REPORT OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF EXECUTIVE INTERFERENCE IN THE SUBORDINATE COURTS (Paper Cmd. 12 of 1986)

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this Parliament:

(1) accepts the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into allegations of Executive interference in the Subordinate Courts as contained in Cmd Paper 12 of 1986; and

(2) deplores as dishonourable the conduct of the Member for Anson in pleading Parliamentary Privilege to evade having to give evidence on his allegations of Executive interference, allegations he had made on several occasions in this House, all of which were calculated to undermine confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the Subordinate Courts Judiciary.

Sir, what is this debate and what is this motion all about? It is not about the Member for Anson. It is not about the Opposition. It is not about freedom of speech. Then what is the issue? Sir, the issue concerns a far more grave, a far more serious matter. The issue is about fundamental institutions and basic values of our society, an issue concerning standards of political integrity. It is about irresponsible attempts to bring into total disrepute our major institutions to destroy the integrity and thereby undermine the stability of our society's key institutions. Every society has its key institutions and fundamental pillars. Chip away at them, bring about cracks, and the whole fabric of our society may be brought to ruin.

The Member for Anson's unfounded attack on the Judiciary is a clear example of this attack. His allegations, everyone must know and he must know, can have only two consequences. Within Singapore, it will undermine the confidence of our people in the integrity of our judicial system. And for persons abroad, it will undermine the confidence of investors who have multi -million-dollar investments and contracts in Singapore and who expect and who have a right to expect that disputes will be settled in accordance with the law, facts and evidence.

There is no shortage of foreign critics who want to join the Member for Anson in bringing such scurrilous accusations. Members will recall one foreign journal was in fact made to appear before the court for contempt of court and they apologized.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson's attack on the Judiciary is not the first or isolated instance. Ever since he became a Member of this House, he has embarked on a systematic strategy of maligning our basic fundamental values and institutions. (a) When he first came into this House, he made allegations of corruption against the Government. And when confronted and challenged, he quickly backed away and said that these were rumours. (b) He insinuated that there was some cover-up concerning Mr Phey Yew Kok. He wanted a commission of inquiry and was offered a commission of inquiry provided it did not prejudge mat- ters before the courts, and he did not come back on the offer. (c) He has made totally unfounded allegations about the Police, abuse of powers, and this morning we showed that he fabricated the whole story and he withdrew the allegation. Not only that, he has also in this House persistently defamed the character of innocent persons outside this House, persons who are unable to defend themselves. And when challenged to repeat these allegations outside, he declined to do so. We remember his defamatory words about Mr S.R. Nathan. We remember his defamatory words about the Howe Yoon Chong family and, more recently, his scurrilous comments made about the Chief Justice. And when the Chief Justice, through the Prime Minister, asked that the Member for Anson repeat it outside, he did not do so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this then is his habit. This then is the pattern of conduct of the Member of the House, a pattern of making wild, reckless, scandalous statements under the cover of parliamentary privilege. But of all the allegations that he has made, of all the statements that he has made, this is the worst and the most serious: to suggest that the Government is suborning the Judiciary, that the Government has manipulated the Judiciary and transferred officers. For what reason? Because the Government, according to his words, was displeased with the Judges' decisions. To suggest that one Judge, Mr Michael Khoo, was transferred because of his decision on a case concerning the Member and he was transferred because an appeal had been filed by the Deputy Public Prosecutor.

The question, Sir, is this. When politicians, Members of the House, make such scurrilous statements about the Judiciary, should they be allowed to do so freely? We say no. Such scurrilous, scandalous, contemptible, statements must never be allowed to pass without the closest scrutiny. Once made, such serious allegations about the Judiciary must be scrutinized. The facts must be proven and the truth established. Why? Because, Mr Speaker, Sir, either the Member for Anson is dishonest and is lying or he, the accuser, is right which means that the Government is crooked. It is one or the other. It cannot be otherwise.

The public therefore needs to know two things when such allegations are made about the Judiciary. First, is the Member for Anson able, willing, to back up his allegations? Is he truthful? Is he honest? Or is he a cowardly man who only makes such allegations when protected by parliamentary privilege? Or is he fabricating these allegations for political purposes?

The second thing that the public wants to know is what is the position of the Government? Is the Government ready, and willing, to have such serious allegations investigated, scrutinized, to determine the truth? The Government's position on this, Members will recall, was stated by the Prime Minister in this House on 22nd December 1981 in reply to the Member for Anson's allegations about corruption. I quote from the Prime Minister [Hansard, Vol. 41 col. 332]:

'If there is any allegation of misconduct by any Member of this House or any Member of the Government, or official of the Government, there will be a full inquiry, a full prosecution, and every facility for the facts to be unravelled. That is the strength of this Government.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members are familiar with the sequence of events which led to the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry. I will not repeat all of them but let me refresh and recapitulate the salient events. These are the sittings of 10th January, and of 19th and 21st March. Sir, on the 10th of January, there was the Second Reading of the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill and the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill. In the course of these debates, the Member made allegations about the Subordinate Courts Judiciary. Let me quote from Hansard [Vol. 46, cols. 710-2]. On the 10th January, the Member said:

'.... a Senior District Judge .... delivered judgment in a criminal case. Some months later, he was removed and he was transferred to the Attorney-General's Chambers. That was not a promotion.' Then he went on to say:

'I am sorry to have to say this, that was not the first time. There were at least two other instances, and I know this personally. There was one case where, after a decision was given, the man was transferred. That was about four or five years ago, and there was one case much earlier than that. These decisions were not acceptable.' Members will note that these are not general innuendoes but specific allegations that he had personal knowledge of Judges being transferred because their decisions were unacceptable.

Then on the 19th of March, in the exchange that he had with the Prime Minister, he alleged that the prosecution against him had been politically motivated, and he said: [Vol. 47, col. 696]

'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.' Again, a specific allegation, that the Senior District Judge had been transferred. Why? Because an appeal had been filed by the Public Prosecutor. After he had written his judgment, because an appeal was filed by the Public Prosecutor against acquittal, he was transferred. Specific allegation, giving the reason why he was transferred.

Incidentally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I must inform the Members of the House that the Senior District Judge gave oral judgment on 14th January 1984. The hearing of the appeal before the Chief Justice took place in May 1984. In August 1984, the Senior District Judge was transferred. The Chief Justice's decision was given in April 1985. I mentioned those dates because the Member in his statement on the 19th March had said that the Senior District Judge had been transferred because an appeal was filed by the Public Prosecutor.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the sitting of 21st March 1986, the Prime Minister produced his account of a conversation with the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. The Chairman of the Public Service Commission reported that these transfers were done in the ordinary course of the Legal Service Commission's affairs by the Chief Justice in consultation with the Attorney-General. Then a written note from the Chief Justice was produced by the Prime Minister where the Chief Justice stated categorically that the decision to transfer was his own decision. The Member for Anson persisted and did not apologize. The following day, the Prime Minister produced internal Legal Service Commission documents and minutes, also suggesting quite clearly that these transfers were done by the Chief Justice in consultation with the Attorney-General and that power had been delegated to them.

