister feels that I should not be on the committee which is looking into the circumstances of the transfer, then perhaps I could stay out of the deliberations of that committee on that point.

The Prime Minister: Can I ask if the Member has adverted his mind to the problem of having non-Members of Parliament on a Parliamentary committee - the Dean of the Law Faculty and the President of the Law Society? Should they not be asked to appear before this committee, or should they be on the committee?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand corrected, of course, but I think it is within the province of Parliament to appoint a committee consisting of people from even outside Parliament. I stand corrected.

The Prime Minister: No.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, then do not call it a Parliamentary committee. I can check this up for him in Erskine. Do not call it a Parliamentary committee. Call it a committee appointed by Parliament.

The Prime Minister: Can I assume that he will put it into a coherent form that there would be these two Members who are not Members of Parliament and seven members of Parliament, amongst whom will be the Opposition Member, the Member for Potong Pasir. He must reconcile two non-Members of Parliament with seven Members of Parliament.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I do not quite understand the question from the Prime Minister. Could he try and explain what he is trying to say?

The Prime Minister: I have pointed out that if he wanted a committee of Parliamentarians, he cannot have two non-Parliamentary Members. So he has to reconcile them. If he does not want a Parliamentary committee, then he should say so, because he wants two others who are not Members of Parliament.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I suggested a Parliamentary committee and I suppose if the term "Parliamentary committee" is to be followed, then it must consist of Members of Parliament only. But suddenly on reflection, I thought perhaps it would help if it had one or two other people from outside - the Dean of the Law Faculty and the incumbent of the post of President of the Law Society - to help in the deliberations of the committee. But I can see a way out. I suppose they can appear and give their views to the Parliamentary Committee. It does not really matter whether it is a Parliamentary committee or a committee appointed by Parliament, including people from outside. Let us not quibble over these little details. If the Prime Minister is anxious that this should be looked into, well, I welcome it. Thank you very much.

The Prime Minister: I have not had the answer. Would he prefer to have it outside Parliament with the two Members in, or would he like to have a Parliamentary committee with the two Members out. I am not quibbling either. It is his proposal. I am asking him for his choice.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I would ask the Prime Minister to allow me to consider this. I can see some merit in including these persons on to the committee. But, on the other hand, as I have just said, perhaps the same thing can be achieved by their appearing before the committee, or for that matter any body appearing before the committee, and giving their views to the committee. I suppose it does not really matter. I keep saying, let us get on with the job.

The Prime Minister: I take it that the Member for Anson will accept the findings of this committee, which he will name.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Whether I accept the findings of that committee or not should be irrelevant because there can be, as the Prime Minister is aware, even dissenting reports from committees or commissions. I should not now be told that I must accept whatever the rest of the committee says on it. I cannot be forced to do that. But, of course, if the committee reports to Parliament, then there will be again debate in this House. The Prime Minister should not overlook that. That committee will have to report to Parliament and there will be a further debate, and I will then again be at liberty to express my own views.

The Prime Minister: I find this a never-ending Pandora's box. Or it is like the babushka Russian dolls. You open one doll, there is another doll inside. I am now told that the Member, having named this committee - I am not naming it, he is going to name this committee - at the end of it all, if he does not like it, he is going to have a debate here and decide on his position. In other words, if the committee finds that the system as it is, is inadequate, then the Member will accept it. But if the committee finds that the system is adequate, the Member will reject it. Then why do we have a committee at all?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Does it matter so much to the Prime Minister that I accept or not accept? I am indeed flattered, again. The Prime Minister knows - I give him credit, he must know all about committees and especially Committees of Parliament - that the report must come back to the whole House and that the House should debate that report and say whether the House will accept it, and that it should be open to anyone to argue against the committee's report. And even if he is a member of the committee, provided he had made his reservations known. So what is all this, "Will you accept it, or will you not accept it?" It is for the public to decide. When the committee presents its report and the Committee says, "We are more than satisfied", the public says, "We are more than satisfied". The fact that I am not satisfied is irrelevant. I have to accept what the public will accept.

The Prime Minister: Am I right now in saying that whether he accepts it or not is irrelevant, but we must find out whether the public accepts it. Am I right?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes.

The Prime Minister: How do we find out whether the public accepts a committee's report?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Quite simple, Mr Prime Minister. Once the committee publishes its report, then you can invite any members of the public to write in, or -

An hon. Member: Have a referendum.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, if you like, let us have a referendum on it. [Laughter.] Yes, that is another way of finding out if you are really anxious. I am, for the third time, glad to see that the Prime Minister is anxious. Then I suppose you can have a referendum on whether the public thinks the present safeguard is adequate or not.

The Prime Minister: There are two main terms of reference under this Commission of Inquiry, (1) whether the system is adequate, (2) -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Inquire into the circumstances.

The Prime Minister: The suspicious circumstances.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All the circumstances.

The Prime Minister: All the circumstances of Mr Michael Khoo's transfer out of the Senior District Judgeship. If the findings of the inquiry are multiple, this will be a complex referendum with multiple questions.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I would ask the Prime Minister not to put the cart before the horse. Let us proceed first. Let us not worry too much. If he is really anxious that there should be this inquiry, let us get on with the job.

The Prime Minister: Can I not ask the Member to consider something much simpler, when two opposing sides cannot reconcile their differences. I say that I accept what the Chief Justice has said and what the Legal Service Commission's Secretary has stated, and abstracted from his minutes, not what he said now, but taken out from his minutes, that there was nothing improper in the circumstances of the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo. The Member for Anson says that not only does he not accept it, he wants it investigated. He questions also the system. If after all this inquiry, we come back again and the two contending sides, contending schools of thought, are still not reconciled, there will be no finality to the matter. Is there no way to have a High Court Judge perhaps, or anybody that the Member thinks is independent, impartial, without fear or prejudice, to make such a finding whether or not there was any impropriety, and we settle it? We resolve it. I accept that verdict, unreservedly.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What the Prime Minister is proposing is that, instead of having a committee, leave it to a High Court Judge just to determine it. Is that not what you are proposing?

