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

11.28 am

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [29th July, 1986],

"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.". - [Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law].

Question again proposed.

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): As I indicated yesterday, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was waiting to see whether any Government Minister or Member wished to speak on the motion before I replied, but I see nobody else wishes to speak this morning. I had to ask the Prime Minister to speak yesterday. But before I begin my reply to this motion, may I clarify one or two things that the Prime Minister said yesterday in his speech to the House and out of which I sought clarification from him. I see he is not here this morning.

Mr Speaker: Do you realize that you have one hour? That is all.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I have this clarification of the Prime Minister first, Mr Speaker, Sir, and then have an hour on my speech?

Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Prime Minister referred to the affidavits or statutory declarations of Dr Ivy Chew. I asked him if he had got both the statutory declarations and would he like to read them. He did not read them. But he kept talking of just two words "tacit understanding", saying that there was nothing expressed. I have got both the statutory declarations and I will hand them up to the Clerk, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Dr Ivy Chew in her own statutory declaration, made not to us but to the Receiver and without any consultation with us or with me at all, told the Receiver, "I posted the said cheque together with a letter to Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam at his office." So there was a letter. She says that in a sworn statement, and in spite of that the CJ says he cannot accept my evidence that there was a letter. Dr Ivy Chew was available all through the trial, waiting to be called by the prosecution. They had subpoenaed her. She was there and she was not called. So this is what I wish to make a clarification on. The Prime Minister's statement yesterday was that there was just a tacit understanding. He completely overlooked, and I am saying, regrettably, overlooked pointing out to the House that she said that she "posted the said cheque together with a letter to Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam."

Mr Chua Sian Chin (MacPherson): Where is the letter?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may move to the motion before this House, perhaps you are aware that I have written to the Leader of the House to ask whether he would move a motion to give me more than an hour to reply. He has declined. So I must try and finish it within the hour. Unless, of course, he wishes to change his mind.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me state and put it on record again that yesterday we had it from the Prime Minister in this House that Mr Michael Khoo was transferred from his post of Senior District Judge because he had acquitted the Chairman and me on three of the charges. That is what the Prime Minister said.

An hon. Member: Distortion.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister, of course, did not say that that was what the Chief Justice had told him. He says, "This is my own view as a reasonable person, and I say, 'Look here, this is why the man was transferred'." Of course, he does not say that the man was transferred because he acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong. He says the man was transferred because he had made six misdirections of facts and two misdirections of law. But whatever it is, the undisputed fact remains he was transferred because he had acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong. And in doing so he says the man made six mistakes. Now, who says he made the mistakes? A single Judge of the High Court says he made the mistakes. And I have tried to point out yesterday that I have been barred from appealing against that judgment of the single Judge of the High Court. So let us not make any bones about this. It is the Prime Minister's considered opinion, and he comes to this House with his considered opinion, that the man was transferred because he had acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong making a number of mistakes.

Prof. S. Jayakumar: A point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: What is your point of order?

Prof. Jayakumar: My point of order is that if the Member wants to quote the Prime Minister, surely he must quote correctly because Members will recall that that is not what the Prime Minister said.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I said, of course, he did not say it like that. Of course, he did not say it like that. But he said, "I can understand why he was transferred. He made six mistakes when he acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong." But he had come back to the point that the man was transferred because he acquitted us. I was going to ask the Prime Minister and he is not here. Has every judicial officer who made misdirections or mistakes in finding of fact been transferred or removed from their posts? Does he think that the High Court Judges should be removed from their posts if they made serious misdirections in law or in fact? I did not want to bring this but because of the Prime Minister's statement maligning this man, Mr Michael Khoo, may I ask the Prime Minister - I know he is not here - is he aware of the recent, perhaps not so recent but going back a year or so, decisions of the Privy Council, judgments of the Privy Council, which have criticized the Judiciary, the Judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal? So does the Prime Minister say by the same token they should also be transferred or removed from their posts? Let us get that quite clear.

The other thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this. The Minister for Home Affairs in opening his address on this motion said that I had attacked the Judiciary and then went on to say that I had made scurrilous remarks or comments about the Chief Justice. I asked him to draw the attention of this House to the passages in my speeches. And after some time fumbling through the reports, he referred to certain passages. I do not want to spend too much time on this. But may I say that it is only a distorted mind, a sick mind, which will find in those passages an attack on the Judiciary or scurrilous remarks of the Chief Justice. I repeat what I said. My only concern in bringing up this matter before this House is to safeguard the independence of the Judiciary, to see that it is seen by the public outside to be independent, manifestly independent. And I said that was vital to any society which believed in democracy and in a stable society. So I refute again this scandalous, outrageous, statement made by the Minister for Home Affairs that I attacked the Judiciary and made scurrilous remarks on the Chief Justice. Perhaps he would like to send them to somebody who understand the English language better than him and ask them what they thought about it, whether the passages amount to a scurrilous comment on the Chief Justice.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to come to the motion itself, for a while, when the Prime Minister was speaking in this House on the 21st of March this year, it seemed that he was sincere, quite earnest and sincere, in wanting to establish and to show that the Judiciary and, of course, we were concerned with the Subordinate Court Judiciary, were acting quite independently of the Executive and had nothing to fear whatsoever from the Executive over any decision that they may make in the course of their duties. I suggested a Parliamentary Committee. Then he changed his mind and said, "Well, what about outsiders?" Then I began to suggest names and then after lunch the Prime Minister made a complete somersault and he came back and said, "No, I am going to appoint a High Court Judge and I will get the terms out." Even then, I think there was some feeling that the Prime Minister was earnest and sincere in his desire to vindicate his Government and the Executive and to show that the Judiciary in Singapore had nothing to fear and that the public can repose full confidence and trust in the Judiciary, and particularly the Subordinate Court Judiciary because they do the bulk of the administration of criminal law in this country.

But this desire on the part of the Prime Minister was dented very badly when he made the announcement on the 16th of April 1986 for the appointment of the Commissioner and the terms of reference. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that everything was wrong about this Commission. Everything was wrong about this Commission. And from then onwards, the Commission went off the track, the track upon which it was thought this House had launched it. It veered off completely. First of all, the terms of reference. The terms of reference were a complete departure from that suggested by me in this House and which I thought the Prime Minister accepted as a Prime Minister of the Government in this House, Parliament. The terms of reference were a complete departure. I have another motion and I will dwell at length on that. So I do not wish to spend too much time.

Secondly, the choice of the Commissioner. It was wrong in that respect. The Prime Minister yesterday seemed to imply that I had agreed in this House to the appointment of a High Court Judge. I said, "If the Prime Minister wishes to appoint, so be it. It lies within his power." So it was not an agreement. It was a you-do-what-you-want. I said, "So be it."

Prof. S. Jayakumar: Can I seek clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Afterwards, please.

Prof. Jayakumar: Why are you afraid of the truth?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Bring it out afterwards. The Prime Minister forgets that immediately after that weekend of the sitting, I wrote to him and said, "On further reflection, I didn't think a High Court Judge should be the Commissioner." And he replied saying he disagreed. He thought a High Court Judge could be the Commissioner. Those two letters were released to the press by him and they were published. So even if I did not object in this House to the appointment of a High Court Judge, I had drawn his attention three days later to the undesirability of appointing a High Court Judge as the Commissioner. That was another thing wrong, appointment of a High Court Judge on this.

Thirdly, the choice of the particular Commissioner. May I tell this House, I am sorry to have to say all this, may I tell the Members of the House that from the time the announcement was made that a High Court Judge would be appointed to head this Commission, no bets were being offered outside as to who would be the Commissioner. And then when the announcement was made on the 16th April, 1986, again I wrote to the Prime Minister by my letter, which I shall release when I come to the next motion, sending him detailed reasons as to why I thought the terms of reference were wrong and that he had never consulted me, and again drawing his attention to this particular Commissioner saying that I thought he should not head the Commission. The Prime Minister replied, again dismissing it. I told him that I would release both the letters to the press. But, of course, our gutter press (yes, Mr Speaker, Sir, I did say, our gutter press) could not bring themselves, did not have the courage, to publish both those letters. So there it is. I have made it quite clear that I was objecting to the Commissioner; I did not think he was the right choice.

Finally, the appointment of Mr Glenn Knight. I again pointed out in that letter that Mr Glenn Knight was an unfortunate choice, if he wished to appoint someone to assist the Commission. I said he was too close to the bone. I am not the only one who shares that view. There was a letter written to the Straits Times, our press which at one time called itself the "National Press of Singapore" or the "National Newspaper". This was written by a pensioner, a Government pensioner. He wrote to the Editor of the Straits Times and he sent me a copy. He said the Government should reconsider asking Mr Glenn Knight to assist the Commission because, he said, he had been present at an interview with Mr Glenn Knight when he had made certain remarks which showed that he was completely biased. I am sure the Straits Times will produce that letter if it is asked to produce it. It, of course, never saw the light of day.

So there were all these things wrong about the Commission. The terms of reference were wrong, the Commissioner was wrong, the person who was appointed to assist the Commission was wrong. So people began to wonder whether the Prime Minister was really earnest, was really sincere in wanting to establish the independence of the Subordinate Court Judiciary that they had nothing whatsoever to fear, or whether he merely wanted an endorsement, a white-washing, of his own view that the Executive did not interfere at any time with the Subordinate Court Judiciary.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the end, the Commissioner sat over my objections. May I say this before I embark on the third limb of my speech here that the Prime Minister had said that the Attorney-General would draft the terms of reference after I had given them to him. It should have been clear to the Prime Minister that the Attorney-General should not have been asked to draft the terms of reference because the Commission was over his own action, because it had been revealed in this House that the transfer was done between the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General. So if you are appointing a Commission to inquire into that, should you ask the man, who himself was a party to the action, to draw the terms of reference? That, I should have thought, would have been clear to the Prime Minister.

As I said, in the end, the Commission sat and came out with its Report. May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, and Members of this House, that the Report is founded on a deception, a deception which again took the whole of the Report off its track, a deception which has coloured the entire findings of the Commission and led to misconceptions and misdirections of the law. The deception that was responsible for this Report is, I am sure Members are aware, the deception that I had claimed privilege under section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act and that I had refused to testify. That deception was capitalized upon by the Government through,again, its gutter press who tried to give the impression every time to the public that I had refused to testify claiming privilege. Nothing is further from the truth. The deception was persisted in through the Government-controlled media and it runs through the whole of the Report and is responsible for the indictment of me ---

Prof. Jayakumar: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: What is your point of order?