Then what happened? Let us recall that when the Member for Anson refused to accept all this evidence, the Member for Anson then suggested the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into how it came about that the man was transferred. Members will note that it was the Member for Anson who initiated the idea of an inquiry. It was he who suggested that there should be an inquiry. Then there was a debate as to the nature of the inquiry, form terms of reference, and so on. Eventually, the Prime Minister suggested that, instead of a Parliamentary inquiry, there be established a Commission of Inquiry headed by a Judge of the High Court. The Prime Minister said that the Inquiry will look into, and I quote [Vol. 47, col. 914]:

'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 need to underline, Mr Speaker, that the Prime Minister made it clear that the Inquiry will look into all the statements made by the Member in this House concerning the Judiciary. Did the Member for Anson challenge this? He did not. The Prime Minister also said:

'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 am reading from col. 914 of the Hansard of 21st March, 1986.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is the Prime Minister's speech?

Prof. Jayakumar: That is right. In other words, the Prime Minister made it clear that the Commission will be headed by a High Court Judge, that it will inquire into all the allegations he had made about the Judiciary, that he will be one of the prime suppliers of evidence. The Member for Anson was the next person to speak after the Prime Minister sat. Did he reject what was proposed? Did he reject the idea of it being chaired by a High Court Judge? Did he reject the proposal that the Commission look into all the allegations? Did he allege that there was some grave illegality about the Commission? Did he allege that the Commission proposed by the Prime Minister would be violating privilege? No. Immediately after the Prime Minister spoke, this is what the Member had to say, and I quote [col. 915]:

'Now he proposes that a High Court Judge be appointed. Well, so be it. ... So it is for the Prime Minister, and if he thinks that is what it should be, well, fine. I will, [this is the Member for Anson] if invited, certainly make representations to whoever is appointed.' In other words, not only did he not reject, he assured the House that he would appear before whoever is appointed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members have the Report of the Commission. They have read it. Let me only highlight certain features of the session in the morning and the afternoon of the first day. The facts speak for themselves. In the morning the Member for Anson claimed that he was ready, willing, able and anxious to get into the witness box. Well, Members have seen it on television, and I will quote at random what the Member said:

'Don't let it be imagined for a minute that I do not wish to give evidence. I am quite happy to give evidence.'

He said that the Commission might be violating the Privileges Act. He said, Never mind! He is willing to abet the Commission of this crime. "I have realized I make myself liable to abetting a contravention of this Act, but I am quite prepared to abet if you decide. I would answer the questions which amounts to my waiving the privilege" and so on. His position was that he was ever ready to get into the witness box provided certain conditions are met. What are these conditions? He said that he would go into the witness box, give evidence only if he was given prior assurance that certain persons he named would be called as witnesses, and be given the right to cross-examine. He is a lawyer. He knew that such pre-conditions could not be agreed to because of the rule of relevance. This is spelt out in the Commission's Report. The Member can read it. He is a lawyer. Mr Speaker, Sir, the well-known rule is known as the Rule of Evidence and if the Member for Anson refers to pages 32 and 33 of the Report he will note that this is the practice in many Commissions of Inquiry.

What happened in the afternoon? In the afternoon, it was no longer a question of waiver of privilege on certain conditions. Now, he was no longer itching to go into the witness box. It was no longer a waiver of conditions. He said that there was absolute privilege. Parliamentary privilege, according to him, absolutely prohibited him from going into the witness box. Let us recall what he said in the afternoon session.

'This is an absolute prohibition.'

'It is not a privilege that can be waived.

Now, this, as I see it, is an absolute prohibition, and I pointed out the penal sanctions that attach to anyone who violates any provision of this Act. I will not answer any questions or give any evidence about what I said in Parliament because there is an absolute prohibition.'

A 180-degree turnaround. What does "absolute prohibition" mean? It means that whatever conditions of his are met, whatever requests made by him are met, whatever terms of reference and so on that he raises are met, he is absolutely prohibited even if he voluntarily wanted to give evidence from doing so.

Mr Speaker, Sir, no one can force or compel the Member or any Member of this House to repeat or to explain what he said in Parliament. And indeed no one forced him. The Commissioner made it clear that he was not being forced and he would not be forced. Counsel also made it clear that the Member was not being compelled. But what the Member was saying is that, even if he voluntarily wanted to give evidence, there is a rule of law in the Privileges Act which prohibited him. Mr Speaker, Sir, is there such a basis in law? It is unheard of. Does not the Member for Anson know, as a lawyer, that the very concept of privilege means it is a special benefit conferred on Members of this House, giving immunity from prosecution and punishment for things said here, which immunity is not given to other members or strangers. Does he not know that privilege by its very nature is a shield for a defence which one can waive. And privilege is certainly not a disadvantage to the Member of the House.

His concept of absolute privilege simply means that a Member can come to this House, say the most wild and blatant lies, regardless of its impact and the Government is prohibited from inquiring into the evidence. He can, for example, according to his thesis, allege that all our defence and security secrets are being passed on to a foreign country and that our country's security is in jeopardy. People, of course, will be alarmed. And if the Government sets up a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the evidence, according to him, that is not allowed; that is an illegality.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at the end of the day, what do we have? We have a spectacle, a spectacle of an honourable Member who (a) makes serious allegations about the Judiciary; (b) who initiated the idea of an inquiry; (c) accepted the proposal for a Commission of Inquiry by a Judge; (d) said he would appear before whosoever is appointed; (e) describes himself as a person who never resiles from what he says. In the end, he chickens out, turns tail and does not back up his allegations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Commission proceeded and came to its findings. Members have read the Report. The key findings are

(1) that there is no truth to the Member's allegations of Executive interference in the Subordinate Courts.

(2) that the Member clearly never had the intention to give evidence, as he did not have the evidence to substantiate his allegations.

(3) that there was no doubt that at no time had any member of the Executive interfered with the delegated functions of the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General.

