MEMBER FOR ANSON'S ALLEGATIONS ABOUT

Prof. S. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to inform Members that the Member for Anson has seriously misled the House when he made a complaint recently in the House of wrongful arrest and detention.

As the Minister in charge of the Police Force, I have a duty to put the record straight. Sir, his allegation is totally false. Such allegations undermine the integrity of the Police Force.

Sir, Members will recall that at our sitting on 18th March, the Member for Anson made the specific allegation that a person was arrested on 1st March at around midnight for not possessing an identity card and that he was locked up at the Police Station for about 15 hours, that is to say, into the following day, March 2nd. He also said that during this period, the person arrested had been prevented from contacting any member of his family.

He repeated this allegation in the House nine days later on 27th March. On the first occasion, I asked for particulars and I added that I would then cause an investigation. No particulars were given. When he repeated the allegation, my colleague, the Minister of State, again asked for particulars. Again, the Member did not give any particulars but did say that he, the Member for Anson, had made a report at Joo Chiat Police Station.

Nearly four weeks after the debate in this House, the Member for Anson finally wrote to me on 22nd April to provide the name of the person whom he claimed was arrested by the Police. He now alleged that his name was one Lim Poh Huat. In his letter, the Member for Anson repeated the allegation, namely, that Mr Lim Poh Huat had been arrested past midnight on 1st March, held in detention for 15 hours and released at about 3.00 pm the following day on 2nd March and he had not been allowed to contact any member of his family.

Sir, I asked the Police to let me see the report made by the Member for Anson at the Joo Chiat Police Station and I ordered a thorough investigation. I ordered a thorough investigation because I assumed that the Member would not have raised such an allegation without first satisfying himself that there was some credence to the claim. I assumed that he as a Member of Parliament would have at least established that it was a bona fide claim. I assumed, for example, that he would have spoken to Mr Lim Poh Huat or members of his family. If Mr Lim was married, then I assumed he would have spoken to his wife and children. If he was single, to his parents, brothers or sisters.

The investigation into the allegation continued. Records of the Joo Chiat Police Station were scrutinized. The officers were interviewed. Even the officers' pocket books were examined. I personally met with Ministry officials and Police officials to satisfy myself that the investigation had been thorough and that every possible record, document and lead had been examined. I also directed that all relevant documents relating to Joo Chiat Police Station's operations during the few days before and after 1st March 1986 be kept in safe custody. All these records are available for further official examination if this proves necessary should the Member maintain his allegations.

Sir, what have these exhaustive investigations established? They have established two things. First, they have established that there was not a shred of evidence to suggest that a Lim Poh Huat had been arrested or detained at Joo Chiat Police Station, or for that matter, at any other Police Station in Singapore, for any length of time, leave alone 15 hours, on the dates and times alleged by the Member.

The second point which the inquiry has established is that the Member for Anson did not make any report whatsoever at the Joo Chiat Police Station as claimed by him. May I on this point, Mr Speaker, Sir, digress to say that when my colleague, the Minister of State, wrote to the Member for Anson asking for details as to which officer he saw in the Joo Chiat Police Station, he responded by saying that, well, if he said that, he probably made a slip (of the tongue, I guess) and that he had sent a correction to the Clerk of Parliament. Whereupon we wrote to the Clerk of Parliament to ask what was the correction. And to our utter astonishment, we found that the Member tried to make a correction to change the words "I made a report at Joo Chiat Police Station" to "There should be a report at Joo Chiat Police Station." There is a world of difference between the two. The Clerk of Parliament informed us that the change had not been accepted. It is not surprising because it is a material change. And we would like to know why the Member for Anson tried to doctor the report in this manner.

Sir, coming back to the substance of the allegations. On three occasions the Minister of State replied to the Member's letters, stating categorically that there was no basis to his allegations. In his letter of 25th June, the Minister of State asked the Member for Anson:

'Will you therefore agree to produce details of your allegations and evidence supplied to you by the said Lim Poh Huat so that these can be examined by my Ministry's officials and the Police?

Will you also agree to produce the said Lim Poh Huat for interview by my Ministry's officials and the Police? (You can, if you wish, be present during this interview.)

In view of the seriousness of your allegations, I trust you will give affirmative answers to these questions.'

Sir, after more than one month, the Member has still not produced any evidence to support his allegations. Indeed, he has not even offered to produce this mysterious Lim Poh Huat.

Indeed, Members may want to know what was his response to the Minister of State's request for cooperation by producing the said Lim Poh Huat for interview with him being present. This is what he said in his most recent letter of 23rd July:

'... I am under no obligation to account to anybody for any question that I raise in Parliament and that a Member can only be questioned in Parliament on anything said by him in Parliament.'

