COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF EXECUTIVE INTERFERENCE IN THE SUBORDINATE COURTS (Terms of Reference)

3.00 pm

Mr Speaker: This motion is subject to signification of support by at least one Member.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, I support it.

Mr Speaker: You are.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this House regrets that the terms of reference announced for the Commission of Inquiry appointed under Gazette Notification No. 1298 and published on the 18th of April 1986 depart significantly in their purpose and object from the purpose and object of the commission that was proposed and discussed in this House on the 21st of March 1986.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not moved this motion to continue a private feud or dispute with the mover of the commission, as he suggested that it might be in a letter to me. I have asked now for 75 copies of that correspondence to be made available to Members of the House and they will be distributed, I hope, in half an hour's time. It is with the Librarian. She is making the copies now. So this is not a feud or a private dispute between the Prime Minister and me as he seemed to think that it might have been my motive in writing the letter to him. I am sorry that he is not here because I thought he would be here to answer this motion. Perhaps we might yet see him.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I move this motion because it goes wider than the mere terms of reference appointed for the commission. It goes wider to bring in Ministerial responsibility and Cabinet responsibility to this House. Indeed, it goes wider to question and to examine the responsibility of each Member of this House. I have said that a parliamentary democracy, which we like to believe we are, rests on the very solid pillar of government accountability to Parliament and through Parliament to the people. That is the sine qua non of a parliamentary democracy, that Parliament makes the government accountable through Parliament to the people. So it behoves every Member who comes and makes a statement in this House to be honourable and to abide by any statement made by him in this House. And it applies more so a fortiori to Ministers of the government. It may be said that Backbenchers and, particularly Opposition Backbenchers, may be given a little bit of latitude. I see an hon. Member laughing. Perhaps he would like to read a little bit about parliamentary government. But Ministers of the government are

a fortiori bound by this strict code. And we have seen how this operates in the United Kingdom, whose example we are trying to follow here. There, Ministers resign if they are shown to have made any misleading statement or not abided by anything that they have mentioned in the House of Commons. There is a full inquiry directed immediately. And the thing is taken up by the media and by the public, and they are in full chase against the Minister who comes and makes a statement in Parliament and then does not stand by it outside.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in this country, the Government Members and the Ministers waste no time at all in trying to accuse me in particular, since I came into this House in 1981, of misleading, misrepresenting and the whole lot. And then they are in full cry, full pursuit, against me followed by their hounds, the press that they control. Sir, in a hunt, as you probably know, the hounds go first. But in Singapore the press hounds of the Government follow the Government. And so we on the Opposition are immediately the subject of this, as I said, the chase.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, I thought you are going to speak on the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am, Sir, but I am trying to enunciate the principle upon which this motion is based. It is, Mr Speaker, Sir, the principle upon which I say this responsibility arises, the departure.

Mr Speaker: What has that got to do with the terms of reference of the Commission?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am going to show that there is a breach of the principle. It is a breach of that principle.

Mr Speaker: It is a strange way of doing things.

Mr Jeyaretnam: So that is what happens to us. But time and time again, we have seen Ministers of the Government making statements here and which they do not abide or keep and which are in some cases deliberately misleading. I mentioned the statement made by the Minister for Home Affairs in moving the Adoption Bill. It was a deliberate misleading of this House.

Prof. Jayakumar: Point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: What is your point of order?

Prof. Jayakumar: My point of order is that the rule of relevance ought to be enforced in this debate on the motion. If he wants to bring up other matters, I am perfectly willing, ready and able to take him on on other matters.

Mr Speaker: That is why I am trying to direct him back to the terms of reference.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just referring to the instances. We have already had a motion. Does he want another motion? I will table another motion if he likes. But there is that instance. Then I referred to the instance of the statement made by the then Labour Minister in 1965 that they would set aside the money collected from employers for their staff which the Malaysian Government had introduced. And in 1965, the Minister said they would set aside the money for the workers, into a welfare fund. That statement was never honoured. The workers never saw that.

Mr Speaker: What has that got to do with your terms of reference, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am saying that they make statements and then they do not honour them.

Mr Speaker: Will you get down to the terms of reference, please?

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Mr Speaker: You are just going on and on to things which have nothing to do with the terms of reference.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just exemplifying the instances in which Government Ministers make misleading, misrepresenting, statements. And we recently had the Minister for Community Development who just spoke on the press Bill making a statement about a detailed analysis and he cannot produce it. The point that I am making is this, that Government Ministers particularly have a very strict responsibility to honour statements made in this House and not to mislead the Members of this House and the public. I am sorry to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Prime Minister has precisely done that. And I intend to take this House in detail through the debate in this House on the 21st of March 1986.