Prof. Jayakumar: I would like to ask whether the Member wants this proceeding to be interrupted so that we can, in fact, watch the video recording of what the Member said, before he proceeds to deny that he claimed privilege.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, we can watch the video afterwards. But if you will be patient and listen to me, if you will just hold your horses for a while. That deception is responsible for the indictment that I had no intention to give evidence, which is what the Commissioner says. That is his first finding, that I had no intention. I laughed when I saw that. Second, I had no evidence at all; and third that my conduct in Parliament was scandalous. It is a very strong indictment and it is a gross delusion born out of an inability on the part of the Commissioner to grasp the essentials, or am I to think that it was deliberate.

What was the stand taken by me at the Inquiry? If one reads the reports, and particularly a report that appeared in the Asian Wall Street Journal, it becomes abundantly clear - yes I know, according to the Minister, it is only the local press which prints the truth, nobody else prints any truth but the local press, yes, 100% true - if you read through the reports, it will become abundantly clear to anyone that I had refused to testify after the Commissioner refused to give me an assurance that the persons I wished called would be called. Of course, I had the privilege not to testify and I chose to exercise that privilege because and only because of one reason, and the reason is that the Commissioner refused to give me the assurance that these witnesses would be called. If anyone was responsible for my not giving the evidence, it was the Commissioner. It must become quite clear to anyone that he could have got my evidence. He had the opportunity and the power to get my evidence by only a simple statement, "Yes, Mr Jeyaretnam, I assure you that these witnesses will be produced to you for cross-examination." If he had simply said those words, then the Commission could have embarked on its work. But he refused to give me that assurance. So I said, "If you are not going to give me that assurance, I am not going to testify." That appears, if you read through the whole of the reports, patently clear. True, I was standing on my privilege but why? That is the point. The reason I was standing on my privilege is because no assurance was given by the Commissioner. So he shut me out from giving evidence. Nobody else shuts me out.

And then a curious thing happened. And what is more? He says that I was disrespectful to him. I do not know whether it came out in the TV, but he was positively insulting to me. He said, "Either you get out or I have to have you removed." He did not want to hear me in the afternoon when I said I wanted to explain why I was choosing not to give evidence. He refused to hear me. Some of it came out in the Straits Times. He refused to hear me and I stood my ground. Then he told Mr Glenn Knight, "I am adjourning. See that Mr Jeyaretnam is removed." Why did he not want to listen to my reasons? Then I had to call the press outside to tell them why I did not give the evidence. Then he tells me also, "You have no more part in these proceedings." "But I am a party under section 17", I have to tell him. He does not accept that. Because I am a person whose conduct is being examined by the Commission, I have a right to be represented. If I can appoint an advocate and solicitor to represent me, I can represent myself because I happen to be an advocate and solicitor. I have done that in other cases in the courts, represented myself. He would not have anything of that. He said, "You are not a party. Get out. And if you are not going to go out, I will have you removed." Why was he anxious to have me removed from the proceedings? But the moment I moved out, the Chief Justice came in to give evidence. I was asking, "Is the Chief Justice going to give evidence?" Why could I not have been told, "Mr Jeyaretnam, the Chief Justice is going to give evidence"? Is this a hole-in-the-corner affair? Why was I not told? I was clamouring for the Attorney-General to be produced for cross-examination. I had written to the Secretary asking that the Attorney-General be produced for cross -examination. And after I had been told to get out of the proceedings, the Attorney-General turns up the next day and he says, it is in the Report, "I consider it my duty to appear before this Commission." I laughed when I saw that. If he had considered it his duty, was he not informed by Mr Glenn Knight during the lunch adjournment that Jeyaretnam was insisting that he come and give evidence, to be cross-examined? Was he not told about it? Why did he not send word back through Mr Glenn Knight to the Commissioner, "Mr Commissioner, I will be coming to give evidence." The whole thing could have been saved. But the task of the Commission was not saved.

The Commissioner says that I never had the intention to give evidence. He is clearly wrong. I mentioned yesterday about the preparations I had made. I had written to the Registrar of the Subordinate Courts and my secretary, if she is asked, will confirm the time and effort I spent in preparing myself for this Commission and the Commissioner says, "He never had the intention to give evidence." I had written to the Secretary to say that I would be coming to give evidence. I want the Attorney-General produced for cross-examination.

May I say this. That in spite of my unhappiness with the terms of reference, in spite of my unhappiness with the choice of the Commissioner, in spite of my unhappiness with the choice of Mr Glenn Knight, I was resolved to give evidence so that the desire of the Prime Minister may be carried out, even however imperfectly, because I am here to assist. I am not here to obstruct and it is my conviction which I have tried to expound time and time again in this House and outside that the independence of the Judiciary is vital, that nothing will wreck a society, nothing will upset society more than a lack of confidence in the administration of justice. And may I also say the Prime Minister says in this House I agreed to give evidence. He again forgets - not that I am going to go back - but he again forgets that when I said "I will give evidence", I was talking about the terms of reference which he had agreed to accept. Then he completely changes them. But notwithstanding that, I was still prepared to give evidence.

Why did I not give evidence? Mr Speaker, Sir, it must be again crystal clear to anyone that if you are going to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo from his position as Senior District Judge, then without any saying, it must follow that the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General must give evidence. Without them, it would be like staging Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. And can you try and stage Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark, I ask you, Members of the House? This is why I wanted an assurance. And it must also be clear to anyone that the man involved, who was the subject of the transfer, should be called to give evidence. He should be asked what he thought about it. In the end, as it would appear from the Report, he was not called and yet it is about his transfer that the Commission was appointed. The evidence of the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General and Mr Michael Khoo lie at the core of the Inquiry. To try and say that they did not would be to pretend, and I wanted an assurance and that assurance was not given.

May I also bring to the notice of this House that there were lawyers who told me not to take part in the inquiry particularly after the morning's proceedings. They said, "You should just refuse to take part." But I said I would still take part if the Commissioner was prepared to give me that assurance. So I did not give evidence because and only because I did not have the assurance. I know the Commissioner said, "We will consider. If they are relevant we will call them" but I could not be sure that they would be called, and I was not going to allow myself to be a party to proceedings which were farcical without these witnesses being called. That is the simple answer to it. I was not going to allow myself to be a party to proceedings which did not carry out its work properly.

It was not only the Chief Justice and the Attorney -General, not only Mr Michael Khoo. I also considered it absolutely important if the Commission was to carry out its tasks, was to carry out the terms of reference that had been entrusted to it, I considered it essential that they should also hear Mr Tan Teow Yeow, Mr Chandra Mohan, and of course at that time I did not mention Mr Glenn Knight, and I was ready to name the two members of the Judiciary that I gave yesterday. They were not just conjured up last night or yesterday and they should have been called after I had named them.

The Prime Minister says, "He can call them if they will confirm." The Commissioner said, "You can call them." I laughed, Members of the House, when Mr Glenn Knight, wrote to me and said, "Do you think the Attorney-General is going to support your allegations? Will you get me a brief of his statement supporting your allegations?" Does he think I was born yesterday? Cross-examination is one of the very useful arts, functions, of getting at the truth. I wanted them for cross-examination because it is by questions directed at them and they answer them that one may arrive at the truth. So let it be made quite clear to the Prime Minister. I see in today's papers - I did not follow him quite clearly - he says, "If he says they will confirm his evidence then he can call them." I do not for a minute expect them to come and confirm my evidence but I want them there for cross-examination. I have a number of questions to put to them and let them give the answers. So let that be made quite clear. Carry it to the Prime Minister that I am not asking that they be called just to confirm my statements and to be my witnesses. I want them there to be cross-examined by me. I hope I have made that very clear.

The Commissioner's comment that I changed my stand in the afternoon. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the morning we were talking about section 4 of the Act and it seemed to me that the Commissioner was equating the privilege under section 4 with the privilege afforded under the Evidence Act to communications made to solicitors and professional communication, and that is why he kept talking about "you waive privilege", "you claim privilege", "you waive privilege". I had another look at it carefully during the lunch adjournment, and I thought it was all wrong to try and approach it like that. I told him that in my view section 4 was not the same kind of privilege that sections 128 to 133 of the Evidence Act talk about. That, in my view, section 4 imposed an absolute prohibition, and the fallacy of the Commissioner and Mr Glenn Knight is to think that the privilege was my privilege. That is where you get the fallacy, Members of the House, because the privilege is not of the Member, the single Member, or the Members. The privilege is the privilege of this honourable House. It is the privilege of the House, of Parliament, not the privilege of a single Member and so it was fallacious to suggest that I could waive the privilege that belongs to this honourable House. How could I do that? Only this House, by a resolution, can waive that privilege or this House can appoint its own Committee and this is what I said at the beginning - appoint a Parliamentary committee. So that is what I tried to point out to him. But he would not listen. He would not listen.

When I tried to explain to him why I was not going to give evidence because he did not want to give me the assurance, he said, "I am not going to hear you. Get him out." And he walked off. So much for the thing that I had changed my mind. I was not changing my mind. I told him that in spite of that, and I think the Minister read yesterday, I said even though I may be seen to be aiding and abetting the Commissioner in committing contempt of Parliament I was prepared to do that and incur the displeasure of Parliament at a future date. I told him that, "in spite of the absolute prohibition I will do it, if you give me the assurance." So let us not hide anything more. That is absolutely clear.

May I now turn to one or two legal findings of the Commissioner to show that he is completely wrong. The Attorney-General refers to Article 111(4) of the Constitution of Singapore for the authority, he says, that he and the Chief Justice had for making the decision. You may remember, Members of the House, that it was said that the power had been delegated to the two of them. I cannot spend the time that I need for all this. But if one looks at Article 111(4), it becomes quite clear that there could not have been any delegation to the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General by the Legal Service Commission. Because Article 111(4) says quite clearly:

'The Legal Service Commission may delegate to any officer in the Singapore Legal Service or to any board of such officers appointed by it...'

I will stop there, Mr Speaker, Sir, "may delegate to any officer in the Singapore Legal Service or to any board of such officers.". I will ask the Minister for Home Affairs to try and persuade me that the Chief Justice and the Attorney -General are officers in the Singapore Legal Service. He better look at the definition section in Article 103 and consider it very seriously, because it is my view that neither the Chief Justice nor the Attorney-General are members of the Legal Service. And Article 111(4) says, "to any officer in the Singapore Legal Service".