Several pertinent questions arise. First, why does he refuse to provide information on an alleged Police wrongdoing which he has brought up in Parliament? Secondly, why is he so defensive, pleading privilege and saying that he cannot be questioned for things said in Parliament? Has he forgotten that he has actually already made these allegations outside Parliament and without the benefit of privilege when he repeated all these allegations in writing to me and my Minister of State?

Sir, as I have said, after an exhaustive investigation, my Ministry has established that the allegation of wrongful arrest was totally unfounded. There is no person by the name of Lim Poh Huat arrested or detained at the dates and times as alleged by the Member, ie, from past midnight 1st March to 3.00 pm on 2nd March.

Everyone knows that serious disciplinary action is always taken against any Police officer who contravenes procedures or abuses powers. If any officer has committed an offence as alleged by the Member, we shall prosecute him and discipline him including dismissal from the Force.

But what the Member has done is to tarnish the image of the entire Police Force, and attempt to undermine public confidence in the Police without any excusable reason for so doing. The Member, as I have said, has not agreed to produce this Lim Poh Huat. I ask him now, can he and will he produce him? May I also ask the Member if he took any steps to ensure that there was indeed such a person, let alone one who suffered from unlawful detention. Sir, these are very important questions and I hope the Member for Anson will respond.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not raise this by way of a question. The Minister should be aware of this. I raised this in the debate on the Budget for the Ministry of Home Affairs, particularly on the Budget for the Police. I started my speech by asking: Is Singapore a Police state? Perhaps the Minister may recall that. And I said there were several instances of which I had personal knowledge or of which I had gathered - perhaps I should say I act for accused persons, Mr Speaker, Sir - where the Police had prevented accused persons from getting in touch with their families for 24 hours or even more than 24 hours. Does the Minister say that that practice never obtains in the Singapore Police Force? Then in the course of my debate I mentioned that I had information or heard about the man who was arrested after midnight on the 1st March. And I said, "You could inquire about this from Joo Chiat Police station and tell us whether this is true or not true."

How did I get that information? I have a signed statement given to me by a person whose integrity I respect, who says in his signed statement that he had an appointment with this man and this man never turned up that Sunday morning and, in front of him and two others, told this man that he had been arrested by Joo Chiat Police Station after midnight. So I have a signed statement from a man, as I said, whose integrity I respect. He says it was not just him but there were two others. So I asked that question whether the Minister would like to investigate that. What is wrong about that? Unless the Minister now says it is never the case in the Singapore Police Force to prevent accused persons, arrested persons, from contacting their families as soon as they are arrested. And also if the Minister states that it is never the practice of the Singapore Police Force to arrest anyone not in possession of an identity card.

As regards my statement here that I made a report at Joo Chiat Police Station, I know it does appear in the Official Report but, as I explained in the letter to the Minister of State, if I said it - and I suppose I must accept that I said it because it is in the verbatim report - it was a slip of the tongue. What I meant to say is that I am aware from my experience as an advocate and solicitor from my practice that there should be a report at every police station of every person arrested and brought to the police station. That is what I meant to say - that there should be a report at Joo Chiat Police Station, because I do know that whenever any person is arrested and brought, a report will be entered in the Charge book. Unfortunately it came out that I made a report. I explained that to the Minister of State. Perhaps Members forget that even Ministers make slips and they have had pointed out to them that they have made a slip. So what is very wrong about that?

That is all that it amounts to and he wants to know whether I can produce Mr Lim Poh Huat. I have asked this man who gave me this information and from whom I have a signed statement to try and get Mr Lim Poh Huat to come and see me. And if Mr Lim Poh Huat does come, and this man brings him, the Minister can certainly interview him. I have nothing to hide. I have the signed statement from this man who gave me this information, and it is not just him but there were two others to whom Lim Poh Huat is supposed to have related this story.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, what the Member for Anson has said is truly disturbing. He has attempted to wriggle out ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Wriggle out!

Prof. Jayakumar: And all that he has said is that he has a signed statement from someone whose integrity he respects. I would like to ask, first, whether the Member for Anson can tell us if this signed statement, if not from Mr Lim Poh Huat, which is what I take it to be, was from a member of Mr Lim Poh Huat's family?

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is not from a member of Lim Poh Huat's family, but a man who has known Lim Poh Huat all his life, he says. He says Lim Poh Huat had been known to him and his family for many, many years.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson did not make a casual accusation, a casual complaint. The complaint was made on two different occasions and, to know the gravity of his charges, let me very quickly point out what is it that the Member for Anson is saying.