Mr Speaker: Order. The House has already debated the Commission's Report and I do not think the hon. Member should reopen the debate.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not asking the House to look at the Commission's Report. I am asking, as this motion says in its terms, this House to regret that the terms depart from what was agreed in this House.

Mr Speaker: All right. You elaborate on those terms and the reasons why. Do carry on with these terms of reference.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, I am coming to that.

Mr Speaker: But you are not. You are going back to the debates of two or three days ago.

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, Mr Speaker, Sir. Please, if you will bear with me, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will bear with me.

Sir, Members are aware of what happened on the 21st of March this year when we were debating the estimates for the Office of the Prime Minister and I had tabled an amendment to the Supply vote. I had not raised this then but the Prime Minister came in and raised the question about a speech I had made in this House on the 10th of January 1986. And we went into it on the 19th of March 1986 and then it was not left to rest on the 19th of March. On the 21st of March, the Prime Minister reverted back to the debate that had taken place on the 19th of March. And it was on that day that the idea of an inquiry was first mooted and the terms were agreed, at least I thought they were agreed in this House. We were all awaiting the announcement of a Commission of Inquiry upon the terms that had been agreed before this House by the Prime Minister, terms that had been agreed and, I thought, accepted by him because, as I shall do so, Members will see from the Official Reports, he completely accepted my terms. He did not say he was going to reject any of those terms.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may refer the House now to column 898 of the Reports of the Debate in this House on the 21st March, 1986. Mr Speaker, Sir, you may recall that I had told the Prime Minister that if he was really earnest and anxious to vindicate the assertion that he was making - that the Subordinate Court judiciary and, indeed the whole judiciary, are under no fear of Executive displeasure, that they are completely immune from any Executive displeasure, perhaps the best thing for him to do would be to appoint a Committee of Parliament to inquire into the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo. And he accepted that. He said, "All right, we will have it." I mean, he did not use these words, but that is what he said. Then he said:

'I now say, "Yes, let us have this Parliamentary inquiry." And he says it is my proposal to look into the system. It was his proposal. I am now asking him [this is column 898] to draft the terms of reference. Let me have it. It shall be done.'

There is an invitation to me to draft the terms of reference and he says "it shall be done." It is quite clear. So I said something,and he says, "Put it down." He wanted the terms of reference. Then I said:

'You mean you want me to draft it now, right immediately, Mr Prime Minister?'

He said, "Say it." Then again he said:

'All I want is the subject matter of this Parliamentary committee of inquiry. What is the subject matter? Let us have it.' This is col. 899. Then I went on. I am not going to read the whole of it. At col. 900, I said:

'But I am more concerned, as I was last year, [it should really have been 10th January, not "last year", it is a mistake there] with preserving the independence and the impartiality of the District Judges. I certainly would commend to the Prime Minister that there should be a committee set up to look into the whole question of the independence of the District Judges.'

That is what I was saying, "should be a committee set up to look into the whole question of the independence of the District Judges." Then the Prime Minister said:

'Do I understand that he wants the committee to look into the question of safeguarding the independence of the Subordinate Courts (the Judges)?'

Then I responded:

'That is why I think the District Judges' position should be safeguarded.' Because I said they come under the Legal Service Commission. Then he said:

'He does not want the committee to inquire into the circumstances in which Mr Michael Khoo was transferred out and whether there was impropriety?'

The Prime Minister was asking me, "Do you not want to inquire into Mr Michael's transfer?" And I said, "Yes, by all means." Not only just those words, but this is what I was saying in the next answer. Then the Prime Minister said, in col. 901:

'So I now have it clearly it is to inquire into the present system which does not safeguard the independence of the Subordinate Court Judges and Magistrates. Am I right?'

And I said, "Yes." Then the Prime Minister said:

'Second, any impropriety in connection with the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo out of the position of Senior District Judge. Yes?'

And I confirmed it by saying: "Inquire into the circumstances."

Then the Prime Minister said:

'Impropriety, circumstances of any other subjects.'

The Prime Minister then said, further down:

'Therefore, really under subhead (2), the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo out of this position of Senior District Judge to the Attorney-General's Chambers is a specific investigation into precedents or previous instances ...'.