(4) that it follows that there was nothing improper in the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we would, of course, like to know whether the Member is maintaining his allegations in persisting in them. He did not cry "privilege" when the Prime Minister proposed the Commission of Inquiry headed by a Judge. More than 1(r) months passed between the announcement of the Commission of Inquiry and its sitting, he did not raise the question of privilege then.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in closing, let me say that, of course, there is freedom of speech in Parliament. Of course, there are special rules of law giving Members of Parliament special immunity from prosecution and punishment outside Parliament for what they say in this Chamber. But there is, and there surely must be, a corresponding duty not to abuse this privilege. And when a Member makes a scurrilous, unfounded allegation, about the Judiciary as the Member for Anson has done, then the facts must be determined for either he is proved correct, in which case the Government is crooked, or he must own up, admit that he made a false allegation and apologize to the Government and the Judiciary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what do we make of the conduct of such a Member? I say that it is irresponsible. It is dishonourable because it brings both the institution of Parliament and all of us Members into disrepute, and it is also misleading both the House as well as the people of Singapore. Sir, the House is duty bound to deplore his conduct as dishonourable.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker: May I remind the hon. Member for Anson that if this Question is decided upon by the House, either in the affirmative or in the negative, the hon. Member's Motion which appears as item No. 11 on the Order Paper cannot be proceeded with.

The hon. Member's Motion is the same, in substance, as the first part of the question. In accordance with Parliamentary practice, the same matter cannot be brought before the House twice in a Session. 2.59 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not rising to reply to this because I hope other Members from the Government are going to speak on this. I see the Prime Minister is here and I am sure he would not want to miss out on this. So I will give the Prime Minister particularly, and other Members of the Government a chance to speak on this Motion before I reply. But I want some clarification from the Minister for Home Affairs on what he has just told the House.

First of all, he said it was an attack on the Judiciary by the Member for Anson. Would he be good enough to refer this House to the passages in my speeches made in this House on the 10th of January, and on the 19th and 21st of March this year, where such speeches amounted to an attack on the Judiciary. I hope the Minister understands "an attack on the Judiciary", not an attack on the Executive trying to interfere and District Judges carrying out their functions under fear of displeasing the Executive. So will he please be good enough to refer the House to the passages which he says "amount to an attack on the Judiciary."

Secondly, would the Minister for Home Affairs also refer this House to the passages in my speeches of 10th January and the 19th and 21st of March which he says "amount to scurrilous comments on the Chief Justice"? These were his words that my speeches or parts of my speeches "amounted to scurrilous comments on the Chief Justice." Would he please refer us to them?

Thirdly, may I ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether he has got with him the verbatim record of the proceedings before the Commission, everything taken down, what I said, what the Commissioner said, what Mr Glenn Knight said. Has he got that with him? Because I thought he referred to something I was supposed to have told the Commissioner in the afternoon? Was he reading from the Report of the Commissioner or was he referring to the verbatim record of the proceedings before the Commissioner? If it is from the Report, would he be good enough to refer me to it? These are the three clarifications I need from the Minister.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has asked what are the passages where it can be said that his comments are an attack on the Judiciary. I would say all the passages that I quoted just now are an effrontery and an attack on the Judiciary.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Please tell us again.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going to repeat because he should have heard me when I spoke. I gave quotations in my presentation.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All the speeches that I made were an attack on the Judiciary?

Prof. Jayakumar: Attacks on the Judiciary were contained in the quotations, which I mentioned, on the 10th January.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Refer me to one particular passage.

Prof. Jayakumar: I will do that, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Which one are you going to look at, 10th of January?

Prof. Jayakumar: Starting with 10th January. This is what he said, in col. 702:

'So there will be a tendency ... for the District Judges to look over their shoulders and to worry whether they will be, in the discharge of their functions, incurring the displeasure of the Attorney-General or the Government.' That is an attack on our Judiciary because they take an Oath of Office to discharge their functions without fear and favour. To suggest that they are discharging their functions inconsistent with their oath is surely a gross attack on the Judiciary.

Then we have, later on, his specific allegation, in col. 710, where he said that there was a notion amongst the District Judges for "fear being felt among District Judges about displeasing the Executive." In col. 712:

'The District Judges are under threat or fear of being transferred from their posts when they administer justice.' All these are attacks on the Judiciary that they do not carry out their duties without fear and favour.

Then he asked, where is the scurrilous attack on the Chief Justice? I thought he should have known this. Because it was scurrilous, the Leader of the House lodged a complaint on the Member for Anson's refusal to ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Refer me to the passage ---

Prof. Jayakumar: We will do that.

Mr Jeyaretnam: --- where you said there are scurrilous comments on the Chief Justice.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson, it will be recalled, was shown a letter, a handwritten note, from the Chief Justice on the question as to who made the decision. The Chief Justice's note was produced here and the letter clearly stated that it was the Chief Justice who made the decision. The Member for Anson was not satisfied and he wanted to ask who was the originator. The Prime Minister then reported that he had further conversation with the Chief Justice and the ChiefJustice was astounded by ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Where are you reading from?

Prof. Jayakumar: All right. I will give it to him. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will bear with me. Col. 913. The scurrilous statement of the Member for Anson is ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: I thought you are reading the Prime Minister's speech which says the CJ was astounded. That isn't scurrilous, is it?

Prof. Jayakumar: The Member for Anson's scurrilous statement is that ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: You said "col. 913". Where is it?

Prof. Jayakumar: Let me first refer to what the Prime Minister said [21st March 1986]:

'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.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister also reported that the Chief Justice asked if the Member for Anson would repeat what the Member for Anson had repeated.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Where is that?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson should surely do his own homework.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are referring us to passages. Tell us. Did you do your homework? Obviously, you haven't.

Prof. Jayakumar: Col. 916. The Member for Anson should not think that I quote without basis. Col. 916:

'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.' This is what the Prime Minister asked on behalf of the Chief Justice. The Member for Anson obviously has forgotten all this.

The third question he wants to know is whether the quotations that I gave in this House ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I seek clarification?

Prof. Jayakumar resumed his seat.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you, Mr Minister. Is the Minster saying that that passage amounts to a scurrilous attack on the Chief Justice? Does he understand the meaning of the term "scurrilous attack"? Is he also saying that the other passages amount to an attack on the Judiciary?

Prof. Jayakumar: It is very simple. If it is not scurrilous, if it is not defamatory, why did the Member for Anson not repeat it outside the House when the press asked him?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The clarification I am asking the Minister for Home Affairs, the Professor of Law at the University of Singapore, is his own opinion, his own view. Does he say, standing there, that those words amount to a scurrilous attack on the Chief Justice? Let us have it without any equivocation.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, of course, it is scurrilous. The Head of our Judiciary, one of the longest serving Chief Justices in the Commonwealth, presents a handwritten note to the Prime Minister categorically stating that the decision to transfer Mr Michael Khoo was his (the Chief Justice) own decision, and the Member for Anson does not accept the Chief Justice's word and persist in his allegations of Executive interference. Surely that is scurrilous.