This is what he said, on the first occasion, giving an example of Police misuse of powers. "Does the Minister know that someone was arrested on the 1st March in the early hours of the morning and because he did not happen to have his identity card on him he was hauled off to the police station and he was locked up till 3.00 pm that afternoon? What was the reason for that? What was the reason for preventing him from getting in touch with his family?" Not a general inquiry, but a specific accusation.

On 27th March he repeated. This is a case of a worker returning home at midnight after he had finished his work. Unfortunately he did not have on him his identity card. He "was stopped by the Police and was hauled off to the police station. For what offence? Because he did not have his identity card. And he says this man was taken off to the police station, put into a cell and was there for 15 hours or so till 3.00 pm. Then he was released without any charge preferred against him. During this time he was not allowed to telephone members of his family because a telephone call would have brought his identity card to the station. This is one instance."

Such grave, serious accusations, when raised by hon. Members, surely must mean that the hon. Member must have taken some steps to verify the veracity of the claim before raising it here. I would like to know from the Member for Anson what steps did he take to ascertain the credibility and veracity of the complaint. Did he, for example, during these few months which have lapsed, speak to Mr Lim Poh Huat, speak to members of his family? Did he write to him? Did he telephone him? We want to know what are the steps he took to ascertain the veracity of the statement, apart from the so-called signed statement. And may I also ask whether the signed statement was made before or after the Member raised this question in this House? Because if he had the statement before he raised it, he could have very well informed us. I would like to know what is the date of that signed statement, and is he prepared to let the Police have that signed statement?

Mr Jeyaretnam: If the Minister wishes to interview this person who gave me the signed statement, he is most welcome. I will send him to the Minister.

The Minister keeps saying it was not a casual statement that I made. Of course, it was not a casual statement. I was talking about Police brutality and about Police abuse of their powers. And so I brought up this incident of which I had been told by this man. And so if the Minister wishes to interview this man and the two others who were present when Lim Poh Huat told them the story, I will arrange for them to see the Minister.

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, the issue is not whether the Police now can interview because, on the basis of investigations, we know that the whole story has been fabricated. I would like to put the issue as what is the responsibility of any Member of the House when he brings up such serious accusations in Parliament. Have they done the minimum that is to be expected of an hon. Member? I have asked the question, what steps did the Member take to ascertain the veracity of the story before he raised it in Parliament on two occasions. And I have also asked another question, when was the statement signed?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Minister keeps asking, "What steps did you take?" The step I took was to question the man who gave me that information. I asked him whether he was satisfied, whether he knew Lim Poh Huat personally, whether the other members who listened to him knew Lim Poh Huat personally? Now, I have asked the Minister to investigate. I have not got the powers to investigate. All that I need to do is to ask in Parliament, bring to the notice of Parliament, any abuse of Police powers that comes to my information and ask the Minister concerned to investigate. What is so very wrong about that?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have asked on at least two occasions what are the steps that he took to ascertain the veracity of the story. And all that he can reply is, he kept asking the person who made the statement to him. I asked if he was a member of the family? He was not. The Member for Anson, in other words, is telling us to accept as permissible the practice of any Member coming to this House on the basis of hearsay and third-person report, and on the basis of a rumour, which he has not ascertained or tried to verify, and make a complaint against any Government department of abuse of powers, based solely on that unverified complaint. Of course, he does not have powers of investigation. That is not the issue. The issue is, did he make any attempt to verify that there was indeed such a person called Lim Poh Huat, leave alone whether he was arrested on that particular date, leave alone whether he had been arrested for 15 hours. Did he take any steps, and his answers to my question quite clearly show that he did not. Did he make any attempts to contact members of the family? Presumably, his informant would have informed him of the address of Lim Poh Huat. He would probably say, "Ask the Police to investigate." He might like to know that, according to the National Registration Office, there are at least 62 Lim Poh Huats in Singapore. And if you take into account persons whose names sound similar or spelt almost similar, there are more than 100 persons. The question therefore is, Mr Speaker, Sir, an issue of responsibility. Can a Member come to this House and make such complaints based solely on hearsay and a third-person report?

Mr Speaker, Sir, his refusal to cooperate with the Police on a matter which he raised, his inability to produce Mr Lim Poh Huat after all these months, the fact that he did not take steps to ensure the bona fides of the complaint, all these surely condemn him as being irresponsible. Clearly, the complaint is a fabrication. He has clearly misled us, Mr Speaker. I will now ask him: will he admit that he had made an unjust and false allegation? Will he withdraw the allegation, and will he apologize to the House for having misled us?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would not waste any time. In this particular instance, if the Minister says that the Police investigations show that no one by the name of Lim Poh Huat was arrested, then of course I withdraw that allegation about this particular instance.

An hon. Member: Apologize.