As I said yesterday I do not know what goes on. I am not privy to the decisions that are taken by the Government, by the Ministry, or by any Department. All I can do, as I said yesterday, is to come here and to raise disquiet that I see outside, and then for the Government to explain it. I had assumed that the Legal Service Commission had decided on the transfer, the whole of the Commission. But as it transpired later, revealed by the Prime Minister on the 21st March, it was not the Legal Service Commission. It was only him, the Chief Justice, and the Attorney-General. I am saying that Article on which the Attorney-General relies upon is no authority for the delegation. So we come to this position, Members of the House, that the transfer was not of the Legal Service Commission. It is as simple as that. The transfer was not made by the Legal Service Commission. So it is unconstitutional. Of course, the Minister will perhaps come back with an opinion written by the Attorney-General. May I tell the Minister not to come back with an opinion of the Attorney-General on this point? It is a serious matter and, if he thinks it is serious enough, perhaps he should refer that to leading counsel in London for their opinion.

If that is so, that the transfer was made outside the Legal Service Commission, then the District Judges have lost the protection given to them by the Constitution. It must follow, must it not, Members of the House? There was a particular reason in the Constitution providing for six members to meet together and decide on the transfers, promotions and appointments, and that they should come from various sectors of the society. In that way, some protection is afforded to the holder of the post. But now, it would appear that the transfer was made outside the Legal Service Commission. So, I say, District Judges have lost the protection given to them. Do I need to have to say any further? The transfer would appear to me to have been unconstitutional.

Then the position of the Attorney-General himself. The Attorney-General was born on 17th January, 1929, and on the 17th January, 1984, he reached the age of 55, Members of the House. If one looks at Article 35 of the Constitution, what do you find, Members of the House? Article 35(4) of the Constitution says:

'The Attorney-General may be appointed for a specific period and, if he was so appointed, shall, subject to clause (6), vacate his office ... at the expiration of that period, [this Attorney-General was not appointed for a specific period.] but, subject as aforesaid, shall otherwise hold office until he attains the age of fifty-five years: "So the Attorney-General could only hold office until the 17th January, 1984. After that, under the Constitution his appointment lapses, but there is a proviso. And the proviso is that:

'the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, may permit an Attorney-General who has attained the age of fifty-five years to remain in office for such fixed period as may have been agreed between the Attorney-General and the Government.' So he must retire but the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, can permit him to remain in office for a fixed period. I do not know whether there is such an agreement between the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General after the 17th January, 1984. And this transfer was made in August, 1984. I have caused a search to be made of all Gazette notifications, going back to December, 1983, and I cannot find any Gazette notification that an agreement had been made between the Attorney-General and the Government for him to remain in office after he reached the age of 55. But there may still be an agreement.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I request clarification? Is the Member alleging that the Attorney -General's appointment and current position is unconstitutional?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am pointing out to you Article 35(4). It says, "shall otherwise hold office until he attains the age of fifty-five years". Is that clear to you, Mr Minister?

Prof. Jayakumar: The question is: Is he alleging that the holder of the office of Attorney-General now is holding it unconstitutionally?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I do not know. You have got to answer it. I am asking you, "Was there an agreement?"

Prof. Jayakumar: I have asked a question: Is he alleging that? Because that is a serious complaint.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Minister is obtuse. I have pointed out to him, and I am saying I cannot find an agreement. The Article says there must be an agreement. Will you please produce an agreement? If you produce an agreement, of course, it is constitutional. I do not know.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, does he find any reference in the Constitution that the agreement must be gazetted?

Mr Jeyaretnam: It may not have to be. Produce the agreement then. Let's put an end to all this, produce the agreement. Don't hide it. Produce the agreement! But I should have thought it should have been gazetted. He is a holder of high office, the Attorney-General. Why should it not be gazetted? So that's that.

Secondly, again I am sorry to have to say this, but it cannot be kept out. The Chief Justice himself had reached the age of 65 for High Court Judges in 1982. He was appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister for a further three years. So he was holding his post as well, at the pleasure of the Prime Minister - appointed for a further three years.

Prof. Jayakumar: Is he now alleging that the holder of the office of Chief Justice is holding it unconstitutionally?

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, I am not. I am saying he was appointed for a further three years by the Prime Minister. Please, if you will just listen, Mr Minister. And that is that, after that date, both the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General were beholden to the Prime Minister for their offices.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: What is the insinuation?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Because they were appointed.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very serious, scurrilous allegation. He is, in fact, saying that the Chief Justice after his re-appointment is beholden to the Executive and therefore his implication is that the Chief Justice will not make decisions impartially. Is he alleging that? We must know.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said that under the Constitution the Chief Justice retires at 65, and I know by Gazette notification that he has been re-appointed for three years, and again for a further three years. I have pointed out that the Attorney-General should have retired in 1984 and I cannot find any Gazette notification of his appointment.

Finally, the superficiality of the Report.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order, which we need to know. I have said before that he has been using Privilege to cast doubts on persons outside this Chamber. He has made a very serious point - that the Chief Justice was re-appointed, and because he was re-appointed, he is beholden to the Prime Minister. I am asking: is he saying that the Chief Justice thereafter will not be, and has not been, impartial? He must answer the question.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Minister, I am not saying that. Get it quite clear. I am simply pointing out what are the facts. For goodness sake. Now, the superficiality of the whole Report. May I just point to one thing?

Mr Speaker: You have three minutes more.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I point out how superficial the whole Report is. I had assumed that it was a parallel transfer of Mr Michael Khoo with Mr Errol Foenander. I had overlooked reading carefully the note that the Prime Minister had produced on the 21st March, but then later studying it, I found it was not a parallel transfer. Mr Michael Khoo is in Grade D (I think it is right) of the Legal Service and Mr Errol Foenander is in Grade E of the Legal Service. There is a discrepancy or difference of, I think, about $1,000 in salary. But the thing is Mr Michael Khoo was in Grade D of the Legal Service, Mr Foenander was in Grade E. After Grade D, there is E1, and I think it is E after that. I have a note, one can check all this.

What is the truth then? Mr Michael Khoo was sent to take over the duties of a person two grades below him. So it was not a parallel transfer. And the man who was two grades below Mr Michael Khoo was sent to take over his duties. Does the Commissioner inquire into that? Does the Commissioner consider whether this was a parallel transfer? Does the Commissioner consider what were the reasons for this transfer, whether it was career development? The Chief Justice does not give any reasons. We heard it yesterday from the Prime Minister. I see that he is here now. We heard it yesterday from the Prime Minister that he, the Prime Minister, can see the reason as a reasonable person. And the reason was that he had made mistakes in acquitting us. But does the Commissioner inquire into the reasons? The Chief Justice was not asked, when he gave evidence, "Could you tell us why you decided on this transfer?" I hope these things are not done by the Chief Justice sort of waking up one morning and saying, "I am going to transfer an officer." He should have been asked, "Could you give us any reasons for your transferring Mr Michael Khoo?"

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, your hour is up. 12.31 pm

Dr Dixie Tan (Ulu Pandan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I really feel impelled to say a few words. Members of this House know that I am not in the habit of criticizing Members of the Opposition. It is my belief that every person is entitled to his or her opinion and opinions do differ in anything and everything. But making false and malicious accusations is another matter altogether. And we have heard too much of this in this House. The Member for Anson, of course ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Move a motion.

Dr Dixie Tan: Mr Speaker, can I continue?

Mr Speaker: Carry on. Let us have less interruption, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Dr Dixie Tan: The Member for Anson has a long track record of throwing mud at innocent parties. But this matter is really getting too serious to be tolerated. Just yesterday ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Move a motion.

Dr Dixie Tan: --- how he brought up a fictitious case of wrongful detention by the Police. That is a very serious allegation. And yet it was without foundation altogether.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of order, ie, that matter has been referred to the Committee of Privileges and they are looking into it and they will be studying it, I hope. Is it right for the Member to speak now on a matter which has been referred to the Committee of Privileges?

Mr Speaker: She is just referring to it without talking about it.

Dr Dixie Tan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now we come to all this long business about the Judiciary. The Member says that his words do not amount to an accusation. I do not wish to go into words, regulations, Acts and sections but as a long suffering Backbencher having to listen to all his very long speeches, it was very clear to me about his meaning. His meaning was that the Chief Justice made a decision to move the Senior District Judge at the behest or under the influence of the Executive. That meaning came across to me extremely clearly. As for his intentions, I will not talk about that today.

However, we all know that an independent Judiciary is basic to the structure of our nation. Therefore, if the work of the Senior District Judge can be influenced by the Executive, by non-legal considerations, it then follows that people will think that the independence of other Judges in the District Courts can similarly be influenced. And the Member for Anson himself mentioned this possibility. Therefore, I think this matter was taken up very rightfully and we have heard the evidence. We have seen his shifty behaviour in court. I beg your pardon. I withdraw that. We have seen his shifty behaviour at the Commission of Inquiry and we have seen his shifty behaviour in this House, right up to five minutes ago. He is shifty all the time apparently.

Members of Parliament have special freedom of speech, special privileges under the protection of this House. And not only that, the media bring our words into every home.

Mr Jeyaretnam: A point of order. Is the Member speaking to the motion or is she speaking about something else?

Mr Speaker: She is speaking on the motion.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are ruling that she is speaking to the motion, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, if you say so.

Dr Dixie Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me repeat. In my opinion, Members of this House have special privileges under protection and we have the media which bring our words into every home. Not only the words of Members on the Government side but also the words of the Opposition Members. However, this privilege, and this is what I really want to say, carries with it a duty and a responsibility to take care that whatever we say must be true and just and definitely must be defendable.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you, grandmother.

Some hon. Members: So rude.

Dr Dixie Tan: On top of his other failings, Mr Speaker, Sir, I find him extremely rude, very boorish and absolutely without any sense of decency of behaviour.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am not afraid. Good grandmotherly advice, that's all.

Dr Dixie Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, it saddens me that a Member of this House should behave in such a deplorable manner ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Move a motion.

Dr Dixie Tan: --- that a Member should so flagrantly abuse his privileges, especially when he has been elected in good faith by the people of Anson.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Go and tell them not to elect me.

Dr Dixie Tan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I want to attract any more boorish behaviour and make his reputation worse.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Campaign in my constituency.