Mr Speaker, Sir, his third question concerns the quotations I read out, statements he had made in the Commission of Inquiry. No, I do not have the official transcript of the Commission of Inquiry but every quotation that I read is on video tape, it is available and, if challenged, we can bring it at five minutes' notice, television and videotape, into this House and you can re-play it and check whether every quotation was or was not, were or were not, words uttered by the Member for Anson in the Commission's sittings. If challenged, we can bring it at five minutes' notice, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not a question of challenging. I hope the Minister does not get too defensive about this. The question I asked is: he read - I do not know from where - what I was supposed to have told the Commissioner that afternoon at the Commission of Inquiry. I asked him whether he has the verbatim record of the proceedings that afternoon, or was he reading from here. And if he was reading from here, would he be good enough to refer me to the passage which he read that I said in the afternoon? As for the record, I think it must be accepted by everyone that if you really want to rely on something what somebody said, or did not say, then you should produce the whole transcript. You do not just pick up one sentence and then come and say, "This is what he said", forgetting something that the man might have said earlier and afterwards.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, what better evidence can there be of the correctness of my quotations than the actual sound and video picture recording of the Member for Anson saying those quotations. And I am prepared to bring that into the House, if challenged.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Can you tell us whether what you read appears here? Does it not, or does it? Can you please answer that question?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the quotations that I quoted appeared in a programme telecast in Singapore. It is public knowledge ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Edited by the Government.

Prof. Jayakumar: --- all viewers saw it, and it is on record.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You took it from the TV.

Prof. Jayakumar: It is not quotations from the Report because there are very few quotations in the Report. The truth can be seen on videotape.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Was it an edited version by the SBC?

Mr Speaker: Have you finished?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, Sir, he still has not answered my question.

Mr Speaker: Well, I thought he had. So you are not speaking on his motion?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, is not any Member from the Government going to speak? Is not the Prime Minister going to speak in support of this motion?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter cannot be laughed away. I was not here in January this year, or those allegations would not have stood unanswered for two months, till March when I happened to be in this House.

It therefore behoves me to remind the Member that, at the first opportunity, I offered him all facilities to pursue his allegations that there has been Executive interference with the Subordinate Judiciary. The words used, the quotations, the actual tone, facial expressions, are a matter of record and they are also available, as I understand it, at five minutes' notice. In fact, all the proceedings here are kept as a matter of record. So if he feels that any segment has done him an injustice, we can look through the whole programme.

To recap, he asked for an inquiry. He proposed a Parliamentary inquiry. I pointed out the ludicrousness of he being the complainant and he being the judge sitting on that inquiry, and he eventually agreed that there should be a Commission of Inquiry with a High Court Judge.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I agreed?

The Prime Minister: "So be it" were his famous last words.

Mr Jeyaretnam: So be it. Yes.

The Prime Minister: There has been extensive time for proper consideration and garnering of evidence. Hearings have been held. The Report is before the House. This motion asks the House to accept the Report. The Member has a motion telling the House to reject it. By debating this motion, we are in fact also debating his motion. My position is clear. I have had my case investigated. I offered to be a witness. I was told by the learned counsel who conducted the Inquiry that it was not necessary. I am still willing to give evidence. I have never discussed, whether with the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, the Chairman of Public Service Commission or any member of the Legal Service Commission, the transfer of any member of the Subordinate Courts. I am still willing to subject myself to any examination by the Member whether in this Chamber or outside and on oath. They are very serious allegations.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I agree. Let us have another Commission, a proper Commission.

The Prime Minister: Am I hearing the Member right - that he wants another Commission?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, Mr Prime Minister, you heard me right because it will be the burden of my speech when I come to make it - that this Commission did not carry out the terms of reference and therefore you should now consider whether there should be another Commission, forgetting everything about this Commission, and appointing a new Commission to inquire into the terms of reference properly.

The Prime Minister: I can hardly believe that I have heard the Member for Anson say those words. But he obviously is a very plastic man who can contort himself into new shapes and forms. I take him seriously and at face value that he is suggesting at this late hour that there has been skulduggery, that there was grave impropriety in the way in which he has been convicted of an offence in the Subordinate Courts, acquitted of several charges on the same trial, had his acquittal reversed, sent back for re-trial, and in the meantime we had fixed the Judge so that he would be under a different Judge and he would be convicted. They are very grave allegations and I am ready to be X-rayed, cat-scanned, taken apart. Is he alleging that what I have written to the Commission of Inquiry is false? That all the evidence that has been placed before the Commission is either false or incomplete? And that his original position still stands - that there was very grave impropriety? If so, let him say so. I will hear him out. Let me say that if he gives me half a chance, yes, I will agree to further inquiries, without hesitation.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I indicated, it will be the burden of my answer to this motion.

The Prime Minister: Go ahead.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That if anyone prevented me from giving evidence at this Commission, it was the Commissioner himself. It will be the burden of my speech that the Prime Minister could have had all the evidence that I had. He could have had names of the two District Judges. I could have said everything but I was not allowed. And the only reason that I was not allowed is because the Commissioner refused to give me an assurance. So if the Prime Minister says now that he will appoint another Commission and he will have all these witnesses produced to me for cross-examination, I will accept it.

The Prime Minister: I am breathless, Mr Speaker, Sir. I do not know if the Member for Anson has cognizance of what he is saying. This is not braggadocio. His challenge is immediately accepted. He is persisting in his allegations, and I am saying - name your witnesses, you will have every one of them, without any hesitation. I have nothing to hide nor has anybody. Please, name them now.

Mr Jeyaretnam: First of all, the Prime Minister should clear his own mind as to what were my allegations made in this House on the 10th January 1986 and - perhaps I should correct myself here, I did not make any allegations on the 19th or the 21st March. It was the Prime Minister who came forward saying that his Minister had not dealt with the allegations in January, and so he proposed to deal with them. He raised them for the first time and referred to my statement made on the 10th January 1986. Well, if the Prime Minister will again read carefully what I said on the 10th January 1986, he will find nothing else but this, Mr Prime Minister, that the transfer of that Senior District Judge in August 1984 had raised disquiet in the minds of the public and I went on - you can read the whole of my speech, Mr Prime Minister, when you have got the time - I went on to say that this tended to erode the confidence of the public in the Subordinate Court Judiciary, not because of anything that the Judiciary was doing but by Government executive action in transferring these persons. And I wanted an explanation, an investigation into all the circumstances of the transfer. That is all, Mr Prime Minister. And of course I did say, I did say that the prosecution of me and my Chairman was politically motivated. I have very good reasons for saying that.