The Prime Minister: I am proposing that the Member put forward a formula which decides the problem, and not brings it back to this House for further debate. Take it out of the House.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Prime Minister wishes to take it out of this House and have it completely decided outside, then I suppose that is another way. But we have to consider how many should go into it and who should go into it. I have suggested a committee from here, but now you are suggesting somebody from outside. You should then come up with all these names.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member should take his propositions more seriously.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am. I am quite serious.

The Prime Minister: He has suggested a Parliamentary committee, and I have pointed out to him that there will be no finality if he insists that the reports are not conclusive. He is going to debate it here and we all have, I think, reasonably objective senses of reality to know that we will come back to exactly the same situation. So I am suggesting to him that he names someone whose judgment he is quite convinced is sound, who is beyond any pressure, executive or otherwise. 1, 2, 3, 5 (not 2, maybe it is awkward), but 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 members. Name it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, Mr Speaker, Sir. If the Prime Minister is going to leave it to me, he is going to give me this great honour of appointing this committee, well, I will consider it and let him have the names. But it is not just a matter of naming persons. It is not a matter to be taken lightly. If the Prime Minister really wants me to name the persons, I will do that. I will send it to him next week, with the terms of reference.

The Prime Minister: I think I will not accept any nominee once the Member has left this Chamber. There will be consultations beforehand. I want a nomination now, either designation of office or otherwise, and I will tell him straightaway whether or not such a person is in the opinion of the Government impartial and one whose judgment we will be bound by.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going to commit myself now. I have got to think about it. And if the Prime Minister thinks that is not good enough, then let him do whatever he likes.

The Prime Minister: Forget about it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: If you think that is not good enough, yes, you forget about it. This morning, the Prime Minister comes here, we have another resiling. The Prime Minister came, I thought in earnestness, exhibiting, manifesting his desire to have the whole subject examined. Now it would appear he wants me to name this very minute the person or persons that should sit on this committee. When I tell him that I need a bit of time, he says, "I am not going to accept that." Then I am afraid, Mr Speaker, Sir, one is left very much in doubt about the sincerity of the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Can I make myself clear, Mr Speaker, Sir? The proposal to have a Parliamentary committee arose from the Member because he did not accept that the documents that I have produced have satisfied him as to the impartiality of the District Court Judges and Magistrates being free from executive pressure and, secondly, because of the circumstances of the transfer of the Senior District Court Judge to the Attorney-General's Chambers. I said I accepted a Parliamentary committee.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Then moved away from it and suggested somebody outside.

The Prime Minister: Because he was not prepared to accept the findings. I was prepared to accept whoever he nominated on the Parliamentary committee, but he wanted to reserve his position, to redebate it here. I now suggest to him he names one or three persons, whose judgment he accepts as sound, whose character he believes is impeccable and who will not be subject to any pressure. I would suggest we do it now because if we adjourn and he comes up with a name this afternoon, I would never be quite sure whether he has already found out, if not directly from that person, through friends, what that person's position is with regard to the issue involved. I am asking him now.

Mr Jeyaretnam: If the Prime Minister wishes, he can get some of his ISD men to follow me all around. They already do, sometimes. The Prime Minister must accept that I am in earnest. If he thinks I am going to go around and find people who will be of my persuasion to name them, then may I tell him that he is doing me wrong. I do not intend to do that. All I want to do is to think about it, and without any communication with them I will give the Prime Minister the names. Get your ISD men to follow me all round.

The Prime Minister: It is very simple. He has nominated two to this Parliamentary committee. He can nominate them - Dean of the Law Faculty, President of the Law Society. That makes for an even number. There could be no conclusive decision. Name a third.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going to go on repeating. The thing must be brought to a close. If the Prime Minister thinks it should not be a Parliamentary committee and it should be from somebody outside and he wants me to name them, I said I would. I will name them but I am not prepared to do it now. No, I am not prepared. This is not a matter for me just to throw names without thinking carefully about them. This is my last word. If the Prime Minister is serious and he is in earnest about this, I will give him the terms of reference. I will suggest to him who I think should go on this committee next week. Today is Friday. We have got the weekend. By Monday or Tuesday I should be able to let him have them. I give him my word that I will not talk to anybody whom I wish to put on that committee. He laughs. But I value highly everything I say. I have told him. He has got a choice. The ISD men are at his command. He can put somebody on my tail between now and the time I come back to this House to give him the names and the terms of reference.

The Prime Minister: Would he not consider a simple solution? He has mentioned two, and I asked him to nominate one other person, say, a High Court Judge. His choice.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have answered, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am not going to keep repeating what I have said.

The Prime Minister: I have been magnanimous, Mr Speaker, Sir. I will accept anybody he nominates now, before there is time for consultation and discussion. He has named two and I am asking him to accept a High Court Judge or a District Court Judge or a Magistrate as the third person, and we will have this inquiry.

Mr Speaker: Just one more name, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister has asked me to suggest somebody entirely outside this House now, and that departs from the previous committee. It was when I was thinking of a committee of Members of this Parliament that I brought these two people in. Now it is an entirely different committee. So I need a bit of time to consider. I may not even suggest these two persons on to this committee because they are two different committees now. The original committee was supposed to consist of partly Members of this House.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid you have run out of time. It is 1.00 pm now. I suspend the 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