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

Debate resumed.

The Prime Minister: Sir, let me round up the controls. The Subordinate Court Judges are controlled by the High Court Judges who can only be removed by an impeachment here in this House, by a two-thirds majority. But in Singapore, we have an extra supervision on them. When they write their judgments, they know that it could go up to the Privy Council and Judges, nothing to do with Singapore, will scrutinize whether their findings are in accordance with the law. I cannot explain why some judgments take so long. I do not understand it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you.

The Prime Minister: But I can only assume that the Judges are extremely careful when they write their judgments, that it will stand scrutiny. And if it does not, they get sparks knocked off them. It is an eminently reasonable arrangement, has worked and will work. Until the Member for Anson came along, nobody had any doubts as to the integrity of the Courts. But first he attacked the Subordinate Courts Judiciary, exempting the High Court Judges from his strictures. Now he has condemned Mr Sinnathuray, the Attorney-General, the Chief Justice, and he has also ruled out all High Court Judges from hearing the Commission on the allegations he made. So he has broadened out over a wide field.

The Member for Potong Pasir has carried the logic of the extension one step further. Since there is no proof, there is no evidence whatsoever, that any member of the Executive interfered in the workings of the Courts, because the Judges regulated themselves and promoted themselves, it has nothing to do with the Government. He now says, because I have been here for 25 years, I have become so dominant, so dominating, such a big banyan tree with such wide-spreading roots, that they all do my bidding.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know about the Member for Whampoa, whether or not he slowed down when I came in. If he did, I can only assume that perhaps what he was saying was tendentious. I have two hands, two eyes, two feet, less teeth than I started off life with. And I do my job to maintain the system so that it will last, what we have built can survive the creator generation. This is a very serious problem. And if they do not know how to deal with roughnecks, like the Member for Anson, then this whole thing will go upside down. I would never allow any challenge to the integrity of the system to go past and it should never be allowed. Therefore, we shall have this opportunity to hear the Member for Anson add the essential ingredients that will transform this picture and show that there were reasons why Judges as they wrote their judgments were looking over their shoulders, fearful, transferred out, demoted, humiliated and therefore all judgments went in accordance with the wishes of the Government or the Prime Minister. It is an absurd, ludicrous proposition. Given time, we will look up and dig up all the judgments that Mr Michael Khoo gave which were reversed and he still stayed on. I do not know how many.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you. He still stayed on. In this case he did not.

The Prime Minister: But when it came to such a sorry pass, I have yet to read such a judgment. I sat up when I read the judgment because it meant a rebuke in judicial terms so severe that it was not possible to leave the man there. He could not observe, he could not analyze, he could not assess. What do those words mean? And the Chief Justice is on record saying that. It is now suggested "because he is beholden to me." Are we out of our minds? Have we taken leave of our senses? Put it to him. Put it to me. Did I speak to him? For 23 years, from 1963 to 1986, he has been the Chief Justice. I have been the Prime Minister from 1959. I have never discussed any case with him. It is a way of life. We meet socially. There are certain conventions. I do not ring up the Chief Justice and say, "Send me your judgment." Are we out of our minds? And say, "By the way, Mr Chiam ought to be fixed, you know. He is a strange man." It is not the way a government is run. If you run a government thataway, you end up ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: This is all clarification.

The Prime Minister: --- like the Philippines. Because at some stage, it will all come out.

Mr Jeyaretnam: We heard all this before.

The Prime Minister: It will all come out, what President Marcos said to the judges and to the prosecutor, and so on and so forth. I have parted company with very old colleagues. They have not been fearful.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We are hearing a lengthy speech from the Prime Minister. I do not know what the other Members think. This is certainly not a clarification. He is referring to me, referring to the substance I have just spoken and he is supposed to be clarifying only on the speech of Mr Jeyaretnam. This is the sort of dominance I am saying. We just give latitude to the Prime Minister. He holds centre stage probably up to another hour or so. What sort of clarification is this?