Dr Dixie Tan: Therefore, I would suggest that the Member for Anson owes a full apology to this House, to the people and especially to the Chief Justice; for the wrong that he has done to everybody, for the wilful way in which he has misled or tried to mislead at any rate the people. All this has caused a great wastage of time and effort and money if we start to count it. Surely, we have better things to do in this House than to waste a lot of time debating on empty, irrelevant, and things which are clearly proven to be untrue. How can we Members, honourable Members of this House, stand up and start saying things about the Police, the Judiciary, persons and institutions without any evidence beforehand? It really pains me, Mr Speaker, Sir, that such behaviour should be seen in this House. I would repeat my suggestion that the Member for Anson owes us and the people and particularly the Chief Justice, even Mr Michael Khoo, a full apology for dragging their names through the mud practically.

With that, Sir, I beg to support the motion in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs. [Applause].

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask for clarification from the hon. Member?

An hon. Member: You have spoken for an hour.

Mr Speaker: What is your clarification?

Mr Jeyaretnam: She says I have dragged their names through the mud. Could she again refer me to the various passages in which she says I have dragged their names through the mud? Would she do that? She says so.

An hon. Member: Read the Hansard.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, one other thing, ie, I have given notice of an amendment to the motion. May I just move that?

Mr Speaker: Not at the moment. Members are speaking on the motion.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have given notice of an amendment.

Mr Speaker: I know that. We will let you do that later on.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right. Thank you, Sir. But what about my point of clarification? Will the Member give the passages?

Mr Speaker: I thought a gentleman ought to sit down because the lady ---

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): I will make things abundantly clear. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is also with a sense of sadness and outrage that I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs.

Sir, when the Commission of Inquiry was set up, I realized that there were two very important objectives that it sought to accomplish. First, to find out if there is something really wrong with our Judiciary and the system of appointments and transfer of people within the system. Secondly, what can be done to improve it. Unfortu- nately, Sir, as the Report makes it abundantly clear, no members of the public came forward to offer evidence. No proposals were received either on what is wrong with the system or on how we can improve the system.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is wrong.

Dr Augustine Tan: To me that is a very telling point. The Member for Anson made a lot of allegations in this House. But he too refused to give evidence and the way he did it was somewhat cleverer than he usually is. He imposed impossible conditions ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Impossible?

Dr Augustine Tan: --- so much so that he did not have to give evidence. Sir, I am not a lawyer. But as I read through this Report of the Commission of Inquiry, I was enlightened on two legal procedures or principles. On page 33, I quote:

'Where a witness wishes to call other material witnesses, then [quoting from the Salmon Report], a statement of the further evidence should be taken by the Treasury Solicitor. If the Tribunal in its discretion after seeing this statement considers that the evidence it contains may be material and that it is reasonably practicable to obtain it, that evidence should be called by counsel for the Tribunal. This matter must be left to the discretion of the Tribunal in each case, since it is not impossible that a plea for further evidence might be put forward merely for the purposes of delay or some other purpose irrelevant to the inquiry.'

Sir, the Member for Anson at the inquiry insisted on calling four or five witnesses. But when he was called upon to give in writing the grounds upon which he was calling these witnesses, he did not do so.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I do not have to.

Dr Augustine Tan: Then obviously the counsel for the Commission of Inquiry did not call the various people up as witnesses.

Furthermore, Sir, on page 71 of the same Report, paragraph 7.9, it says:

'There is another fundamental rule of evidence which Counsel referred to in his submission. It is a rule of presumption based also on commonsense that where a person who makes an allegation, when called upon, does not give the evidence on which the allegation was based, then it is reasonable to infer that either he does not have the evidence or if he does have any evidence that evidence would be adverse to or against him. Once again, by choosing not to give evidence on the allegations he made, I find that Mr Jeyaretnam not only did not have the evidence but that any evidence he could have given would under cross-examination be shown to be against him.'

So there we have the facts of the matter, that quite clearly what this man set out to do in this House was entirely baseless. He had nothing to support his allegations. He was out to make political capital out of an unfortunate incident.

And consider, Sir, the sequence of events leading to the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo, if the Executive had indeed wanted to persecute Mr Michael Khoo, then anyone who is not stupid would certainly not do it in that blatant way. In so short a time, after giving that judgment acquitting the Member for Anson and his colleague on four out of five counts, he was transferred. It is too obvious a way to do things. If there is anything that we can hold against the Government or credit the Government with, it is that it is not a Government that is stupid. The people are extremely intelligent and the sensible way to do it, if one wanted to do it, would be to wait a year or so and quietly transfer the person and not to do it like that.

Furthermore, Sir, we have the written testimony of the Chief Justice stating that he was personally responsible for the transfer. Unfortunately, Sir, yesterday the Prime Minister was moved, impelled to reveal to this House the contents of the judgment regarding Mr Michael Khoo's errors of judgment and errors of law. To me, as a layman, those points made by the Prime Minister and the letter of the Chief Justice make abundantly clear the reasons that must have been behind the decision of the Chief Justice to transfer this man. I say, like my colleague, the Member for Ulu Pandan, "poor Mr Michael Khoo." Poor man. I would not like to be in his shoes. What has he done to deserve having his name dragged through the mud. He is a professional man. It is bad enough to have made the errors of judgment that caused the transfer, but to have his name dragged through the newspapers day in and day out, and in this Chamber, that is not a very pleasant thing to have done to one's reputation.

It is a gross abuse of parliamentary privilege. It is not the first time that we have seen this in this House. It is not going to be the last time. And today we heard another outrageous statement, and if we were to extrapolate from that statement, then we will infer from what the Member for Anson said, that therefore any appointment made by the Prime Minister of Singapore is immediately suspect; anybody appointed by the Prime Minister of Singapore to any position must be beholden to him. Therefore, where does that leave us in Singapore? Where does that leave the civil servants? Where does that leave anybody who has to be appointed by the Prime Minister?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Prime Minister appoints the civil service?

Dr Augustine Tan: Who then can appoint anybody?

Mr Jeyaretnam: You have to fight for it.

Dr Augustine Tan: There you are. When it suits him, he will point to certain procedures.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Learned lecturer in law.

Mr Speaker: Let us have less interruption, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Dr Augustine Tan: Earlier on I was outside this Chamber and I overhead a conversation and somebody was saying "that man (meaning the Member for Anson) is as slippery as an eel." To me, Sir, it is worse than that. His behaviour is reminiscent of a snake.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Point of order, Sir. I think it is unbecoming of referring to another Member as a snake. I wish the Member for Whampoa would ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, he was not referring to you.

Mr Chiam See Tong: It was quite obvious he was not referring to me. I think it is an unbecoming conduct, all the same.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You do not expect him to apologize, do you? Born-again Christian.

Dr Augustine Tan: I do not know how to describe people who like snakes or people who behave like snakes. Sir, I did not call the Member for Anson a snake. I said his behaviour reminds me of a snake.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is a Born-again Christian deception.

Dr Augustine Tan: But, of course, if one continues to behave like a snake, eventually there could be a physical transformation. Sir, we have seen nothing but negative, malicious, destructive, criticisms and behaviour in this House by the Member for Anson, and not far behind, the Member for Potong Pasir.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can he please clarify that? What exactly does he mean by "not far behind"? What have I done?

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, I believe I have an hour and I will take that hour, if necessary, to go into what is wrong with some of the things said by the Member for Potong Pasir.

Mr Chiam See Tong: You are as slippery as a snake yourself.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Don't you know that? Born-again Christian.

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, when one is innocent, one does not worry about whatever labels others put on you. So we do not need to react unless the label fits.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Aren't you a Born-again Christian?

Dr Augustine Tan: Praise the Lord, I am.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Hallelujah! Here is a Born-again Christian.

Dr Augustine Tan: Yes. But as a Christian, I want to see justice done in this House.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are a shame.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, let us have less interruption. What is wrong with being a Christian?

Dr Augustine Tan: I believe Christians ought to be civil.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Are you civil?

Dr Augustine Tan: I do not interrupt people.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You call people snakes.

Dr Augustine Tan: Correction. I said, "he is like a snake."

Mr Jeyaretnam: And who is being slippery now?

Dr Augustine Tan: Sir, what is obvious to us in this House and to the people of Singapore is that the Member for Anson is seeking to tear down our system. By that I refer to those institutions, those values which have been painstakingly built up over the last 26 years.

Sir, it is one thing to be anti-PAP. It is quite legitimate to bring down the Government through democratic means. But I believe it is something else to be anti-Singapore. I said sometime ago in this House last year that I hope that in the course of time we can build up a consensus of what Singapore stands for. What are the values? What are the institutions which are good for Singapore? And I would expect hon. Members on both sides of the House, Opposition and Government, to subscribe to at least a set of fundamental values, to at least be able to believe in a set of institutions that work towards the good of Singapore. But we have seen, time after time, the two gentlemen from the Opposition seeking to undermine the credibility of our institutions, questioning the HDB's integrity, questioning the integrity of the Judiciary, questioning the integrity of the Central Provident Fund, and other institutions ad nauseam. What are they trying to do? I agree with my colleague, the Member for Ulu Pandan, that yes, we have privilege in this House, yes, MP's duties are to highlight abuses of authority in this House, but only where evidence is available. In other words, if we dare to make an assertion in this House, we must have at least some form of evidence upon which to base our allegations. But when we are asked or challenged to repeat the allegations in this House outside the House and we claim Parliamentary privilege, then what are the people of Singapore going to think about us? It is one thing to point to possible abuses of authority, it is another thing to have an attitude which is completely contemptuous of all authority, an attitude that seeks to undermine authority.Sir, no country can be run without authority being exercised by a government and by the institutions of government. Yes, MPs should champion the cause of the under- dog. But must we destroy Singapore in the process? Yes, MPs should draw attention to corrupt practices should they exist, but with proper evidence. But should we destroy the reputations of innocent parties in the process?

Perhaps Sir, it is time for us to consider the drawing up of a proper code of conduct for hon. Members of this House so that the integrity of this institution can be preserved and upheld, despite the presence of people who behave like snakes. To me, Sir, these problems point to a further need and there is a need to try and enshrine those values that have proven their worth to Singapore, a need to build institutions that will endure in order to ensure a prosperous future for our nation.

I recall, Sir, that in the early sixties Government leaders spent much time and effort at nation building, values like ruggedness, hardwork and discipline were propagated. Meritocracy became a household word. Incorruptibility of Government and of bureaucrats made Singapore stand out from other developing countries. Law and order was established. Through laws like section 55 that effectively beat the gangsters. Workers accepted the need for industrial peace and discipline. The result was unprecedented economic development, uninterrupted for 24 years.