Mr Jeyaretnam: But a very important question arises, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is it or is it not permitted for Members of this House to come here and ask questions arising on information received by them? Or are they first expected to do a thorough investiga- tion themselves and establish the veracity of that information before they raise it in Parliament?

Secondly, I have told the Minister that if he wishes, and he has only got to say yes, he can interview the person who gave me this information. He can interview the other two who he says were present when Lim Poh Huat told them.

I will tell the Minister how these persons came to know about this man's arrest. They had an appointment to meet Lim Poh Huat that Sunday morning for a job, and he did not turn up for the appointment. He turned up after 3.00 pm. And when they questioned him, he told them that the reason for his not keeping the appointment was simply what I had told the Police. They knew him. They knew the family and they had no reason at all to doubt the veracity of his story.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, he has withdrawn the allegation but I asked if he would apologize to the House for having misled the House.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I do not know in what way I have misled the House when I asked whether the Minister would investigate this particular case.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue is not whether the Police would or would not investigate. I have on previous occasions made it clear. Complaints of wrongdoing will be investigated. Any black sheep in the Police Force will be dealt with. The issue is whether an MP can come to this House and construct a serious complaint against the Police or any other Government department, or make a serious accusation without having taken any reasonable steps to ascertain if there was some grain of truth in the story.

The Member for Anson said that all he did was to be satisfied about the third person, not Lim Poh Huat, not any member of his family. In fact, what the Member for Anson is saying is that if I have an appointment with Mr X and Mr X does not turn up and I question him and he tells me a story that actually he had gone to see the Member for Anson (if he was a client of the Member for Anson) and he had gone to see the Member for Anson to charge the Member for Anson for having pocketed his client's money, does that entitle me to come to this House to accuse the Member for Anson for pocketing client's monies? That is what this boils down to, and that is why I have asked the Member for Anson if he would apologize. I will give him one more opportunity as to whether he would apologize for having misled the House.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I know from the Minister in what respect have I misled the House when I told him that I had information about a man who has been arrested? I agree and I now accept the Police findings that there was no such arrest. But how does that amount to misleading?

May I, before I sit down, ask the Minister whether he denies that the Police have on several occasions - I knew at least two or three myself - prevented accused persons, arrested persons, from getting in touch with members of the family? That is what I was complaining about if the Minister will remember in the debate on the Estimates for his Ministry.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I can understand the Member for Anson's anxiety to sidetrack the whole issue. But we will not be sidetracked because my Ministry's position on the question of any possible contraventions of procedures have been fully answered and we fully answered his questions on 18th March 1986.

He asked in what way does he owe an apology. I thought it would have been very clear. He owes an apology to this House for having misled it, for having misled us into believing that he had a basis for making such a serious complaint when it now turns out that he never met Mr Lim Poh Huat or members of his family, and the whole complaint was fabricated on hearsay and a third-person report. I think I will give him a last opportunity if he will apologize to the House.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, now I understand what the Minister means when he says that I have misled the House. He says that I have no basis for asking the Minister to investigate. Well, I have just told him - not once but I have told him twice, Mr Speaker, Sir - that the basis for my statement in this House was the statement made to me by this man whom I trust implicitly, and he says there were two others with him when Lim Poh Huat made the statement. So that is the basis. If I have the basis, how could I mislead the House? I can understand the accusation that I have misled the House if I had no basis whatsoever, that nobody ever made a complaint to me or gave me this information and it was from a credible person and that I simply came here, snatched it out of the air, and made a statement. Well, that is not the case.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not see how his source can be credible when I have shown the House that the whole story is a figment of the imagination and totally fabricated.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Members will note that I have given an opportunity to the Member to own up like a gentleman to apologize for having misled the House for having raised what is a truly fabricated story. His view is that as an MP he can bring to this House any untruth or falsehood based on hearsay, rumours and third-party reports. His refusal to apologize, Mr Speaker, Sir, in any respectable Parliament in the Commonwealth would be considered a breach of privilege and so too our House must set certain standards in this regard, and I accordingly, Sir, wish to make a complaint of breach of privilege under Standing Order 95(7)(b).

Mr Jeyaretnam: For the last time, will the Minister perhaps answer my questions: Is he denying that the Police have prevented some persons, accused persons, from getting in touch with their families? Is he denying that the Police have ever arrested persons for not possessing identity cards?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, Members and the press can refer to the exhaustive discussion on 18th March. I do not intend to allow the Member to wriggle out by sidetracking the issue.

Mr Speaker: Do you wish to refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges?

Prof. Jayakumar: Yes, Sir. I make a complaint under Standing Order 95(7)(b).

Mr Speaker: I am satisfied. This matter will be referred to the Committee of Privileges under Standing Order 95(7)(d)(ii).