Mr Speaker: He is clarifying. He is coming to the end of it.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. Not my speech.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, my colleagues are not intimidated by me. Far from it.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Ask the Member for Whampoa.

The Prime Minister: They speak their minds. Nothing has happened to them. But if we allow vicious, evil attacks to pass unchallenged ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Prime Minister, I am saying my observation. I observe it unless you deny that.

The Prime Minister: --- then the whole system must be undermined. We are not concerned with the Member for Anson as such. And as for the Member for Potong Pasir, it is rather sad to see him used in this way. But, alas, that is his problem. But we are here to prevent any erosion of the institutions of the State, because without that the second generation will find it more difficult to maintain standards of government and civilized standards of conduct.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, you said you would allow me to clarify.

Mr Speaker: All right, let us hear your clarification.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I hope ---

Mr Speaker: But not a long speech.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I see you did not enjoin that on the Prime Minister but you are enjoining it on me that I should not make a long speech.

Mr Speaker: You have had lots of points of clarification.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I wish to clarify and I will come straight to the point. There are a number of things on which I wish to clarify.

Mr Speaker: All right, let us hear you.

Mr Jeyaretnam: First of all, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister for clarifications. He does not seem to have answered all of those clarifications. I hope he has now looked at the two statutory declarations of Dr Ivy Chew and I hope he will be magnanimous enough to admit ---

The Prime Minister: There was nothing in the statutory declaration which said that she had a telephone conversation with the Member for Anson, and I was reading the Chief Justice's judgment. I know nothing about the case. The Chief Justice deliberated on the appeal and that was his judgment.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Have you finished, Mr Prime Minister? Because you had the declaration with you yesterday and you picked out two words, I thought, "tacit understanding". So I told you to get the two statutory declarations. Did you get them, Mr Prime Minister? And did you read that she says she sent the cheque with a covering letter to Jeyaretnam? So your statement that there was no express wording of her intention ---

The Prime Minister: It is not mine.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, you were quoting the Chief Justice. Then he was not correct then. Is that what you want to say now? Is that what you wish to say? So I hope you are magnanimous enough, Mr Prime Minister, to say that you are perhaps a little wrong and that you should have looked up both statutory declarations before holding it forth and saying, "She just talks of a tacit understanding."

Secondly, I asked him several matters for clarification. Did I understand him yesterday to say that, as a reasonable person, and I am sure he considers himself a reasonable person, he can see the reason for Mr Michael Khoo's transfer? Does he agree then that the reason for Mr Michael Khoo's transfer was that he had acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong? Because he gave many reasons.

The Prime Minister: Not at all, Mr Speaker, Sir. Since he asked me, I heard this, I thought it was so fatuous he did not need a reply.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, could you sit down?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am not giving way. I am going to carry on. I am not giving way now.

Mr Speaker: You are asking a question?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am not giving way. Would he concede, he can answer afterwards, that out of his own mouth in this House he has said that the man was transferred because he acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong?

The Prime Minister: On a point of order, I must insist.

Mr Speaker: Point of order. Do sit down, Mr Jeyaretnam.

The Prime Minister: I never made such a statement. I would not. Mr Speaker, Sir, it was the furthest thing from my mind. I could not utter words which were not in my mind: that he was transferred because he acquitted Jeyaretnam of three charges and convicted him of one. No. What was in my mind, reading the judgment, was that here was the Chief Justice struggling very hard to find reasons to explain the Lower Court's decision and, finding evidence to the contrary, therefore he wrote that judgment. The Chief Justice could have just reversed it, but he went further. He spelt out the reasons - he could not observe, analyze.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I did say this morning that he did not say it in so many words. I did say that. What I am saying is, can you not see the only logical sequence of your statement? The Prime Minister was saying the man was transferred because he made six mistakes.

The Prime Minister: On a point of great pertinence because I think this is a fair proposition which I will put to the Member for Anson very fairly.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Did you not say yesterday, Mr Prime Minister, that the man, you could see very clearly, or you could understand very clearly why the man was transferred was because he had made six mistakes of fact and two misdirections in law when he gave his judgment acquitting Jeyaretnam and Wong. Did you not say that?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr Speaker, I said that.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you. All right then.