I believe, Sir, there is a continuing need to inform and to educate our public, especially our younger generation, about the basic values and institutions that we need for our survival and indeed our prosperity. We should not take it for granted, Sir, that everybody understands and accepts our tried and trusted values and institutions. We need to try and explain patiently why we need section 55? Why we need the Internal Security Act? Why we need to have Work Permit regulations? Why we need meritocracy? What is the role of Parliament and MPs? How does the Judiciary function? How our economy works? And how we work to ensure that our leaders and bureaucrats are clean, honest, people of integrity. If we can do this, Sir, despite people like the two MPs of the Opposition, we shall build a secure and prosperous Singapore. [Applause]

Mr Speaker: There are still two minutes left. It is an appropriate moment to take the suspension. I suspend this sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.58 pm until 2.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: I had earlier this afternoon indicated to the hon. Member for Anson that I would allow him to move his amendment to the Question before the House.

I have since looked up Standing Orders to see whether I could, in fact, permit him to do so. I could find nothing. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot permit the hon. Member to move his amendment.

Standing Order 44(3) is clear. It states that "No Member shall speak more than once to any question." There are exceptions in the Standing Order but they do not apply in this case.

The hon. Member had a full hour to speak before the lunch break and he should have taken the opportunity to move his amendment.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I then ask the Member for Potong Pasir to move the amendment in my name? I take it that will be in order. I have given notice but I am present and he can move it as his notice of amendment. Mr Speaker, Sir, the point is purely technical. You said I had not done it within one hour. I agree. I am very sorry it went out of my mind that I had to move this amendment. I am begging your indulgence to move this amendment. It would not take me two minutes to move this notice of amendment and I am appealing to the House to give me two minutes to move this amendment. I am appealing to the House. I can appeal to the general House.

Mr Speaker: You said the Member for Potong Pasir will move the amendment?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will ask him.

Mr Speaker: And therefore you will not be speaking at all because you have spoken for one hour?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Who?

Mr Speaker: You.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You told me I cannot speak any more. So I cannot speak, if you rule so.

Mr Speaker: Yes, I have so ruled. But the Member for Potong Pasir can move your amendment provided he alone speaks, not you.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes. He will move the amendment.

Mr Speaker: All right, let him move it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right. Before I sit down, this is in clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not making another speech. I referred to two letters and I said that they could get them from the Secretary of the Commission. I do not know whether he has got them, ie, the Minister for Home Affairs. The letter is dated 22nd April 1986 addressed to the Secretary, Mr Lim Teik Hock, Commission of Inquiry, and it was sent by registered post on 22nd April 1986.

The other letter that I referred to this morning was dated 16th April 1986 and was addressed to the Editor, Straits Times Press, Kim Seng Road, Singapore, Letter to the Editor.

Mr Speaker: Mr Tang, I think it is your turn to speak.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Tang Guan Seng): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak in support of the motion by the Minister.

For the last two days, Parliament has been debating on a very important issue, ie, whether there are doubts about the independence of our Judiciary. From the speech made by the Member for Anson, it is obvious that he is systematically and calculatingly trying to cause members of the public to doubt our Judiciary. This is a very serious matter and the consequences are also serious. The Government had to spend a lot of time and energy to set up a Commission to look into the allegations of the Member for Anson to see whether there are any foundations to his allegations. His allegations would create, not only in the minds of our people but also through newspapers and media reporting, an undesirable impression on foreigners. In other words, the integrity and upright image of our Republic which has been built through years of efforts will be seriously undermined by his allegations if they are not rebutted.

The allegations made by the Member for Anson is not a slip of the tongue. He is systematically and calculatingly undermining the foundation of our society. He has also alleged by giving the example of the arrests of certain persons without cause or reason. If such allegations were not disproved, it would cause undesirable consequences. He has raised these allegations in this House which provides him with certain privileges so that he could speak his mind without hindrance or obstruction. But outside Parliament,thousands of our people can discern whether his allegations are correct or wrong.

His attitude displayed in this House by making unfounded allegations over and over again, is an abuse of the privileges given by the sacred institution of Parliament whose Members are elected by the people. So any responsible Member should not do that. We as Members of Parliament enjoy these privileges and we cannot be prosecuted for our speeches made here. But we must be responsible and we must have the duty to see that our allegations must be well founded. We must be responsible for our speeches made here. Has the Member for Anson this responsibility in mind? Obviously not. For example, he pointed out one Lim Poh Huat who was arrested by the Police.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am sorry I cannot remember which Member spoke on this this morning, and I said that the matter had already been referred to the Committee of Privileges. I hope Members will realize that once a matter has been referred to the Committee of Privileges, there should be no debate in this House until the Committee has reported on it.

Mr Speaker: All right. Fair enough.

Mr Tang Guan Seng: ( In Mandarin): The Police has spent a lot of time and effort to make investigations. Only then did he recognize the falsity of his allegations and withdrew them. He could raise such allegations because he had the duty, as he said, to raise such questions in the House. I would like to ask him: as a Member of Parliament, should he be a parrot without a brain, or be an honourable Member with a rational mind? I believe that every Member of Parliament, before making any allegations in the House, should make a careful investigation. The Member for Anson not only raised unfounded allegations but he also broke his promises. This is manifested in the fact that he did not give evidence as promised. He has said in the House that whatever he said in this House could be counted upon, but in the end it turned out not to be so. This kind of false promises is a very serious fault.

If a Member of Parliament could break his promises, how could the people entrust their matters to him? During these two days of debate, on many occasions and many a time, the Member for Anson has demonstrated his trickery in debating by shifting ground. When his allegation of a particular person being imprisoned was rebutted, he shifted his ground and talked of other things, saying that there are other people who have been arrested for more than 24 hours and who could not contact members of their family. In this way, his original allegation was laid aside.

Sophistry is another of his tactics. For instance, he claims that he merely talks of Executive interference of the Judiciary and does not attack the independence of the judiciary. However, it is obvious to any sensible person that if there is Executive interference in our Judiciary, then the Judiciary is not independent.

With this kind of allegation, the Government will have to take certain measures. Everybody can see clearly that we have spent a lot of time debating on this issue. The idea is to find out the truth of these allegations.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister even suggested the setting up of another Commission of Inquiry to look into the truth of the matter. This shows that we are brave enough to face any issues or allegations. We would not do anything against our conscience and we are not like ostriches burying our heads in the sand. But what kind of attitude has the Member for Anson been adopting? We can all see for ourselves. The matter arose in this House and then there was the setting up of the Commission of Inquiry. Now the matter has been referred back to Parliament and there is another chance for him to talk about it. I would infer that even with another Commission of Inquiry, the matter would still come back to Parliament. Why? As I have said, his purpose is to systematically destroy the foundation of our nationhood. I would like to ask the Member for Anson whether to act in such a way would be good for himself and his children. If the foundation of the society is shaken, what good would it bring to the Member for Anson and his children? I think the motion by the Minister for Home Affairs is very appropriate because we cannot allow the situation to persist. We must not allow these irresponsible allegations to go without challenge. To allow this would bring disgrace to our sacred Parliament and would have aspersions cast upon it. 2.46 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the motion and I would like to make an amendment to the motion in respect of paragraph (2). This is really the amendment of the Member for Anson and I have been asked to move it, based on the fact that he is now not allowed to speak as he has completed his one hour.

Sir, I beg to move,

That the whole of paragraph (2) of the motion be deleted and to substitute therefor:

'(2) regrets the failure of the Commissioner to give the assurance sought by the Member for Anson before the Member gave evidence and which failure prevented the Commission from inquiring into the Terms of Reference.'

Sir, the allegations were first mentioned in Parliament on 10th January this year and the usual rebuttals were made by the Minister. At that time none of the Members in this House was alarmed by it. But now we hear three Members, two from the Backbench and one from the Government side. The Member for Ulu Pandan has said that there is a waste of a lot of time and the Member for Whampoa says that there is a sense of outrage. And, of course, we get the usual lecture from the Parliamentary Secretary. If they were really so alarmed and there was a sense of outrage, why were they so quiet? Nothing was done for two months. It is obvious that either the allegations were properly rebutted and they thought nothing of that after that, or they did not realize the gravity of it, or they were just indifferent. It is only when the Prime Minister, after coming back from a trip, as he has stated, and the allegations made again, that he came into the House to confront the Member for Anson, and we knew what happened then. In the first instance, Ministers, Government members and Backbenchers thought nothing of it. It is obvious there are two thinkings on this matter - the Prime Minister on his own, Cabinet and other Members on the other side. If they thought alike, they would have brought this matter up in the first place. So it is obvious that it is the initiation of the Prime Minister. None of the Ministers here initiated this whole thing. And they said that there was a waste of time.

We have seen the debate broadcast and we have seen the Commission of Inquiry called. The proceedings were telecast, repeated and repeated again. Why all this publicity? What is the purpose? If you want to come to a solution, I do not think that by just broadcasting to the world will come to any solution to the problems. What is the purpose? There must be a purpose for it. I suppose the Government only knows. They are the people who are wasting time, spending public money in

televising this three times, not twice but three times - that is my personal knowledge - maybe more times, I do not know.

This matter could be easily resolved and I think an important issue is the privilege in Parliament. This is clearly enshrined, freedom of speech in Parliament. It is not absolute freedom but there is freedom of speech. I think this is an important issue which I have brought up before in another debate. If the House feels that a Member has said something improper or acted in a manner which is not becoming of a Member of Parliament, there is the procedure. It does not mean that as soon as a Member makes an allegation, a Commission of Inquiry should be held. We have found the futility of this Commission of Inquiry because it is privileged. It is clearly spelt out in section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act that there is freedom of speech in Parliament and debate and proceedings in Parliament should not be impeached or questioned. Our section 4 goes further than the English section from which it was taken from clearly states that, "No Commission of Inquiry will look into any debate or proceedings in Parliament." This section dates back to 1688 by the Bill of Rights, Ninth Article - as long ago as that:

'That the freedom of speech and debate or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.' So what is the simple answer. The simple answer is that if they feel that there is anything wrong, Parliament itself can form a committee and look into it or form a special Select Committee. The usual one is the Committee of Privileges. This is a simple answer to it. Why be so melodramatic, all the drama and all the excitement all for nothing? And now we have heard from Backbenchers. They said that we have got to have a Code of Conduct in Parliament. Parliament has been going in England since, as I have read, 1668. And of course we are guided by these Standing Orders here. There is no other written matter except this and probably some of the directions of the Speaker, and it is very, very clear. I hope we would not have to come back to this matter again. Standing Order 104 is very clear. This is a guide to us:

'In cases of doubt the Standing Orders of Parliament shall be interpreted in the light of the relevant practice of the Commons House of Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.' So if we cannot find a precedent here, we look to the English precedent. But, of course, if there is any restriction which is passed by the House of Commons in England, we are not bound by it unless our own Parliament moves a resolution to that effect. This is all very clear. So in future if there is anything improper, we do not have to be so melodramatic, send it to the Committee of Privileges or have a special committee to look into the matter. There is allegation of waste of time. I think the waste of time is coming from the Government side. I have read the Report of the Commissioner and he has said that he can hardly find any English cases. It is quite obvious because in England they follow precedents. They know that anything spoken in Parliament is privileged and they do not hold a Commission of Inquiry of anything that is alleged in Parliament. That is the reason why he cannot find any English precedents. So he goes to the Commonwealth and he quoted an Australian case. But as we have seen under Standing Order 104, Commonwealth cases do not bind us. It is only precedents in the Commons House of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So I think in that respect the guidance which he sought was quite misdirected.