Then I responded:

' ... the Prime Minister wants me to suggest what should be the terms of reference for this committee. All right, I will tell you now.' Because he was pressing me for the terms of reference. And I said, "I will tell you now." Then I start, at col. 902:

'One, to look into the independence - this is as he said is not the legal form of words but just what they should look into and if you like, I will draft it in legal form and send it to you. To examine or investigate the independence - I do not like the word investigate - to examine the independence and impartiality of the District Judges in the Subordinate Courts.

The Prime Minister: Not Magistrates?' Then I said, "All right, we will include the Magistrates." Because the Prime Minister wanted to include the Magistrates as well, and I said, "Yes, good." Then I went on:

'And to see whether the present system provides adequate safeguards for their independence. And whether a better system should be now created to ensure that judicial officers in the Subordinate Courts are freed from any fear of Executive displeasure that would affect their promotions

or career advancement. And to look into all the circumstances leading to the transfer of the then Senior District Judge in April 1985 to whatever post he was transferred to the AG's Chambers.'

Then the Prime Minister brings in:

'I thought he mentioned specifically the non-promotion of this person.'

Then I had to point out to him that I never suggested that he should have been promoted. Then the Prime Minister, at the bottom of col. 902 said:

'Would he like the investigation to be into the circumstances why he was transferred into a position or job less in prestige and status?'

And I said:

'I thought I have already spelt it out.'

So that is where it rested. I said, first of all, "to examine the independence of the Subordinate Court Judiciary, that is the Judges and the Magistrates, and to see whether the present system provided adequate safeguards for the independence and whether a better system should be now created to ensure that judicial officers in the Subordinate Courts are freed from any fear of Executive displeasure that would affect their promotions or career advancement." That is one. And the second one, "to look into all the circumstances leading to the transfer of the then Senior District Judge in April 1985 to whatever post he was transferred to in the AG's Chambers." So the Prime Minister says:

'Is he sure he has no other items that he wants included in the terms of reference? Because then I want to move to the next question of the committee of investigation ...'

And I told him:

'I do not think there is anything else. I think it adequately covers it. I think the main part of it is the one which I first spelt out, the safeguarding of the independence of the District Judges and the Magisgrates. That is the main one.'

Then the Prime Minister goes on, and he says:

'I look forward to receiving it [because I said I will send him the terms of reference] because it will not be I who will draft it. It will go to the draftsman who looks after these matters in the AG's Chambers.

Can I now ask him how many members there should be on this parliamentary committee ...'

So there we have it. The Prime Minister in the morning before the lunch adjournment agreeing, or seeming to agree, before this House on the two terms. I say, he clearly agreed, he accepted those two terms of reference. A lot of fuss was made about my having said "So be it" to the Prime Minister and the Government trying to pin me down to saying "So be it" meant I agreed. I say it does not. But here clearly the Prime Minister has accepted my terms of reference.

Then we moved on, as I said, to the discussion as to who should go on to this Committee of Parliament, and then to somebody outside because the Prime Minister had suggested that perhaps we should have people from outside to sit on this Committee. And again he tried to press me to name the persons who should go on this Commission immediately, and I said I wanted time, and I begged for a little bit of time to try and consider the persons. So the matter rested. Then the House recessed for lunch adjournment.

The Prime Minister came back that afternoon and he then told the House, to my utter surprise, which is perfectly all right, that he had changed his mind during the course of the debate. Of course he can, having first agreed to a Committee of Parliament and then to a Commission outside comprising persons outside of Parliament. He can again change his mind if he wants in thisHouse and inform the House. So that was what he did. He came back after lunch and took a complete somersault on the members who should be on the commission, and said he had got in touch with the Chief Justice. This is at col. 913. At col. 913 he said that he had at the lunch break got in touch with the Chief Justice and the Chief Justice had agreed to make a Judge available, and he proposed to appoint a High Court Judge to head the Commission. He said, at col. 914:

'I therefore propose to have this Commission of Inquiry of one Judge to inquire into all the statements that have been made in this House which are privileged, and to find the basis upon which they have been made, including the two terms of reference which he has suggested in this Chamber.' "Including the two terms of reference which he has suggested in this Chamber." You have there the Prime Minister's assurance, "I therefore propose to have this Commission of Inquiry".