The Prime Minister: But I will ask the Member whether he would wish to claim ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Can I ---

Mr Speaker: You asked him a question. Can you give him a chance to answer?

The Prime Minister: If the Member claims that he was wrongly convicted, never mind all this legality, that he is an innocent man, that he was wrongly convicted, he can appeal to the President, we will have an inquiry on whether or not he was framed, that it was false evidence, that in fact he was an honest man. Because there have been people who have been sentenced for murder and somebody else owned up. If that is so, I am prepared to have an inquiry into his innocence or guilt. But I have never heard any question about guilt or innocence. It is all about "poor Mr Michael Khoo who got transferred because he acquitted him." Was he right or was he wrong? The Chief Justice found that he was wrong and stated so. If the Member for Anson believes that the Chief Justice was misled, that there were facts not dug up, either in the Lower Court or before the Chief Justice, petition the President, we will have an inquiry and get down to the facts. That is worth it. Is he an honest man or is he a crook? That is all.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Prime Minister is getting very clever at trying to divert from ---

The Prime Minister: Are you an honest man?

Mr Jeyaretnam: --- from the issue in hand. My question was, did he say this? And he has conceded at last that he did say this. My next question following that, does it not follow, Mr Prime Minister, as a logical sequence, that he was transferred because he made mistakes and acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong?

The Prime Minister: That is right. That is what the Chief Justice said.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you. So he was transferred because he made mistakes and acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong. We have at last got it from the Prime Minister, "because he made mistakes".

Mr Speaker: Have you finished with all your points?

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, I have not.

Mr Speaker: How long are you going to take on this?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am going to clarify all he said. I am going to clarify, Mr Speaker, Sir. So I hope the gentlemen of the press will take note of that and the people of Singapore will know tomorrow that the Prime Minister says this, "that he was transferred because he made six mistakes of fact, two mistakes of law and acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong." This is what I said to the Prime Minister that the people of Singapore were saying. This is why I raised it in this House. The Prime Minister himself this afternoon says he has previously made mistakes. Have we transferred him? Of course, the answer was, "he was not transferred." But in this particular instance he was transferred because this happened to be a case where he should not have made those mistakes. He had no bloody business to make those mistakes.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, you keep on repeating yourself over and over again.

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, I am not, Mr Speaker, Sir. I ask for your indulgence, the same indulgence that you gave the Prime Minister. I ask for the same indulgence.

Mr Speaker: The Prime Minister does not repeat himself like you do.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, that is a matter of opinion.

Mr Speaker: Carry on, please. How many more points have you got?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have got a few more points, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: I will give you 10 more minutes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: 10 more minutes. All right, Mr Speaker, Sir. That will take us to 4.35 pm. Thank you.

He says, do I now reject the appointment of any Commission. What I said this morning, and I will repeat again, was that with the Prime Minister's admission, do we need any further Commission. Has not my statement in this House been vindicated by the Prime Minister himself?

The Prime Minister: Do I now understand the Member to say that really no Commissions of Inquiry are necesssary?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Because you have admitted what I said. You have accepted it. These words "beholden to the Prime Minister." All I did was to point out the Articles in the Constitution. The Attorney-General under the Constitution has to retire at the age of 55, and he reached this age on the 17th January 1984. I could not find anything in the Gazette that there had been an agreement, but the Prime Minister now tells us that two weeks later there was an agreement between him and the President and he was allowed to continue. And he says for all these years (1984-1986) no one has stumbled to the fact that it has never been gazetted, and I say it should have been gazetted because the Attorney -General is a high office.