Sir, I think everybody definitely would want an independent Judiciary. Nobody wants to see the Judiciary tampered with in any way.

I would like to make an observation. Over the past 25 years - this is only an observation - there is only one Party ruling this country and in that Party, the Leader, of course, is the Prime Minister and he has become a very dominant figure in Singapore. And I believe - I think it is a true observation - that he dominates the universities, the Civil Service, statutory boards (I think even Members of Parliament). I have the privilege of sitting just across and could see for myself that when the Prime Minister walks in, everybody sits up. It is like a school teacher coming into Parliament. The Member for Whampoa at one time was making a loud, gesticulative speech on the economy and I observed when the Prime Minister walked in, he tapered, slowed down. It is not the Prime Minister's fault that he dominates the country. In fact, I think foreign observers also noted that. One Canadian reporter says, "How can you fight George Washington?" Well, I am not fighting the Prime Minister. I am in politics because I want to help make Singapore a better place to live in. And, of course, there is a journalist, I believe he also wrote a book, "Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister" in which he says he akins the Prime Minister to a Banyan tree. I wonder you have seen a Banyan tree. The roots grow down and they grow more, and the roots grow down and they spread and spread. I have seen such a tree, really the biggest one in the world, in India. It is true that nothing grows under the Banyan tree.

During the lunch break, the Prime Minister called for some written matter from the Chief Justice. There was a Queen's Counsel in Singapore at that time and somebody asked him, "Would the Chief Justice jump (in England, that is)? - a query from Margaret Thatcher while she is having a fierce battle in Parliament. The Chief Justice in England would say, "Tell Mrs Margaret Thatcher to go jump in the lake."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Hear, hear!

Mr Chiam See Tong: Perhaps the Prime Minister could tell us how he obtained this copy of the judgment from the court.

The Prime Minister: Of course, it is a matter of public record and I asked Mr Glenn Knight whether he has got a copy. He sent me his copy.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Thank you, Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Is that wrong?

Mr Chiam See Tong: No. I am asking a question and I got the answer and I am happy about it.

The Prime Minister: May I know if it would have been wrong if I had asked the Chief Justice for a copy of the judgment he read out in his own court which became public property?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, we have got a code of conduct in Singapore. We have got procedures. If the Prime Minister feels that all these procedures are not binding on him ---

The Prime Minister: My question is: would it have been wrong? Because I would like to know the Member's sense of propriety.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What I am saying is that there are usual procedures for getting a judgment from the court. And if the Prime Minister could just approach the Chief Justice for the judgment, in this particular case he did not, so if he had not done it, I suppose that is the end of the matter.

What I am saying is that there are usual procedures for getting documents from the court. If the Prime Minister can bypass all those procedures ---

The Prime Minister: How have I bypassed any procedure?

Mr Chiam See Tong: There is the usual procedures for getting a judgment from the court. I am sure the Prime Minister should know that. You just make an application and it will be supplied to you. That is the usual procedure. If the Prime Minister wants to go direct to the Chief Justice, then I suppose he is privileged and we are not privileged.

As regards the appointment of the Head of the Civil Service and heads of statutory boards, can the Prime Minister tell us whether these appointments are purely based on efficiency and character and not on political considerations? Are they appointed just purely on efficiency? My observation in Singapore today is that we have got this dominant figure. And what is the result? Even this can sometimes be perceived by the public that members of the Civil Service - I am not saying all of them, some of them - may have been influenced by this.

The Prime Minister: By what?

Mr Chiam See Tong: By the dominant figure of the Prime Minister. That is what I am saying. This is an observation that people have made in Singapore. So under these situations, I think some people will tend to have some misconceptions and sometimes they may draw some inferences from this kind of a situation.

Sir, therefore, I am opposing this motion only because I say that it has contravened section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. In the first place, this Commission of Inquiry should not have been held at all to inquire into the evidence of what transpired in this House. And we hope that after this date, if there is any impropriety or any accusations of improper conduct, then it should be disciplined within Parliament and not outside.

The Prime Minister: Do I understand the Member as saying on behalf of his colleague for whom he is moving this amendment that there can be no Commission of Inquiry over anything said in this House because that is a contravention of our law of privileges? And that if there should be any inquiry, it must be in this House itself. Do I understand him rightly?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do believe that the Prime Minister knows that the House can waive that privilege. But until then, any proceeding in this Parliament is privileged.

The Prime Minister: And that is the position the Member has adopted or is it the position that he is putting forward for the Member for Anson?

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I, Mr Speaker, Sir ---

The Prime Minister: I am asking the Member for Potong Pasir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Prime Minister refers to the amendment that the Member has moved on my behalf. And he wants to know whether that is my view that he is espousing. So may I answer the Prime Minister? He does not want it from me.

The Prime Minister: I have heard the Member for Anson at great length. I want to hear from the Member for Potong Pasir from whom I have some exceptional pearls, not necessarily of wisdom.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir ---

Mr Speaker: You have already exhausted one whole hour.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I know that, Mr Speaker, Sir. But the Prime Minister says, "you are moving the amendment for the Member for Anson. Is that his view?" Sir, I am saying, may I answer it? Or he does not want it from me.

Mr Speaker: You are not allowed to answer.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the privilege in Parliament is absolute and there is no doubt about that.

'There shall be freedom of speech and debate and proceedings in Parliament, and such freedom of speech and debate and proceedings shall not be liable to be impeached or questioned in any court, ...'. In Singapore, we have specifically put in "Commission of Inquiry". So what more? The interpretation of any section of any Act is by the ordinary and natural meaning. We have got absolute privilege here in Parliament unless, of course, Parliament itself waives that privilege or if the Member wants to go out and waive that privilege. That is quite clear.

The Prime Minister: As the practitioner of the law with such clarity staring him in the face, he could have taken out an injunction against the Commission of Inquiry. And if the law is upheld as he has explained it, the Commission of Inquiry will come to a grinding halt. There are procedures to put these things right.

Mr Chiam See Tong: We have had a debate on privilege. Perhaps the Member of Parliament was not here. And there is a matter, in fact, pending in the High Court of proceedings in one of the Select Committees of Parliament. Even that should have been privileged but this House refused to decide on that. So it leaves it to the Court. If we bring it to the Court, they will probably throw it back to Parliament.

Mr Speaker: I think it would save a great deal of time if the debate on the amendment and on the main motion were to proceed as a single debate. Do I have the agreement of the House on this?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: It has been proposed as an amendment, to leave out paragraph 2 and there to insert a new paragraph 2,

'(2) regrets the failure of the Commissioner to give the assurance sought by the Member for Anson before the Member gave evidence and which failure prevented the Commission from inquiring into the Terms of Reference.'

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

3.12 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak against the amendment moved by the Member for Potong Pasir on behalf of the Member for Anson.

I feel rather disappointed when the Member for Potong Pasir hastily asked why, after the setting up of the Commission of Inquiry, there was no reaction forthcoming until today. And he explained in an insinuating manner that all the members of the Cabinet in the Singapore Government did not take any action except when they were prompted to do so. But later he himself realized that the person who moved the motion to accept the Report and to debate it was the Minister for Home Affairs who started off the debate before the arrival of the Prime Minister. The House did not debate the motion after the Prime Minister had entered the House. So even if, on a simple matter which is already clear, the Member for Potong Pasir who sits in front is unable to draw a rational conclusion, what more when it comes to his suggestions about freedom of debate in Parliament?

Mr Speaker, Sir, later on I wish to expose the tactics adopted by the Opposition, stage by stage, in order to undermine Singapore's stability. However, before I do so, let me comment on some of his points of clarification in which he implied that all the Government backbenchers act only when prompted to do so. He gave example of how the Member for Whampoa varied his tone and style of delivery when the Prime Minister walked into the House as though he could see all these when he himself is seated with his back to the Member for Whampoa. Maybe the Member for Potong Pasir has four eyes such that he could see from the rear the changing reactions in the course of the debate. However, that is the way how both the Members for Anson and Potong Pasir draw their conclusion.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Member for Whampoa sitting behind me or to my right?

Mr Speaker: Are you giving way, Encik Yatiman?

Encik Yatiman Yusof: ( In Malay): I am not giving way. The Member for Potong Pasir has stated that the move to set up a Commission of Inquiry and to ask the Member for Anson to give evidence at the Commission of Inquiry is ultra vires the Standing Orders of the House. He went on to say that every Member of this House has absolute freedom of speech and that this freedom of speech could not be questioned or investigated into in any Court. If that is the correct situation, I feel that the Member for Anson who is learned and the Member for Potong Pasir is not less learned because both of them are lawyers who are supposed to be knowledgeable, but after the Commission of Inquiry had concluded its findings and its Report tabled before us today, the Member for Potong Pasir says that the Report runs counter to the Constitution and on that ground is not valid and should be rejected. After having spent tens of thousands of dollars in response to the Opposition's suggestion that a Commission of Inquiry be set up, now the Opposition says that the setting up of such a Commission is a waste of time and money. I wish to ask this House today whether this idea or proposition that this issue be taken up by the Commission of Inquiry was initiated by the Government or Opposition? If we peruse the Hansard, it is clear that it is the Opposition that wants this Commission of Inquiry because prior to this they had been drumming up for one after another Commission of Inquiry to look into a multiplicity of issues. The idea or suggestion of a Commission of Inquiry was initiated by the Opposition and the Government whose stand in the matter is one of fairness and openness, and it is the intention of the Government to go through this to the end and in the process expose how the Opposition tried to exploit facilities for their own ends. There are two political motives to this.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I clarify for the benefit of the speaker? True, I asked for a Parliamentary Committee. If the Member will recall, on the 19th March, my first proposal to the Prime Minister was that there should be a Committee of Parliament.