The Prime Minister: You must bear with us, Mr peaker, Sir. The Member wants to re-argue his position de nouveau. I am prepared even for that. I am prepared to ask this House to suspend judgment on the Report by Mr Justice Sinnathuray and to proceed to hear the witnesses or direct the Commissioner or a new Commissioner to hear the witnesses that the Member for Anson said were prevented from giving their evidence and that with this evidence, a completely new picture will emerge. Now, may I ask who are these witnesses besides the Member for Anson? Let us have them now, here. So we are quite clear in our minds who they are.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Prime Minister will see, if he has read the Report of the Commissioner, that I named four witnesses.

The Prime Minister: Name them now.

Mr Jeyaretnam: And they are - I asked whether the Chief Justice would be giving evidence before the Commission. And I wrote to the Secretary of the Commission requesting that the Attorney-General be called for me to cross-examine. I also indicated before the Commissioner that I wanted Mr Michael Khoo. It is beyond my comprehension that a Commission set up to inquire into the transfer of this man does not even hear him. And that is the Report this House is asked to accept. So there is Mr Michael Khoo Kah Lip, the then Senior District Judge, Mr Tan Teow Yeow from the AG's Chambers; well, Mr Glenn Knight of the AG's Chambers.

The Prime Minister: Am I hearing you right?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I did not give this name to the Commissioner. But I am saying you want all the names now. Do you want all the names, don't you, or not?

The Prime Minister: I want the names of the people whom ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Whom I told the Commissioner? All right, I will give that first to you.

The Prime Minister: --- you said were vital for the evidence. You never told the Commissioner about Mr Glenn Knight.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will give you the names I mentioned to the Commissioner. But I thought you wanted all the names as well. You can have them, Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: The CJ, AG, Michael Khoo, Tan Teow Yeow ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Chandra Mohan.

The Prime Minister: Chandra Mohan.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Those are the names I gave to the Commissioner. I might have another one, but I think those are the four names I gave to the Commissioner. I think in addition to those four names, may I give you other names now?

The Prime Minister: The Member has already given me five names. Which are the four? He has given me five. He has given me the CJ, AG, Michael Khoo, Tan Teow Yeow, Chandra Mohan. Which four?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Those are the five names I gave the Commissioner, ie, the CJ, the Attorney-General, Mr Michael Khoo Kah Lip, Mr Tan Teow Yeow and Mr Chandra Mohan. But now may I add to that list? I gave five names. Mr Glenn Knight should also be called to testify at this inquiry.

The Prime Minister: What for?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, you will see when you appoint the Commission and the questions are put to them.

The Prime Minister: The Member does not understand. I am not playing a game with him. I am baring this Government and its workings and its inner proceedings open for examination. He is making a very serious charge of misconduct in high places. He is saying that he is going to give evidence that will involve the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, Michael Khoo, Tan Teow Yeow, Chandra Mohan, and now Mr Glenn Knight. Is he sure he does not want me or Mr Barker? Because we are the Executive. None of them are the Executive.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed surprised to hear from the Prime Minister's lips that the Attorney-General is not a member of the Executive.

The Prime Minister: We will pass that for argument later. The Government, the Executive, consists of Ministers. He has alleged Executive interference. The Attorney-General is a member of the Legal Service Commission. It is his business to be on the Commission.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is he not also the Chief Legal Officer for the Government?

The Prime Minister: That does not make him the Executive. But in a serious vein, I ask him because the consequences, the gravamen of all these charges leads either to the collapse of this Government or the total destruction of the credibility of the Member. So he is saying that he will give evidence on oath, he will waive his Parliamentary privilege and that these persons will then, together with his evidence, provide the total picture.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Prime Minister need not ask me again. If he had followed the proceedings before the Commissioner, he will find that I said the same thing there. I told the Commissioner, I made it very clear, that I would give evidence if the Commissioner gave me the assurance that these persons would be called to testify. The Commissioner refused to give me that assurance and that is why I did not testify. So the Prime Minister need not ask me to repeat that in the House again. But if he would like it repeated, I will repeat it.

The Prime Minister: Yes, please.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes. But let us get this clear, Mr Prime Minister. You cannot try and manufacture something from what is not there. You must, as I said, look again very carefully, read very carefully, my speech in this House. It is a pity you were not here, Mr Prime Minister. You could have dealt with it then more efficiently than your Ministers could. You will see, if you read those speeches, that I was referring to the public disquiet. And I am sure the Prime Minister must be aware - if he is not aware, then perhaps he can call for it - there was a registered letter written to the Commissioner and a copy sent to me by a member of the public. And he said:

'It is not only Mr Jeyaretnam but thousands of Singaporeans are disquieted by this transfer of the Senior District Judge [after the case against me].' So there you have it. That is what I was raising before this House - the disquiet felt all over Singapore at this transfer. And it is not just that one man writing it.

The Prime Minister: You are sure it wasn't one of your supporters, Mr Lim Poh Huat?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Prime Minister, that's very funny. Why don't you call for the letter? Hasn't the Commissioner sent you all the copies of the correspondence? It is a registered letter. I should have thought you would have had a look at all these. Well, he says that. And if you are not satisfied, Mr Prime Minister, why don't you go down to the market place? But for a minute, leave your bodyguards out. Just go and sit at the coffee shops and ask the people what they think. So it is that public disquiet that I brought before this House. And that is very important for the administration of justice in this country.

The Prime Minister: It is part of the tactics of the Member for Anson to shift the subject and move the ground whenever he finds himself in an uncomfortable position. He goes back again now and says there is grave disquiet, that the registered letter was sent and suppressed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I didn't say "suppressed". It was sent to the Commissioner. I have a copy of that letter. You want to see it?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course. Send it on to the Commissioner in case he has not received it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He has received it.

The Prime Minister: In case he has not, because he has disclosed all the letters received.

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, he has not. I don't think he has.

The Prime Minister: Well, something must be wrong. On page 19, the Commissioner said:

'Except for Mr Jeyaretnam and the Law Society dealt with below, there were letters from four other persons. Of these only one, Mr A L Sundram pursued the matter beyond his first letter.'

Mr Jeyaretnam: There were four letters.

The Prime Minister: Those letters were not pursued. That was what the Commissioner ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why not?

The Prime Minister: Because they did not turn up. Because had they turned up, they would have been put on oath and given evidence on oath which the Member for Anson was invited to do, and he rejected.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I rejected?

The Prime Minister: I am asking the Member to give this House the assurance that he will waive his privilege, that what he said to the Commissioner in the afternoon of the first day, he no longer feels bound by, "that this is an absolute prohibition, section 4. It is not a privilege that can be waived. I will not answer any questions or give any evidence about what I said in Parliament because there is an absolute prohibition."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Where are you reading from, Mr Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: Notes from the Minister for Home Affairs which he took off the videotape.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Oh, I see.