The other thing is, he says this man was removed because he made mistakes. And I asked this morning, "Does he then say that Judges of the Subordinate Court Judiciary who make such mistakes should be transferrred and removed?" And I asked him, "Is he aware?" Of some recent judgments of the Privy Council on the judgments of the High Court and even the Court of Appeal? Does he, by that token,agree, say that they should all be now removed? Would he like to look at those judgments of the Privy Council? We cannot have one yardstick applied to one man and then another yardstick applied to others. Why was it applied to this man? That is all I meant about "beholden to the Prime Minister" because the Attorney-General, clearly after the 17th June 1984, was holding office for a period fixed by the Prime Minister. And it lay in the hands of the Prime Minister whether he would extend it or not. That is clear. There is nothing mysterious about it, and equally for the Chief Justice. 1982, the Chief Justice reached the age of 65 and then it was left to the Prime Minister whether he continued or not. That is all I meant. So do not try and twist what I said into some sinister allegations. The other thing is this.

The Prime Minister: Would it not be easier, Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member said it was a slip of the tongue and if he withdrew it ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is not a slip of the tongue. All I am saying is that I am just repeating, I am just pointing out what the position under the Constitution is and I am not allowed to do that, am I?

He says the Attorney-General is the best man for the job, the present holder. If he likes, I will tell him what I was told when he was appointed Solicitor-General. Would he like to know that? If he likes, I will tell it to him.

Then he says that I have condemned the whole of the High Court Bench. I do not know whether he is intending, by that, to draw the notice of all the Judges to my wickedness because I have got to appear before them.

The Prime Minister: Sometimes the Member is quite rational, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is that why you mentioned it? I pointed out in my letter to the Prime Minister why I did not think a High Court Judge was the best man for the Commission, and I said so. That is all I said. I was not condemning. I was not suggesting that they were corrupt, that they were incompetent, that they were derogatory. All I had to point out to the Prime Minister was that if we were going to inquire into an action that the Chief Justice says was his action in transferring the man, do we think it was right that a subordinate of the Chief Justice should inquire into it? It did not seem right to me that a subordinate should inquire into the conduct of a superior. That is all I said. So what is very wrong about that? Why do you not try and understand?

The Prime Minister: I pointed out that often the Chief Justice's judgments are deliberated upon by three Judges, all subordinate to him and over-ruled from time to time.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You see, Mr Prime Minister, you make the mistake. When they do that, they are sitting as a Court of Appeal from a legal judgment. But here the Commissioner is sitting over the Chief Justice's conduct, not as a Judge. As the Chairman of the Legal Service Commission, he does not exercise the functions of a Judge. He is not called upon to give his reasons for his decision. He is exercising a power that is given to him as Chairman of the Legal Service Commission and it has got nothing to do with his office of Chief Justice. But he happens to be their head. And you want a subordinate to go and probe into his action, into his conduct, in transferring the man. There is a world of difference, Mr Prime Minister, if you will try and think about it for a little while. That is why I say it is wrong to have just a Judge of the High Court to inquire into this.

Finally, he says, "If he thinks he is still innocent and would like the case against him to be reopened, I would appoint a Presidential inquiry." I do not want a Presidential inquiry. All I am asking is: would you now amend the law and allow in our particular case an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal? That is all. It is simple. You can do it because under the law you stopped it. Now if you will amend the law and say, in this particular case, appeals shall lie to the Court of Criminal Appeal ---

The Prime Minister: I did not amend the law, Mr Speaker, Sir. The law was thus.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Your Government amended the law.

The Prime Minister: It has nothing to do with me. That was the law.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, if you say you have nothing to do with it. This is all you need to do now. You do not have to have the President appoint a new inquiry. You just have to amend the law to allow an appeal and, in my particular case, to the Court of Criminal Appeal and from there I can take it to the Privy Council.

Mr Chiam See Tong: May I make an enquiry of the Prime Minister?

Mr Speaker: You have already spoken, Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: This is what I have been saying all the time. The Prime Minister is given so much leeway and anybody else is cut off.

