CISCO CONSTABLES (Work on rest days)

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether constables from the Commercial and Industrial Security Corporation are compelled to work on their weekly rest days.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, a CISCO constable is not compelled to work on his rest day. However, as an Auxiliary Police Officer, he may be asked to do so where exigencies of the service so require.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Does the Minister realize that his answer really is a bit of nonsense? Does the Minister realize that he says the officer is not required to work on his rest-day but if the exigencies of the service require, he will be asked to do so? Will the Minister say what happens if the officer says he is unable to report for duty on his weekly rest day because he has already entered into other arrangements? Is he penalized because he is unable to work on the rest day as requested, or is he let off?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, precisely what happens must depend on the circumstances of the case and the decision of CISCO with regard to the facts of the particular case.

Before I proceed, I must ask the Member for Anson whether or not it is true that he, in his capacity as an advocate and solicitor, did take up the case of a CISCO woman constable in his professional capacity in 1985? The CISCO woman constable was dismissed by CISCO from service for disobedience to orders in that she failed to turn up on four different occasions as instructed. She was dismissed. And the Member for Anson, as an advocate and solicitor, took up her case and sent an appeal to the Commissioner of Police. The main issue in that appeal was precisely whether or not a CISCO constable could or could not be required to work or report for duty on a rest day. If I may quote from the statement of appeal which he, as an advocate and solicitor, sent to the Commissioner of Police. I quote from page 2:

'The appellant was given two rest days a week, Mondays and Tuesdays, and was made to work so many hours. These conditions follow exactly those provided in the Employment Act. The Employment Act also provides that no employee shall be compelled to work on a rest day, except in specially defined circumstances set out in the Act.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, twice in 1982, this House had occasion to ask the Member for Anson to explain why he failed to disclose a pecuniary interest on matters which he raised in this House. On one occasion, on 27th July 1982, you, Sir, ruled at the end of the discussion that he should have declared his interest and, upon your ruling, he so accepted the ruling and said that he was sorry that he did not tell the House that he had previously acted for the woman and that his firm had written a letter.

On another occasion, on 31st August 1982, the Committee of Privileges reported to the House on another matter where he had failed to disclose to this House that he had raised a matter on which he had a pecuniary interest. This House on 31st August expressed its agreement with the Committee of Privileges and decided that he was guilty of dishonourable conduct and contempt of the House of having raised a matter in the House in which he had a personal pecuniary interest without first disclosing the extent of that interest. Upon instructions of Parliament, you, Sir, reprimanded him for his dishonourable conduct and contempt of the House and warned him against committing similar breach of privilege in the future.

Here we have a case, Sir, where he took up in his professional capacity a legal point concerning a CISCO woman constable.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Are you making a complaint?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I have not finished.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Minister whether he is filing a complaint? If he is going to file a complaint, go ahead with it.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, let me finish. The Member for Anson has taken up this case in his capacity as an advocate and solicitor. Now, he has filed a question which relates to the very point which he raised with the Commissioner of Police in his appeal. The Commissioner of Police rejected the appeal.

The question before the House is, Sir, whether Members of the House who are advocates and solicitors, not having succeeded in their representation of the client's case, can then come to this House and ventilate and air their dissatisfaction with not having got redress according to the law. Should this not be a matter which he should properly pursue in a court of law? I think he owes us an explanation and if his explanation is not satisfactory, I would file a complaint with the Committee of Privileges.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Go ahead. Now.

Prof. Jayakumar: I want to hear his explanation, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You want to hear. It is not for you.

Mr Speaker: Have you any pecuniary interest in this case?

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, I have nothing at all, Mr Speaker, Sir, no direct pecuniary personal interest in this question. It is true of course that in 1985 or 1984 I wrote to the Commissioner of Police on behalf of this CISCO woman. But this question was prompted because I have had a complaint from several CISCO constables. I have no direct personal pecuniary interest.

But may I say this, Mr Speaker, Sir. As I understand, the practice in the House of Commons is that in asking questions, you do not have to disclose whether you have any personal interest in it. And if you look at Standing Orders, it is only if the matter comes to a vote and a question is not a matter on which a vote is taken. I think the Minister should perhaps look at Standing Orders and study them before he comes up with all his complaints. I see what the tactic is. He does not wish to answer the question. I am saying to him, go ahead and file your complaint. But answer my question.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have answered the question. Under section 31 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, "a Member shall not in or before Parliament or any Committee take part in the discussion of any matter in which he has a direct personal pecuniary interest without disclosing the extent of that interest..." There is a separate provision as to whether a person can or cannot vote. That is section 32. The Member has admitted that this very question is the question which he took up in legal proceedings on behalf of a CISCO woman constable. He has not declared that, notwithstanding that in 1982, there were two occasions in which he was warned about not having raised personal pecuniary interest. I therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, have to file a complaint under the relevant provisions of the Standing Orders, which is Standing Order 95(7)(b).

Mr Jeyaretnam: Back to the old game, aren't we? You are getting frightened, aren't you?

Prof. Jayakumar: Frightened?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Government Benches.

Prof. Jayakumar: A lawyer seeking publicity here.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is the Minister going to answer my question? Or is he going to escape?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, under Standing Order 95(7)(b), upon a complaint being made, the matter shall be referred to the Committee of Privileges if the Speaker is satisfied.

Mr Speaker: Yes, I am quite satisfied. The complaint shall be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, you have ruled. So be it. But may I point out that when I made a complaint on Thursday morning last week, that was not referred to the Committee of Privileges. But I will let it pass. May I know whether the Minister will answer my question now? Or is he trying to escape, wriggle out, as the Prime Minister is fond of saying?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have answered the question. The CISCO is an Auxiliary Police Force. Like any other uniformed Police Force, there must be discipline on the part of its members. And where there is disobedience to orders, there must be disciplinary measures. Otherwise our uniformed services will never be able to respond effectively in any crisis or emergency.

Mr Jeyaretnam: So will the Minister, honestly for once, concede and admit that CISCO personnel are compelled to work on their rest days? There can be no other answer.

Prof. Jayakumar: The Member's question is nonsensical. I have already said that CISCO constables can be compelled to work if the exigencies of service so require.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why don't you answer me?