The Prime Minister: Yes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Took off the SBC videotape.

The Prime Minister: We could produce them here.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is not from here. All right.

The Prime Minister: Therefore, it is untrue? Is it untrue? SBC fabricated this?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Can we have the whole of that videotape?

The Prime Minister: But, of course, all of it, all of it. Is he denying that in the afternoon he said that he was absolutely prohibited? And does he now say, "No, that is wrong. I will give evidence?"

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, what I said in the afternoon of that 3rd of June this year was to try to put the Commissioner right on the interpretation of section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. The Commissioner had proceeded on the assumption or his understanding that section 4 was on par with the Privilege, which is protected under the Evidence Act.

The Prime Minister: Let us not go into a legal argument, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is because you asked me.

The Prime Minister: All I want is an assurance that he will give evidence, regardless of what he had said to the Commissioner.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I thought you wanted me to explain --

The Prime Minister: No, I want an assurance.

Mr Jeyaretnam: --- what I said on the afternoon. Because I say the Commissioner was all at sea over section 4 of the Act. I tried to put him right. And he did not want to listen to me that afternoon. That is all in the papers. He did not want to listen to me and walked out saying, "Get him out."

You have asked me for an assurance that I will give evidence. I have given it to you, Mr Prime Minister. How many times do you want this assurance? I have given it to the Commissioner, except he did not want it. He refused to give me an assurance that these witnesses would be called.

The Prime Minister: Therefore all that transpired in the afternoon was an aberration?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Whose aberration? Yours?

The Prime Minister: Could we have the tape?

Prof. Jayakumar: Yes.

The Prime Minister: Arrange for the videotape. The Minister for Home Affairs' notes are for the afternoon session:

'I think it will be a confusion to try and equate it as a privilege resting with a person. You see, you have under the Advocates and Solicitors Act a privilege of a communication made by a client to his advocate and solicitor. And that is the privilege of the client and he can waive it. But this is not that sort of thing.'

Mr Jeyaretnam: Exactly.

The Prime Minister: 'This is an absolute prohibition. It is not a privilege that can be waived.'

Mr Jeyaretnam: But I said that in spite of that I will give evidence.

The Prime Minister: We are asking the Commissioner to break the law? Is that his proposition? I am suggesting that there is no such proposition; at any time the Member can give evidence, and he knows that. If he gives me that assurance, he will get full facilities.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Prime Minister must be aware that I told the Commissioner that he was breaking the law and that, under the Act, he could be held to be in contempt of Parliament and he cannot plead the President's directive or order to him. The Prime Minister says he does not agree with my interpretation of section 4. Would he like to study it? Would he like to look at section 4 and contrast it with the sections in the Evidence Act which talk about communication which are privileged, and see the total difference in the wording?

The Prime Minister: I take the Member's words to mean that he will give evidence and that if we in this House give him the assurance that we will ask the Commissioner to waive or to overrule the normal, ordinary rules of procedure that require him to give a short summary of all that he wants of his various witnesses, that all he needs do is to go into the box, name those witnesses, give evidence and say, "they will confirm it", all those witnesses will be produced. It must be so. It must be so. No witness will be denied him. He has made his charges doubly grave because, having gone this far, I am now being accused of having shut out vital evidence because the Commissioner in his folly refused to give the Member an assurance that he can call his witnesses. I say, by all means. I therefore propose that the Member states his case now and we shall agree that he will give his evidence and that of the five witnesses he has named.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Prime Minister keeps asking me to state again and again what I have already stated. I do not know why that is necessary, Mr Speaker, Sir. I should have thought once stated would be enough. Apparently not for the Prime Minister. I have said that I will give evidence and I will name the two members of the Subordinate Court Judiciary ---

The Prime Minister: Name them now.

Mr Jeyaretnam: --- who were transferred.

The Prime Minister: What is the mystery? Let us have them now. There is no mystery.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sit down, Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: I will not, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is it? Is it on a point of order?

The Prime Minister: He is making a mystery out of these missing names of District Judges who were transferred. He knows of three. He has named one; he has got two more. I say, just name them. Let us produce them. Are they Mr Chandra Mohan, Mr Tan Teow Yeow, Mr Michael Khoo? Name them.

Mr Jeyaretnam: [Pointing to a pile of notes] That is all that I had got prepared to give evidence before the Commissioner. So I was surprised to read the Commissioner's statement that I had no intention to give evidence.

I have already named, before this House, witnesses that I think should be produced before any Commission appointed to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo Kah Lip. Those were the names that I gave to the Commissioner - the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, Tan Teow Yeow, Chandra Mohan, and, of course, Michael Khoo Kah Lip. Then I said I think Mr Glenn Knight should also give evidence. You ask me now to tell you who are the members of the Subordinate Court judiciary who were transferred.

One goes back to 1972, Mr Prime Minister, and he is Mr Yong Yung Sui. Probably he was not a District Judge. He was sitting in the Subordinate Court and he heard a case in which I appeared as the Counsel for the accused. The accused in that case was none other than the brother of Mr Lee Tow Kiat, an advocate and solicitor, who had stood as a candidate for the Workers' Party in the 1972 elections. He was charged with using criminal force on a top ranking police officer, and I understood then that this top ranking police officer was one of the top police officers who accompanied the Prime Minister on his travels abroad. He was a very important police officer. The Magistrate acquitted my client, the brother of Mr Lee Tow Kiat, of the charge. Shortly after that he was transferred, taken out of the courts. And he has never returned to the court, as far as I know. He is now in the Legal Unit of the Development and Building Control Unit of the Ministry of National Development. That is Mr Yong Yung Sui.

The other man is Mr Jeffrey Chan. He heard a case, again I do not know whether he was a District Judge; I think he probably was. He heard a case concerning entry into the CBD area by a police officer without displaying an area licence, and again I was the counsel for the accused, for this Inspector. I submitted at the close of the prosecution case that the whole scheme was ultra vires the Act. That the collection of the area licence fee was not authorized by the Act and therefore it was ultra vires. This was accepted. There was a DPP arguing for the prosecution. This was accepted by the Magistrate who acquitted the man. He was an Inspector in the Police Force. And throughout the case, I think it was raised as a preliminary point. This, of course, was not acceptable to the Government. I mentioned this in this House after I came here because the same evening, over radio and TV, there was an announcement, and in the press as well, by somebody from the Ministry of Communications saying, "We are not accepting that judgment. We will continue to collect charges and fees. We are going to appeal against that decision." That was a statement made by an official from the Ministry of Communications and I referred to that. I said, "That showed the contempt that the Government had for the administration of justice." Here is a Magistrate who makes a decision and the member of the Executive says, "Oh, forget that decision. We are not going to abide by it." What clearer contempt can there be for the administration of justice?