Mr Speaker: The Member for Anson had his say.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think this is important because the Prime Minister has insisted that the inquiry be opened up; we petition to the President for another inquiry. Why is he so anxious to have all these matters heard in public when he knows very well that under section 4 all proceedings in Parliament are privileged. I think the Leader of the House should be serious about this. It can be disciplined in this House and the Prime Minister says that if it is disciplined by Parliament "it will be thrown out like confetti." Did he say that? Unless I am wrong, did he say that, "it will be thrown out like confetti?" I heard him say that. I think he is mistaken there. Does he not realize that Parliament has the power of suspension, of expulsion and even committal? 4.37 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, in summing up, I can be brief because the issues have been canvassed fully in the two days' debate.

Let me remind ourselves of the points that I made at the beginning of my statement yesterday that the issues are grave and serious, that it concerns attacks on fundamental institutions, in this case, the Judiciary. The second point which I made was that such serious allegations, which bring into total disrepute our Judiciary, will have to be scrutinized, facts established, truth determined. As far as the Government side is concerned, it has been made clear by our statements here that we really have nothing to hide. Members have heard the Prime Minister offering as many opportunities to have all that the Member for Anson claims he was shut out from being heard. The Member for Anson was offered another Commission of Inquiry or reappointment of the Commission of Inquiry. Today, he referred to the letter he wrote to the Prime Minister where it is clear he is not in favour of any High Court Judge being Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry.

But if the Member for Anson insists, as he has insisted, that he was shut out, as we have made it clear on the Government side and as the Prime Minister has made it clear, he will be given every opportunity in Parliament, in a Committee. The Leader of the House will make a suitable statement later. He will be given every opportunity in this House to call the witnesses to adduce the evidence that he wants.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I proceed further I see that the Member for Potong Pasir has left. His amendment, acting as a proxy for the Member for Anson, is truly ludicrous. He wanted to amend paragraph (2) but he did not want to amend paragraph (1) of the motion and therefore he was in agreement with the motion to accept the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. Such an absurd amendment moved --- [The Member for Potong Pasir entered the Chamber.]. Yes, I will repeat it for the benefit of the Member for Potong Pasir - that it is ludicrous for the Member for Potong Pasir to move an amendment, no doubt at the behest of the Member for Anson, to delete paragraph (2) and substitute certain words and at the same time to accept paragraph (1), and paragraph (1) of my motion seeks the House to accept the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. That means the Member for Potong Pasir accepts the Report which also includes the findings. So we have an absurd situation where the Member for Potong Pasir, in fact, is telling us that he accepts the Report.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said that in the two days the Government made it very clear. We have nothing to hide. The Member for Anson claims that he was shut out. Very well, he will be given full opportunity to adduce the evidence from the witnesses. He will still be given the opportunity. What about the Member for Anson? What has his position been? I think the best way to describe his position is that it has been a convoluted attempt to wriggle out. Yes, to wriggle out.

Wriggling-out No. 1. He says he never made any attack on the Judges and he denies it, and he says all he wanted to do was to raise the question of public disquiet. "Never made any attack on Judges", and I referred to the passages yesterday, passages where he expressly said that members of the Judiciary were afraid when making decisions, looking over their shoulder, in other words, alleging that they were not true to their oath. These are attacks on the Judiciary. These are serious attacks on Subordinate Court Judiciary who have taken an oath to give decisions according to right and justice and not out of fear and favour.

Wriggling-out No. 2. The Member for Anson said ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister read out the entire passage?

Prof. Jayakumar: I am not going to repeat again. We can wait for the Hansard.

Wriggling-out No. 2. He said yesterday that he never made any scurrilous attacks on the Chief Justice. I pointed out that the Chief Justice had given a handwritten note to the Prime Minister stating that it was he who made the decision. The Member for Anson did not accept that statement.

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of order.

Mr Speaker: What is the point of order?

Mr Jeyaretnam: He is misleading the House, Mr Speaker, Sir, because I said the Chief Justice's note, I accept that he made the decision. Would he like to look at my speech? I said I accept the Chief Justice's note but I wanted to know the circumstances why he made the transfer.

Prof. Jayakumar: Precisely.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I accept his note that he made the transfer, and he says I did not accept his note.

