LEGAL SERVICE POSTINGS (Statement by the Prime Minister)

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Resumption of Questions.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was speaking when you said it was interruption time for the adjournment. First of all, I wish to assure you, Mr Speaker, Sir, that I have not spent the lunch adjournment telephoning people of my own persuasion nor spoken to anybody. I met, of course, the Chairman of my Party and we discussed Party matters. I did not tell him (I hear a snigger from somebody) I did not tell him what we were debating this morning, except that I was again engaged in debate with the Prime Minister.

I stand by what I said, and I am very glad that the Prime Minister is responding to my desire to safeguard the independence of the Subordinate Court Bench. The Prime Minister, of course, is aware. He must be aware that it is not a question of whether they are independent or not. The paramount question is whether they appear to the public to be independent or not. So I am very glad that he is responding to it. And he has asked me to name the committee who will go into this very important question. I cannot think of anything more important for the society and I will give him the names of this committee, and he can have my assurance that I shall not speak to anybody on this, let alone to the persons whom I shall propose for the committee. I hope the Prime Minister will accept that and we can then, in earnestness, appoint this committee to look into it. I have given him what I thought should be the terms of reference but, if necessary, I can draft it again in proper language and send it to his office by Monday or Tuesday.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, at the luncheon break I got in touch with the Chief Justice in order to acquaint him of the proceedings this morning. He was astounded that his written note to me and the file minutes of the Legal Service Commission have not been accepted without question. He asked if it could be so, and I said, repeating the Member for Anson, "that he wanted the circumstances of the transfer to be examined." The Chief Justice, reluctant though he is to lose the services of another High Court Judge, since one already has to look into the circumstances of the collapse of the hotel at Serangoon Road, has reluctantly agreed to make another Judge available. He asked me to have the matter disposed of expeditiously, and to put it to the Member for Anson whether he would not state, without the benefit of privilege, what he has stated here - that the Chief Justice's note and the minute from the Legal Service Commission is not the last word in the matter. That is one half. I leave him to reply.

The other half is the two persons he mentioned as possible members. I was anxious to go along with him to accept them, but it has been pointed out to me that they are connected with members in the Legal Service. One of them is the wife of the Attorney-General, the Dean of the Law Faculty, and obviously she should not be sitting on this committee. I therefore propose to have this Commission of Inquiry of one Judge to inquire into all the statements that have been made in this House which are privileged, and to find the basis upon which they have been made, including the two terms of reference which he has suggested in this Chamber. So, in fact, there will be three terms of reference - first, the basis for all the allegations made, all the statements made by the Member in this Chamber concerning the Judiciary and the administration of the law, and to look specifically into the two items he has made. I am glad that he has accepted (unless I am wrong, the records will put me right) that he does not impugn that the High Court Judge is free from any executive pressure. This is not a matter a government takes lightly. It consumes a great deal of resources. I am loathe to have to tax the Judiciary on what are really unfounded charges of interference with the due process of law. But if we do not nail the lie, there will be no end to it. There will be someone appointed to conduct it and the Member for Anson will be one of the prime suppliers of evidence to this High Court Judge.

I would be grateful if he would respond now whether or not he is prepared to have it said without parliamentary privilege that he does not accept the statement by the Chief Justice and the Legal Service Commission's minutes as the last word in the matter and that is without parliamentary privilege. That would be most helpful.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought this morning the Prime Minister had given me the honour, and as I said perhaps unprecedented honour, of naming the committee. And he wanted me to name the Committee before the House rose at 1 o'clock. Now it would appear that the Prime Minister had thought better of it. Now he proposes that a High Court Judge be appointed. Well, so be it. Let the Prime Minister appoint a High Court Judge to inquire into the terms of reference that I have suggested this morning. It is for the Prime Minister to recommend to the President to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. It does not lie in my province to recommend to the President to appoint a Commission. So it is for the Prime Minister, and if he thinks that is what it should be, well, fine. I will, if invited, certainly make my representations to whoever is appointed. All I wanted to point out is that now we have a departure from the proposals that were made this morning. We seem to have gone a long way from where we started.

The Prime Minister asked me whether I accepted the letter from the Chief Justice. I thought I made it clear. Of course I accept this letter. His letter is a personal one to the Prime Minister, and I have read it. And it says, "after consultation with the Attorney-General, I arranged or directed the transfer" or words to that effect. I accept that the Chief Justice directed it or arranged it in consultation. All I said simply was that I think perhaps we should know the circumstances. That is all. There is no suggestion in what I said that the Chief Justice is lying when he said he directed it or he ordered it, whatever the words he used. I am not suggesting for a minute that the Chief Justice was lying in his note to the Prime Minister. Let that be clearly understood. All I said was that perhaps the minutes of the actual meeting at which this transfer was made could have been produced. But that is not to impute anything to the Chief Justice on his note to the Prime Minister. So I do not know what all the fuss is about.

The other thing is about this note from the Legal Service Commission. I have already pointed out: it was not the minutes of the Legal Service Commission. What the Prime Minister read out and what he asked me to look at was a memorandum from this Tan Eng Siong, Personnel Coordinator, to the Secretary, Legal Service Comission, setting out something that has already been decided. So they are again not the minutes. It is a report on some- thing that has been decided and asking the Secretary to take action. So what are we quibbling about? I do not know if there is anything else for me to respond. If the Prime Minister wishes to appoint a High Court Judge, as I said, so be it.

The Prime Minister: I asked specifically, on behalf of the Chief Justice, whether the Member is prepared to have what he said in this House re-stated without privilege.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, what did I say? That I accept the Chief Justice's note to the Prime Minister, that after consultation with the Attorney-General, he directed or ordered or brought about the transfers. That I accept.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I suggest that the Member leaves the Chamber at a convenient time when he has composed his thoughts and makes a statement outside the Chamber to those in the Press Gallery who would be interested to hear him without parliamentary privilege.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What statement does the Prime Minister wish me to make?

The Prime Minister: Up to you.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What statement? Please tell me what statement do you wish me to make? All these veiled threats!

Mr Speaker: I think we will carry on with the business for the day.