This man was also taken out of the courts a few months later. So there are these two instances, Mr Prime Minister, and you can check them out. All I wanted to know, as I said on 10th January, is that there should be an explanation. There should be an explanation to the public why Mr Michael Khoo was transferred in August 1984. I said that was of vital importance if the public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained in this country and, of course, public confidence in the administration of justice, as the Prime Minister very well knows - it may not be accepted by the other Members but the Prime Minister, of course, is aware of that - is one of the strongest pillars of any democratic state or society.

The Prime Minister: Do I understand now that these two cases also - Mr Yong Yung Sui and Mr Jeffrey Chan - comprise the three Subordinate Court Judges against whom the Executive has interfered in the exercise of their duties and they would also be the subject of investigation besides Mr Michael Khoo?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I do not know whether the Prime Minister deliberately refuses to understand what I am saying in this House. It is not for me, Mr Prime Minister ---

The Prime Minister: On the contrary, it is for you. The Member has come here, made these allegations, and I am asking him whether he is prepared to give evidence of his disquiet and justify the disquiet, and all the records will be opened. It is not for him to come here and laugh hilariously when he is refuted and then expand his allegations into wider fields. It is not funny, Mr Speaker, Sir, because, at the end of all this, there must be a reckoning.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, there must be a reckoning. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is only necessary for me, as a Member of this House, to come and inform the House of anything that is disquieting the public. I shall be failing in my duty if I did not do that. The Prime Minister must know that I do not have access to what goes on in Government offices. I do not have access to Government files. I do not have access to anything. Indeed I have complained about this. In this country, everything is kept behind closed doors. I have telephoned many a time to Ministries and asked for information and I am refused information.

Let me give the Prime Minister one instance. Preparing myself for this Commission of Inquiry which the President, on the advice of the Prime Minister, had appointed and which I was determined should not be frustrated, that it should be allowed to carry out its tasks fully, I wrote to the Registrar of the Subordinate Courts a letter asking him whether he would give me a statement of all the holders of the post of District Judge and First Magistrate and Senior District Judge way back from 1955 or even before that, 1952, I think, after I joined the Legal Service and what happened to them when they vacated their offices. This is something which should be a matter of public record and I wrote to the Registrar of the Subordinate Courts, "May I have this information?" And what do I get? "Very sorry. We cannot give you this information because it only came to me in the course of my official duties as Registrar. So how can I give you that information?" or words to that effect.

So I had to write to him again and tell him, "Surely these transfers would have appeared in the Gazette Notifications and therefore they are matters of public record." Even then he does not give me the information. He writes back and says, "Well, if you say they are matters of public record, you go and look them up yourself." That is the sort of cooperation I have had from Government Ministries and departments when I have asked for even the simplest information.

So it is not for me, Mr Prime Minister - I hope you understand - to have to prove that anything was wrong with the Government, with the functioning of the Government machinery or with any other machinery. It is for the Government, once a matter is raised in this House, to lay bare before the House and the public, to show that there can be no question of any impropriety. There can be no question that might give rise to disquiet in the minds of the public. That is how democratic governments function. They are accountable to the people, and if you take that seriously, then it is the Government's duty to explain without hiding anything but to put everything in front of the people and to explain it. And that is all I asked for the last time. On 10th January I asked that there should be a proper explanation for the transfer of this man and that was not forthcoming and that does not amount to an attack on the Judiciary, as the Minister for Home Affairs has made it out to be. I cannot see by any stretch of imagination that that could be an attack on the Judiciary.

So I hope the Prime Minister understands what is involved in all this. We are not, as the Prime Minister has said, playing a game here. It goes far beyond that. It is very serious, and it is the duty of the Government to explain and to satisfy the public.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, we can argue the Member's position interminably and come back again round the mulberry bush. When he is about to be asked to produce his evidence, he says it is not for him to produce evidence. It is for him to just take a brush and tar it broadly and it is for the Government to clean itself up. I cannot accept the Member's words given in this House. He has given it to me once in March when he said "So be it" before the Commission of Inquiry. He has given it to me again now. He says, "Yes, I will appear." But he knows as well as I do that he can go before another Commission and plead privilege, and again we would not be able to have the valuable evidence which he keeps in his mind.

I therefore suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we proceed with this motion, hear the Member as to why it should be rejected and as a result of his arguments the Government will decide either to suspend this motion and proceed to ask the Commissioner to hear his evidence and waive the rules that normally require a statement from each witness, and provide him with all the witnesses that he requires in order that he will prove his case. Or if we are not satisfied, then we shall proceed with the resolution. I can assure the House that I have no intention of shutting out the Member because in this House in Committee we are empowered to summon witnesses and to hear evidence on oath and we will provide the Member with that opportunity. But we have this added advantage, Mr Speaker, that in this House in Committee the Member cannot avoid coming and giving evidence because he cannot plead privilege. He may not realize it but I am reminding him that perhaps before he makes his bold assertion that we intend to pursue these allegations to the end of the road, and I will briefly explain why.

When these matters arose, I was nonplussed. Nonplussed because it made no sense to me. But he has persisted in them so I have now the advantage of a thorough review of the facts of the case and I like briefly, if I may, since he is asking the Government to clear itself and the Govern- ment will clear itself, and we will prove that Michael Khoo's transfer was not only the work of the Legal Service Commission, unconnected with the Government, but that, further, it was, as the Chief Justice had said it, initiated by the Chief Justice and, furthermore, I have a judgment of the Chief Justice which explains why he moved Michael Khoo. I have not discussed this matter at all with either the Chief Justice or the Attorney General. All I did was to call for the judgment.

Let me explain. On 14th January 1984, Mr Michael Khoo gave judgment, orally. He acquitted the Member of one charge for swearing a false declaration because --- [Interruption]. Let us not go into fine legalities. I am talking to laymen here in the House. Swearing of false declaration, a very serious charge. He was acquitted because he decided that the declaration was not in the exact formula given in the schedule. He acquitted the co-accused, Mr Wong Hong Toy. Two charges. There were three other charges of defrauding creditors, not a piffling, minor charge of a traffic offence. He acquitted both accused on two charges and convicted them on one. An appeal was filed.