Prof. Jayakumar: Precisely. By asking who is the originator, the Member is in fact impugning the integrity of the Chief Justice.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is wrong with that?

Prof. Jayakumar: And no wonder the Chief Justice, as reported by the Prime Minister, col. 913 on 21st March, said:

'The Prime Minister: ...He asked me to have the matter disposed of expeditiously, and to put it to the Member for Anson whether he would not state, without the benefit of privilege, what he has stated here - that the Chief Justice's note and the minute from the Legal Service Commission is not the last word...' The Chief Justice was astounded, asked the Prime Minister whether he would put it to the Member for Anson whether he would repeat it outside. The Prime Minister put the request on two occasions. The press asked him after he left the House and he did not repeat it. Yesterday, he denied that this was a scurrilous attack. What happened today? Today, he made an even more atrocious remark that the Chief Justice, because he was reappointed, "is beholden to the Prime Minister." If there is any attack on the integrity of the Chief Justice, this surely must be it.

Wriggling-out No. 3. He now says that he never claimed parliamentary privilege and that the one and only reason why he did not go into the witness box was because the Commissioner had not given the assurance that he sought. I read out the quotations yesterday. They were clear. If he wants, I can read out the quotations again: that the Member for Anson had in the morning claimed qualified privilege, that he would waive privilege; in the afternoon he made a 180-degree turnaround, said that "this is an absolute prohibition, it is not a privilege that can be waived."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Where are you taking from?

Prof. Jayakumar: From the quotations that the Member for Anson -

Mr Jeyaretnam: In the Report?

Prof. Jayakumar: We can play it on tape. Shall we play it on tape, Mr Speaker, Sir?

Some hon. Members: Yes.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, it will take five minutes for the run of the tape. It starts off with the morning session and later in the afternoon session.

Mr Speaker: Do you want to see the tape?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, I will see the tape.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we adjourn for five minutes and resume so that the technicians can adjust the television. This must be shown because the Member for Anson repeatedly denies that he said this.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Minister will not mislead the House. I did not deny that I said that. I said I pointed out quite clearly that section 4 imposed an absolute prohibition and that I went on to say, in spite of that, I will still give evidence. And then I wanted to explain why I was not going to give evidence.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Can we take a five minutes' adjournment?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I said that the Commissioner was not prepared to listen to me.

Mr Speaker: Do you accept what the Minister says?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I said that he is misleading the House in saying that I denied having said this.

Mr Speaker: Let us adjourn for five minutes. I will take the Chair again in five minutes' time. It is 4.52 pm. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.52 pm until 4.57 pm. Sitting resumed at 4.57 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was explaining that the third attempt to wriggle out was when he said yesterday and today that he never claimed privilege, that the only reason for not going to the witness box was that the Commissioner did not give the assurance that certain witnesses be called. I had made it clear in my opening statement that in the morning his position was waiver of privilege, in the afternoon he took the position of absolute prohibition (the emphasis on absolute), a position he never took in the morning. He denies this. Let us see the tape.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I clarify this because it is becoming important? I thought I made it clear to the Minister who obstinately refuses to understand what I said. Of course, I made another stand in the afternoon: that section 4 could not be equated to privilege under the Evidence Act, that section 4 imposed an absolute privilege. There is no denying that I said that to the Commissioner in the afternoon. I have said it once, twice, three times to you, that I maintained in the afternoon that the whole thing was absolutely privileged. And the Member for Potong Pasir has maintained that in the House today, that the whole thing is absolutely privileged under section 4. But I went on to say to the Commissioner that, in spite of that, I would give evidence if he gave me the assurance, and because he did not give me the assurance I was not going to give evidence. And when I wanted to explain to him why I did not want to give evidence, he walked out. So I am not denying that I said in the afternoon that section 4 imposed an absolute prohibition. I said it and I said it this morning.

Prof. Jayakumar: Let us listen, Mr Speaker, Sir.

[The House watched the relevant portion of the videotape of the Commission of Inquiry.]