Encik Yatiman Yusof: ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer to the suggestions made prior to the 19th March. I refer to the suggestion that the Government sets up a Commission of Inquiry concerning freedom or independence which the Member had been harping on in this House previously.

Be that as it may, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me say that the whole of this debate hinges on two stages. If we observe the performance and the arguments put forth by the Opposition Members, we will see that in the first stage they have done their utmost to weaken the value systems of the Singapore society, the value systems of Asian society. To show how despicable their attitude is, we notice earlier on how the Member for Anson contemptuously denigrated the Member for Ulu Pandan and ridiculed her as being senile and out of her senses. That is the brand of value system that the Opposition bandies about. However, after shouting from the rooftop about freedom of speech, freedom to express our feelings, freedom of action both inside and outside Parliament, we ask, are such freedoms accompanied by a sense of responsibility, not much, just a little sense of responsibility? In the course of this debate it is clear that the Member for Anson takes the position that it is his duty to merely ask questions, but in the process of doing so, he actually pours poison into the minds of the people in order that they will suspect and consequently reject the present leadership.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the conclusion that can be drawn from this debate is clear that the Member for Anson has failed to substantiate his allegations of Executive interference in the Subordinate Court Judiciary. Secondly, that the Member for Anson, and now followed closely by the Member for Potong Pasir, has expanded his wild allegations in order to find a new foothold for his allegations which he can certainly not come across. Mr Speaker, Sir, why has the House spent so much of its time debating this issue?

Mr Chiam See Tong: When did I expand on the allegations of the Member for Anson? Can you please tell me?

Encik Yatiman Yusof: ( In Malay): When the Member for Anson mentioned two additional names besides Mr Michael Khoo, he had in fact widened his allegations that the Executive had interfered in the running of the Subordinate Courts. Is that enough?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think that is not true.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, if you do not understand Malay, please listen to the translation.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I do understand Malay. The Member said that I was expanding on the allegations of the Member for Anson. I have not expanded. Please, do not ---

Encik Yatiman Yusof: I have repeated three times that the two names were given by the Member for Anson, not from the Member for Potong Pasir.

Mr Speaker: That is right.

Encik Yatiman Yusof: ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, why have we spent so much time debating this issue? Because we believe that the freedom, independence and integrity of the judicial system are of vital importance. We believe that the Executive system and the legislative system should be independent of each other and not influence one another. Because of the sanctity of this belief, we cannot allow any allegation, any insinuation of Executive interference of the judicial system to pass by. It is a serious allegation because whether Singapore in the future can survive and win the confidence of prospective investors or otherwise collapse will depend on the outcome of the debate on this issue.

The Member for Anson seemingly appears in earnest when he said that he spoke purely in defence of the judicial system. I think what he has done is actually the opposite. He has raised question marks, cast doubts among the people through this debate which is telecast to homes so that the people of Singapore lose confidence in the present Government and prospective investors shy away from Singapore. Is this then the action of a man who is honest, is this more patriotic, is this the manner in which he can provide long-term benefits to our workers whom he represents? I certainly think not. He wants at the end of it all the investors to doubt the political stability of Singapore, to have doubts about the judicial system and thereby shy away from investing in Singapore. If this materializes, who will be the first victims? Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the first victims will be no other than our own workers who will be unemployed. Secondly, our people will suffer as they will be homeless. And thirdly, our businessmen who form the backbone of our economy. Professionals like the Member for Anson can easily take refuge overseas but those who will really suffer are the people of Singapore. We are the people of Singapore. In the circumstances, we must defend that there is no truth whatsoever, it is a lie, in the allegation of Executive interference in the administration of our country.

On this note, I oppose the amendment motion of the Member for Potong Pasir and I support the motion moved by the Minister for Home Affairs which states that Parliament accept the Report of the Commission of Inquiry and rejects the allegation of Executive interference of the Opposition.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Jeyaretnam: I call for a Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Take a Division.

The House divided: Ayes, 2; Noes, 61; Abstention, 1. Ayes Noes (cont) Chiam See Tong Ho Kah Leong Jeyaretnam, J.B. Ho Tat Kin Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Noes Ibrahim Othman Jayakumar, S. Abbas Abu Amin Koh Lip Lin Abdullah Tarmugi Lai Tha Chai Ahmad Mattar Lau Ping Sum Ang Kok Peng Lau Teik Soon Barker, E.W. Lee Boon Yang Chen, Bernard Lee Hsien Loong Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Lee Kuan Yew Chew Heng Ching Lee Yiok Seng Chin Harn Tong Lee Yock Suan Ch'ng Jit Koon Leong Horn Kee Dhanabalan, S. Lim Boon Heng Goh Chee Wee Ong Teng Cheong Goh Chok Tong Othman bin Haron Eusofe Goh Choon Kang Ow Chin Hock Phua Bah Lee Wang Kai Yuen Rajaratnam, S. Wong, Aline K. Sia Khoon Seong Wong Kan Seng Sidek bin Saniff Wong Kwei Cheong Tan Cheng Bok Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Tan, Dixie Yatiman Yusof Tan, Augustine H.H. Yeo Cheow Tong Tan Keng Yam, Tony Yeo Choo Kok Tan Soo Khoon Yeo Ning Hong Tan Tee Yong, Philip Yeo Toon Chia Tang Guan Seng Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Tang See Chim Zulkifli bin Mohammed Teh Cheang Wan Teo Chong Tee Abstention Vasoo, S. Wan Hussin bin Hj. Zhoori Yeoh Ghim Seng

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr Speaker: The Question now is the Motion moved by the Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was in my office at work and listening to the Member for Anson.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is the Prime Minister going to have a second speech? He has already spoken yesterday. Is he going to have a second speech?

The Prime Minister: I am not, Mr Speaker, Sir. I was just about to explain to the Member for Anson that I am here because of the queries he raised. If he does not want me to clarify, I will not. Amongst other things, I looked up Mr Yong Yung Sui and Mr Jeffrey Chan. My secretary had Mr Glenn Knight to look them up. We can leave it if you like.

Mr Speaker: I think it will be a good thing for you to clarify, Mr Prime Minister.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Clarification, yes. Not a long speech.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I heard some intemperate words this morning in my room - the Report contains a deception by the Commissioner on the preservation of law of privilege, misdirection of law and he was delinquent.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Will the Prime Minister clarify if he wishes to clarify? Yes, I have asked him several questions. I asked him to produce the two affidavits, the two statutory declarations. He did not produce them. I produced them this morning. So will he clarify if he wishes to clarify and not make another speech?

Mr Speaker: That is what he is trying to do, Mr Jeyaretnam.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I assume that after using words like "deception", "misdirection of law", "delinquent" with regard to a High Court Judge ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Delinquent? Did I say "delinquent, misconceptions, and misdirections."? Delinquent? When did I say "delinquent"?

The Prime Minister: I assume that he does not want a reconvening of the Commission of Inquiry.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You admitted it yesterday, the reason for the transfer.

The Prime Minister: It is amazing how quickly the Member shifts his target and his position. He does not want a reconvening of the Commission of Inquiry. I think I heard him right also that all High Court Judges are disqualified.

Mr Jeyaretnam rose ---

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I speak?

Mr Speaker: Yes. You are not giving way?

The Prime Minister: No. I want to get over with this.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not a clarification.

Mr Speaker: He is trying to clarify.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Not a clarification. I am not allowed even one minute.

The Leader of the House (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Surely it is not for the Member for Anson to rule what is a clarification and what is not a clarification.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am asking Mr Speaker, not you.

Mr Speaker: The Prime Minister is clarifying. He has no chance to do it.

The Prime Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for your ruling. May I now proceed.

A second tack now is that all High Court Judges are disqualified from holding a commission of inquiry because they are all unsuitable since he wrote to me in a letter explaining why they should not investigate the Chief Justice. Then, lo and behold, the Member for Potong Pasir goes one step further and says that any commission of inquiry, never mind by whom, whether it is a High Court Judge or anybody else, is prohibited by reason of section 4 of the Privileges Act. I can therefore only conclude that the Member for Anson does not want to pick up my ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order, please.

Mr Speaker: Yes, what is your point of order?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I clearly heard the Prime Minister say that he was going to clarify as to what the Member for Anson said this morning and not in regard to my speech.

The Prime Minister: I think Members of this House and indeed the public can be correct in assuming that under no circumstances will they now want a commission of inquiry.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will explain that, if you will allow me to explain.

The Prime Minister: We have had two days of this.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will explain it.

The Prime Minister: All the time he was willing to go into the witness box and take his oath.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would you ask me to clarify and I will explain it?

The Prime Minister: But now in progressive steps, first, Mr Justice Sinnathuray is bad, deception, misdirection of law, delinquent. I may have heard it wrong. I will be subject to correction by Hansard.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Did I say "delinquent"? Did I say that?

Mr Speaker: We will check from Hansard.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Call for the record.

The Prime Minister: That no High Court Judges, now no Commission of Inquiry under any Commissioner whatsoever, that my offer of a reconvening of the Commission of Inquiry has been properly and thoroughly rejected.

Mr Jeyaretnam: No. I will explain it to you.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, we can go on, round and round the mulberry bush ad infinitum.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are.

The Prime Minister: I will give a simple explanation. Before a Commission of Inquiry the Member has to go into the witness box and take an oath, and he is hoping that before a Parliamentary commission it could be the same give-and-take as in this Chamber. That, Mr Speaker, Sir, is for you to decide if you want a further debate of this nature, instead of an ascertaining of the facts. A very wide blanket was thrown over all the judicial officers - the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, the Commissioner - for having acted hole-in-a-corner. I do not think I heard that one wrong. They were afraid that if he was there, his presence ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do rise. What is the clarification?

Mr Speaker: Later on you can clarify yourself too.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is the clarification? He said there were two things he wished to clarify. Now he goes on in his rambling manner.

The Prime Minister: I am clarifying to this House that although he is rejecting the offer of a reconvening of a Commission of Inquiry, nevertheless he will find all the witnesses he has named - the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, Tan Teow Yeow, Chandra Mohan, Michael Khoo, Yong Yung Sui and Jeffrey Chan - in another forum and I hope, Mr Speaker, Sir, when that happens we will all be cognizant of the fact that we are not continuing a debate. We are there to ascertain the facts and to get the facts, preferably on oath because there are penalties attached to making statements on oath. There are none when you toss them out like confetti in this Chamber.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: The Prime Minister is not giving way.