On the 30th March, 1984, Mr Michael Khoo gave his grounds for decision, a written judgment. In May 1984, two months later, there was a hearing before the Chief Justice. Two months after the hearing, or less, in August 1984 Mr Michael Khoo was transferred to the Attorney-General's Chambers. On the 18th April 1985 - and I do not know and I have not asked the Chief Justice why he withheld his judgment for so long - he gave his written judgment. I called for this judgment. I think it answers all the things that I wanted to know. On page 13 ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of order, Mr Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The point of order is this, Mr Speaker, Sir. As the Prime Minister well knows, at the retrial we were convicted and there is an appeal pending against that, and at this appeal the judgment of the Chief Justice ordering the retrial will be very much an issue relevant. His grounds as to why he ordered the retrial and his findings - they will all be canvassed again before the Judge who hears this appeal. And here is the Prime Minister, with all his experience, referring in Parliament to judgments and proceedings in Court which are not over yet. Is he not aware of Standing Order which says that no reference shall be made to proceedings which are sub judice?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member should remember that I was trained in the law and I have two colleagues in this House - one the Minister for Law, the other the Second Minister for Law. This is the judgment of the Chief Justice sitting in appeal. His judgment was appealed against by the Member asking the Chief Justice to state a case to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Chief Justice refused. He went to the Court of Criminal Appeal for a case stated; it was refused.

Mr Jeyaretnam: And not for a case stated.

The Prime Minister: He went on to the Privy Council and it was dismissed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You have got to get your facts correct.

The Prime Minister: This has nothing to do with the retrial. It explains why the Chief Justice reversed Mr Michael Khoo on two findings of fact, and convicted the Member ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification.

The Prime Minister: Let me answer this point of order. I am answering the point of order first. Please.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Because you are going on without answering the point of order.

The Prime Minister: I am answering the point of order. Two charges on questions of fact. The Chief Justice reversed Mr Michael Khoo and found that on the evidence Mr Michael Khoo was wrong. And on the question of law ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is going to be argued, Mr Prime Minister, at the appeal that the Chief Justice was wrong.

The Prime Minister: No, it cannot be.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes. Are you going to be my counsel?

The Prime Minister: I would ask ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: So please do not refer to it now.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not intimidated. I am sorry to say that I do know my position. There can be no appeal against the conviction for defrauding creditors. The case is closed. What was sent for retrial and it is the appeal on the retrial that the Member is talking about - is a finding of law which the Chief Justice reversed, that a statutory declaration need not be in the form in the schedule for it to be an offence under section 199 of the Penal Code. And he ordered that there be a new trial under a new Judge. There was this new trial. The Judge convicted the Member for Anson and the Member for Anson is appealing against this conviction of false declaration, not against defrauding creditors. He is therefore deliberately misleading us.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Prime Minister, are you aware of the facts?

The Prime Minister: I am not giving way, Mr Speaker.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Are you aware of the facts of the charges?

The Prime Minister: I am now. I was not before, but I am now.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are not, Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: And I am going to give it to the House.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are not because ---

The Prime Minister: Please! Mr Speaker, Sir ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, will you sit down? There is no point of order.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Because the Prime Minister is not aware of the evidence and the facts.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, do I have the right to carry on?

Mr Speaker: Carry on.

The Prime Minister: I have met the point of order and if I am wrong ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: You have not.

The Prime Minister: I have indeed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I ask for a ruling from the Speaker.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, before you rule, can I repeat it very briefly?

Mr Jeyaretnam: And I will reply.

The Prime Minister: I have also asked my colleague to get the grounds for appeal against the subsequent conviction. It does not contain any appeal against the Chief Justice's reversal.

Mr Jeyaretnam: There we are! This is on appeal.

The Prime Minister: It does not contain any appeal against the Chief Justice's reversal of the two defrauding creditor charges. So it has nothing to do with it. The case is closed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am sorry the Prime Minister shows such a poor comprehension of what is involved in this appeal. Has he studied the case?

The Prime Minister: I do not have to study the whole case to know where I stand - whether I am entitled to say this. Let me proceed why ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: I would like a ruling, Mr Speaker, Sir, on this.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Prime Minister to carry on.

The Prime Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I want to reply.

The Prime Minister: This judgment explains why he transferred Mr Michael Khoo. It is simple. The Chief Justice quotes section 199, on page 13:

'Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any court of justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorized by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, shall be punished.' and so on.

The Chief Justice, on page 19:

'In my judgement the trial judge [this is Mr Justice Khoo] erred in law in finding that the prosecution had failed to prove ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must persist in my objection on a point of order because he is going to read the judgment. If he wants to reply to my objection on a point of order, let him do so. Let him not read the judgment now.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, the judgment has been read in Court to the Member.

Mr Speaker: You wanted the facts of the case.

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, Mr Speaker, Sir. I want a ruling on whether the Prime Minister is permitted under the Standing Orders to refer to judgments in cases which are far from over. There is an appeal. The Prime Minister keeps saying that what is on appeal is the conviction under section 199. That is, of course, true. But the Prime Minister should know if he has made a study of the case, and I am sure he has.

The Prime Minister: Thank you.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am sure you have. He should know that the charge involves the questions as to whether those three sums of money on which the other three charges were founded were part of the Workers' Party's monies, and whether they were reflected in the accounts or whether they should be reflected in the accounts. So you cannot try and isolate one charge from the other three charges. It is all these questions - whether the amounts on those three cheques form part of the Workers' Party's monies - that will be canvassed at the hearing of the appeal. And now, what the Prime Minister proposes to do is to read the judgment of the Chief Justice. I tell the Prime Minister that the Judgment of the Chief Justice ---

The Prime Minister: Is sub judice?

Mr Jeyaretnam: --- will be the subject of comment in this appeal that will be heard. It will be severely criticized and shown to be wrong. So it is sub judice.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, this judgment has been read by the Chief Justice in open court before the DPP and the accused and published in the newspapers, not all of it. I am just reading out the parts which laymen are usually not interested in but which I believe we in this House are interested in because it will show why Mr Michael Khoo was transferred. It is simple. I ask you to rule that I am entitled to read a document which is not sub judice but has been read and made public.

Mr Speaker: I agree with the Prime Minister. It has been published in the newspapers.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, of course it is published. Of course it is published. It shows a complete inability to grasp the Standing Order in this House. Standing Order says that no Member shall refer to proceedings before a Court of law before they are over. That is what is contemplated by that Standing Order. And here the proceedings are not over.

The Prime Minister: We shall never have any finality, Mr Speaker, Sir. I ask you to rule and if you rule that I should not read the judgment of the Chief Justice which has already been read in court, then so be it. Am I entitled to do it?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have not finished, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have a right of reply to this point of order that I raised. It is very much an issue and which will be before the court. The fact that it has been published is neither here nor there. It cannot be referred to in this House in its proceedings. You can read them outside but you cannot refer to them in this House, in proceedings before this House, because they are - I see the Member for Punggol would like to display his knowledge of the law. I will give him the rostrum. He can come and tell us where he learned his law.