Prof. Jayakumar: Thank you. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the truth must hurt. The afternoon session was one continuous run. The Member for Anson took the position ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, since the Minister has brought this tape, why do we not go on? Do you want to cut it short? I did say. You heard me say that even in the afternoon that I would give evidence. Why does he cut it short? Why do you cut it short? Could you please play the whole tape?

Prof. Jayakumar: If the Member for Anson alleges ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Play the whole tape.

Prof. Jayakumar: We can arrange for the playing of the whole tape. If he wants to spend two hours watching it, we can arrange for a special room where he and the members of the press can sit and watch the whole tape, and point out to me ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is that what you do, select something to your advantage?

Prof. Jayakumar: Point out to me ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Even that is to your advantage.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, please allow the Minister to finish talking.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Because this is completely dishonest, the way the thing is being arranged.

Mr Speaker: How could it be dishonest?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Completely dishonest.

Mr Speaker: How?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why does he not play the whole tape?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why does he not play the whole tape?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, could you request the Member to sit down.

Mr Speaker: He will sit down.

Prof. Jayakumar: Thank you. I gave quotations yesterday. The Member for Anson challenged the source of the quota- tions. I then said that we could bring these quotations which he challenged and put them on tape. This is exactly what I have done. These are the quotations on tape.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You misunderstand and twist everything.

Prof. Jayakumar: The public can judge and there is no better source of judging than the recorded truth. The Member for Anson takes the position that it is absolute prohibition. And you do not have to be a lawyer to know that absolute prohibition means what it says.

Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be grateful if the Member for Anson does not interrupt.

Mr Speaker: Order. Could you please sit down, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Jeyaretnam: If you are not going to allow me to answer these misleading statements ---

Mr Speaker: You keep on interrupting the whole afternoon.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is completely misleading and it will all be in the front page of the Straits Times.

Mr Speaker: Will you please sit down, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Prof. Jayakumar: The only person who has misled this House is the Member for Anson and he himself yesterday withdrew an allegation admitting that he had misled the House.

Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, the concept of absolute privilege means what it says. It is absolute. In his words, there is absolute prohibition. There is no question of waiving an absolute prohibition. That is Wriggling-out No. 3.

Finally, Wriggling-out No. 4. He said that he had never accepted the Prime Minister's proposal of the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry headed by a Judge. It was pointed out to him that he had, in fact, accepted. His rejoinder this morning was that the words he spoke, "So be it", do not mean that he had accepted. I interrupted. He refused to give the Floor. And what I would have asked, and I ask now and all Members must know what the answer is, he went on to say, and I shall quote:

'I will if invited certainly make representations to whoever is appointed.'

Mr Jeyaretnam: On what terms?

Prof. Jayakumar: We are not talking about the terms. We are talking about the Judge. And immediately before he spoke, who did the Prime Minister say would head the Commission? A High Court Judge.

Mr Jeyaretnam: But on what terms of reference?

Prof. Jayakumar: He said this morning, "so be it" does not mean he accepted. But he also went on to say, "I will if invited certainly make representations to whoever is appointed." These are but four attempts to wriggle out.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in closing, let me say this: has the Member said anything yesterday and today which should in any way cause us to reconsider the terms of my motion? No. All that he said only proves, even more so now than before, that he is up to great public mischief. Not only did he not retract the allegations but he went further to make yet more scandalous, more personal attacks on the integrity and impartiality of the Chief Justice. It proves my point that he is out to destroy our key institutions. It proves my point that he does so under the cloak of parliamentary privilege in this House and that he would never, and he does not agree, repeat these allegations outside Parliament.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my final point is this. The Prime Minister has yesterday repeatedly offered to him reappointment of the Commission of Inquiry headed by a Judge. Some vacillation on his part. He referred to the letters sent to the Prime Minister. He is now not in favour of Judges heading the Commission of Inquiry. So since he claims he was shut out and the Government has got nothing to hide and we are interested to let the truth be determined, we shall now give him a full opportunity in Parliament to call evidence, to bring witnesses, to prove his allegations.