The Prime Minister: He has named five. He has not explained why he wants Tan Teow Yeow, Chandra Mohan, Michael Khoo. He explained why Yong Yung Sui and Jeffrey Chan are important. Sir, I caused enquiries to be made.

Yong Yung Sui. He himself cannot remember the exact date but he knew he was transferred. He was then in 1973, 1st June, promoted to Upper Timescale and posted to the AG's Chambers. In 1980 ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: In 1972 he was transferred from the courts, wasn't he?

The Prime Minister: It said:

'1.6.73 - promoted to Upper Timescale.

1.6.73 - posted to Attorney-General's Chambers as State Counsel, Upper Timescale.'

Mr Jeyaretnam: When was he removed from the court, do you know that?

The Prime Minister: Must be 1.6.73.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, we will check all this.

The Prime Minister: '1.1.80 - Legal Officer, Grade IX.'

Mr Jeyaretnam: Grade what?

The Prime Minister: Grade IX. There may be Executive interference but I do not see it on the face of it. But, nevertheless, he will be produced.

Jeffrey Chan. We were told that he acquitted a person defended by the Member for Anson of a CBD offence. He ruled that there was no case to answer.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a preliminary point.

The Prime Minister: On a preliminary point.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That the law was ultra vires.

The Prime Minister: He was immediately transferred.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Transferred three or four months later.

The Prime Minister: Three or four months later. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have the facts before me, including a statement from Mr Jeffrey Chan who is somewhat vexed, having read all this and heard all this.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Let him be produced.

The Prime Minister: He acquitted on 11th of January 1977 without calling on the defence on the grounds that the regulations made under the Motor Vehicles (Licensing) Rules were ultra vires. What happened then?

Mr Jeyaretnam: There was an appeal, yes.

The Prime Minister: The public prosecutor appealed. The Member for Anson appeared for the appellant.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Of course.

The Prime Minister: He was there when the Chief Justice on the 20th April 1977 ruled that Jeffrey Chan was wrong and ordered him to call on the defence. He suppressed that evidence.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I did not, Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: He never told us that. He said, "Here was a case, an acquittal, man was transferred." He did not tell us, "Here was an acquittal on a point of law, no defence called, went up on appeal (he was at the appeal), the appeal succeeded, the man was wrong, the magistrate was wrong; he was told to call upon the defence." He did.

Mr Jeyaretnam: And then after that?

The Prime Minister: He did. And the Police inspector was convicted.

Mr Jeyaretnam: And after that?

The Prime Minister: Because he had to call upon the defence. If Michael Khoo had been told by the Chief Justice to call upon the defence, there would have been no second trial. Immediately, the Member would have been sent into the witness box. Or if he did not, as he chose not to, immediate conviction must follow.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Was he transferred after that?

The Prime Minister: I have his record.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why do you not answer my question?

The Prime Minister: '1.2.78 - considered by LSC for promotion to next higher grade but was granted two increments with effect from 1.2.78.

1.6.78 - promoted to Intermediate Timescale (Magistrate, Coroner, Deputy Registrar (Subordinate Courts)).

1.9.79 - promoted to Upper Timescale.

1.1.80 - substantive appointment redesignated as Legal Officer, Grade IX.

1.8.81 - promoted to Legal Officer, Grade VIII.

1.8.84 - promoted to Legal Officer, Grade VII.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is important that we understand how the system works. First of all, the Legal Service Commission came into being long before I took office. It was decided in the 1950s (before 1959), drafted by legal experts, jurists in London with the Colonial Office in consultation with the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, and members of the Legal Service (then the local members who were Malayan-named members, as they were known) about to take over. It was designed to create a service which was distinct and apart from the administration and to regulate itself. The key regulation was the composition of the Legal Service Commission and its power to promote, in other words, to reward, to decide who deserved which important jobs.

Mr Jeyaretnam rose ---

The Prime Minister: I will not be interrupted, Mr Speaker, Sir, other than a point of order.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Are you still upholding that all this is clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Mr Speaker: I think so.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You think so. All right, Mr Speaker, Sir.

The Prime Minister: The Commission consists of the Chief Justice and one Judge (High Court Judge), the Attorney-General, three Judges - two Judges and one on the prosecuting side, making three, and three neutral members from the PSC (the Chairman and two others). The Attorney-General cannot say, "I don't like that Magistrate because he acquitted. Transfer him." It is the Chief Justice who decides who moves out from his Courts or who moves into his Courts. And Subordinate Courts and Judges have to be controlled. They are controlled by the Legal Service Commission. In other words, when a man writes his judgment or makes his ruling, he knows that there can be an appeal and he has to justify what he has done, in writing with the records, and it goes up before a High Court Judge or the Chief Justice. And if he is constantly wrong and not up to the mark, his promotion must be affected. They decide. The three PSC members are neutrals but who must be guided, I suppose, by the three Legal members who know who's who and who has been competent.

Now, Sir, this is so in all Courts, under all jurisdictions. It is so in Malaysia; it is so in England; it is so in Australia and New Zealand. I see nothing improper for the Chief Justice, in consultation with the Attorney-General as required by the delegation, to move anybody he likes. But to promote him, he must get the whole Legal Service Commission. It is important that we get these things right because we are recruiting new graduates every year and it has been a serious problem competing against a buoyant Bar. And with all these aspersions cast, that it depends upon, first, the three members of the Public Service Commission, then upon the Attorney-General, then upon the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General "who are beholden to the Prime Minister." Mr Speaker, Sir, the Judges cannot be removed. That is part of the system. They can only be removed (they control the Subordinate Courts) if they misbehave, they have to be removed here, in Parliament, by a two-thirds majority, in other words, they are impeached.

Sir, the Chief Justice reached 65, retirement age, in 1982. I had no choice but to ask him to continue. First, because there is no better man to take the job; second, because if I appointed any other Judge, they were all so young. They would be there for a very long time and the mistake would be a very costly one.

In 1985 the three-year extension expired and the situation did not improve. He has another three-year extension. I do not know whether there will be an improvement. I do know that it is a Bar that is barren of talent. I have said so in this House and I explained it in the 1985 Budget debate, 1982 Budget debate, special lawyers' professional allowances, to retain them. Every year our best students go into medicine, and then engineering, and now the computer sciences. There are very few lawyers until recently, so much so that we have had to send scholar engineers, already graduated, on a special two-year course to convert into lawyers, to go abroad to get the necessary polish to come back and make up time. This is how parlous the situation is. So for the Member for Anson to make these allegations that they have been extended beyond their retirement age because they will be beholden to me, is I think ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: You do not understand.

The Prime Minister: --- a remark which I hope he will have an opportunity outside this Chamber to expand on.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Threaten, threaten!

The Prime Minister: They are not threats. They are matters of fact. Under privilege of this Chamber, he is making the wildest, the most obscene allegations. The Chief Justice has been ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think you have to rule on this.

The Prime Minister: I need no clarification.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise on a point of order. You have got to rule.

Mr Speaker: All right. What is your point of order?

Mr Jeyaretnam: He says that I am making wild allegations in this House. What is he doing? Is he not making wild allegations? He says I made obscene remarks or obscene allegations. What are the obscene allegations that I made?

Mr Speaker: You want to clarify what is obscene?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Ask him to tell us where are the obscene allegations I made?

Mr Speaker: Give him a chance to do it then.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Will he point to the passages which, he says, are obscene?

The Prime Minister: We have not got to a stage yet where the steno can type straight into a teleprinter on to a video screen which they already have in America. If they do, we would be able to do it. But I heard it distinctly ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: That I made obscene allegations?

The Prime Minister: --- to say of the Chief Justice and of the Attorney-General. He has been Chief Justice since 1963. He was a Judge before that, long before I took office in 1958. And because he ruled against Michael Khoo, overruled him, therefore now, a wider allegation. The Attorney-General - he reached 55 ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: 17th January 1984.

The Prime Minister: --- and he was given a five-year extension and approved by the President a fortnight later.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why was it not gazetted?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, these are technical matters. I leave to the technicians of government. If it were necessary, they would have done it. These are not secret hole-in-the-corner appointments. The whole Legal Service wanted to know whether there will be a vacancy up.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why was it not gazetted?

The Prime Minister: Ask the Legal Officers.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes. You better ask the Attorney-General. He should have seen to the Gazette.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is bad enough to make these allegations. It is worse when he tried to distract the gravity of these discussions by a rowdy, intemperate, tempestuous interjections. I have sought clarification because I think it is part of my duty to put the record right. There will be the Chief Justice when we meet. He will answer all questions. There will be the Attorney-General. There will be all the Legal Officers.

The Attorney-General is not a member of the Executive. In Britain, he is. He is a politician. He is a Minister, a lawyer in the governing party takes over the job. And he decides who to prosecute, who not to prosecute. But not in accordance with party affiliations. Here, he is not a member of the party. He is a member of the professional service.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He is not the legal officer of the Government?

The Prime Minister: He is. He has to discharge the duties of the Chief Legal Officer. The fact that the Member for Anson asserts it with great authority in his voice does not make it sound. It is not so. It is in the Constitution that he is a member of the permanent service. He does not go with each election. He is there.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Isn't the Permanent Secretary a member of the Executive? Isn't he an Executive of the Government?

The Prime Minister: No, he is not. He is a member of the Civil Service.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, you can split hairs.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, we will more than split hairs. We will break them up into microns. That is my intention. There was no better man ---.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Attorney-General?

The Prime Minister: --- to be Attorney-General. Find me one. I said so in the Budget debate in March 1985. Find me one either in the public sector or in the private sector. I can find one in England or Ceylon or India because the best there go into the law. That would be quite a slap to the members of the Singapore profession. In fact, they are unhappy even when we opened the qualifications to people who graduated other than from England and included those who graduated from British and Commonwealth universities and allowed, under special provisions, the Attorney-General to approve senior, experienced and eminent counsel in Hong Kong to register here. That was just before the 1984 agreement which, because it was successful, led to no recruitment. That is how parlous the situation is. Do I appoint Ananda Subhas, that standard, M.P.D. Nair who appears for the Member for Anson in his cases? Are we really serious ---

Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

The Prime Minister: Point of order or clarification?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Point of order.

Mr Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is he now going to refer to persons outside this House in a derogatory manner without them being here to answer? If he thinks Mr Tan Boon Teik is the best man for him, let him say so. We can see that he is the best man for him.

The Prime Minister: Where is the point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Mr Speaker: I cannot see the point of order.

The Prime Minister: Thank you.