Sir, I beg to move.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, in clarification. The Minister is completely silent. Probably he decided that he cannot answer my point of law raised under Article 111(4) of the Constitution which even the Commissioner has completely glossed over. Would he like to attempt to answer that, whether he thinks that the delegation was constitutional under the Constitution? And if it was not constitutional, would he agree that the transfer was made unconstitutionally outside the Constitution? Why is he so silent?

Secondly, since he has chosen to bring only those parts of the tape that suit him, would he play the whole tape as I have requested earlier? And it is even clear from what we saw this afternoon that I was saying in that afternoon I would give evidence provided he gave me that assurance.

Mr Dhanabalan: No. It is prohibition.

Mr Jeyaretnam: "If you give me that assurance, I will give the evidence," I said. That is crystal clear from what we saw. So will you play the whole tape?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, to us and to any reasonable person who has watched the proceedings, the truth is crystal clear.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Play the whole tape, I said.

Prof. Jayakumar: If the Member for Anson wants to watch the whole tape, we can arrange it. We can make a request to the SBC.

The Senior Minister for Prime Minister's Office (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Why don't you give him a tape?

Prof. Jayakumar: We can give him a tape. I think that is a good idea. We will do that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson wants to side-track us from the issue before hand. And the issue before hand concerns his allegations of Executive interference in the Subordinate Court Judiciary. If he wants to bring forth some grave constitutional legal arguments about other matters, he is free to do so. He alleges unconstitutionality in the conferment of powers in the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General to decide on transfers. This is an entirely different issue. I have looked into it and I am satisfied that there is nothing unconstitutional about it. But it is an attempt to side-track.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister say ---

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, point of order, Sir.

Mr Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr Dhanabalan: The mover of the motion has summed up and I think the matter should be put to the House now for a decision.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am asking for a clarification because he does not answer.

Mr Speaker: All right. One more clarification.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He does not answer because he knows he cannot answer it. What research has he done that Article 114(4) does not empower the delegation to the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General? Let me tell him that I have the opinion of a lecturer in Constitutional law, who is experienced, and he is clearly of the view that that section does not empower, and he says, "I am of the view."

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must protest. Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is completely irrelevant to the issue and I think we should put the motion to the House.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Well, they are anxious to avoid debate. Would the Minister reply? And if it is clearly unconstitutional, would he agree then that the transfer is unconstitutional?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Question is the motion* standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I ask for a Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Are you sure you want another Division, with the same result?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes. Let it be recorded in the Hansard.

Mr Speaker: All right.

The House divided: Ayes, 60; Noes, 2; Abstention, 1. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Abbas Abu Amin Phua Bah Lee Abdullah Tarmugi Rajaratnam, S. Ahmad Mattar Sia Khoon Seong Ang Kok Peng Tan Cheng Bock Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Tan, Dixie Barker, E.W. Tan, Augustine H.H. Chen, Bernard Tan Keng Yam, Tony Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Tan Soo Khoon Chew Heng Ching Tan Tee Yong, Philip Chin Harn Tong Tang Guan Seng Chng Hee Kok Teh Cheang Wan Ch'ng Jit Koon Teo Chong Tee Chua Sian Chin Vasoo, S. Dhanabalan, S. Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri Goh Chee Wee Wang Kai Yuen Goh Chok Tong Wong, Aline K. Goh Choon Kang Wong Kan Seng Ho Kah Leong Wong Kwei Cheong Ho Tat Kin Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Yeo Cheow Tong Ibrahim Othman Yeo Choo Kok Jayakumar, S. Yeo Ning Hong Koh Lam Son Yeo Toon Chia Koh Lip Lin Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Lau Ping Sum Zulkifli bin Mohammed Lau Teik Soon Lee Boon Yang Noes Lee Hsien Loong Lee Yiok Seng Chiam See Tong Lee Yock Suan Jeyaretnam, J.B. Leong Horn Kee Lim Boon Heng Abstention Ong Teng Cheong Othman bin Haron Eusofe Yeoh Ghim Seng Ow Chin Hock

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

• 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.