'So, in fact, there will be three terms of reference - first, the basis [and then the two terms that he made] ... and to look specifically into the two items he has made.' Again, he says "to look specifically into the two items he has made." That is what the Prime Minister said at col. 914. And I responded. I did not, I repeat, I did not say, "I agree. I accept." I said, "It is your decision. So be it." I said it was not for me to recommend to the President to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. It is for the Prime Minister. If he wants to appoint a Judge, 'so be it,' and I would make my representations to the Judge or whoever is appointed. I said "I will, if invited, certainly make my representations to whoever is appointed." And I said then, at col. 915.

'All I wanted to point out is that now we have a departure from the proposals that were made this morning. We seem to have gone a long way from where we started.'

So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope I have made it clear to the House that when this debate finally ended on that day, on 21st March, this House was left to understand that there would be a Commission of Inquiry on the two terms that I had proposed and which had been accepted by the Prime Minister, and he wanted a third one but he says to inquire specifically into my terms. There can be nothing else and this is a statement made by the Prime Minister of the country, the leader of the Government, to Parliament - there shall be a Commission to inquire into these two terms. It is a very responsible statement and a statement that the country expects the Prime Minister to honour and to abide by it.

Then it was the weekend (I think it was Friday, 21st March) and, as I told the Members some days ago, I wrote to the Prime Minister - I think it was by my letter of the 24th March - that I did not think a High Court Judge was the most suitable person to head the Commission of Inquiry and I told him why, because it was to inquire into the conductof the Chief Justice, and he replied saying no, he did not agree with me. He does not say in his letter, "You agreed to the High Court Judge to head the Commission." He does not say that quite candidly. He merely said, "You agreed that you had no fears about the independence or no qualms about the independence of the High Court Judiciary." So I had nothing more to say. The Prime Minister had decided in his judgment that the High Court Judge should be the best person. What could I do? 3.34 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

The Prime Minister: Then, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it was announced on 16th April 1986 in the press the Judge who had been selected to head the inquiry - it was a one-man Commission - and also the terms of reference. This was gazetted under Gazette Notification 1298 and, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may read the terms of reference under which the Commissioner was appointed:

'(a) to investigate the evidence upon which Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam based his allegation in Parliament on the 10th day of January 1986 that the executive arm of Government had on at least three occasions interfered with the administration of justice in the subordinate judiciary by transferring District Judges from the subordinate judiciary whenever decisions were given by them that displeased the executive and this interference had undermined the independence and impartiality of the subordinate judiciary.'

When I saw that, this was all new to me. This found no mention in the terms of reference that were discussed in this House on the 21st March. In the first place, I do not think that I said that the Executive arm of the Government had interfered in the transfer of all these three officers before that. All I said was that they had raised eyebrows - the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo, and I said that was not the only one. There was disquiet and there were two other transfers.

The second term of reference again:

'(b) to investigate the evidence upon which Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, MP for Anson, based his allegation in Parliament on the 19th and 21st March 1986 that the transfer of Mr. Michael Khoo from his appointment as Senior District Judge to an appointment as Senior State Counsel and Deputy Public Prosecutor in the Attorney-General's Chambers was due to, or caused by, interference by the executive arm of Government in the subordinate judiciary.'

Again, it is a complete departure. It is to investigate the evidence upon which I made it, whereas the terms of inquiry which were agreed upon in Parliament were "to inquire into all the circumstances of his transfer" which is something quite different. The Commissioner there is asked to look into all the circumstances of the transfer. The Commissioner is asked to dig up all the evidence and find out all the circumstances of the transfer. That is what Parliament was told the Commission would do: to inquire into all the circumstances of the transfer. But here, it is turned and stood on its head and the term is: The Commission will investigate what evidence Jeyaretnam had for making that allegation, not investigate the circumstances, you just leave that alone. Go and investigate Jeyaretnam's statements. And then:

'(c) to decide if there was any truth in these allegations by Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam.' The Commissioner is asked to tell us, "Was he (Jeyaretnam) lying?" And then finally, and this is made conditional:

'(d) if the Commissioner finds, on the evidence, that the transfers were due to or caused by interference by the executive arm of Government to receive proposals as to how the existing system and procedure as provided in Article 111 of the Constitution relating to the Legal Service Commission and its duties and functions can be improved.'

It might be argued that this has some similarity to the first term of reference which was proposed by me and which was accepted by the Prime Minister. But even if it has some similarity, it is made subject to a condition. The Commission is not asked to embark on it unless it first comes to a finding on other terms of reference, and if it does not come to a certain finding on the other terms it can leave this term completely alone. So that goes overboard, after the Prime Minister told this House that he would appoint a Commission to look into the independence of the District Judges. So I was very saddened, Members of the House.

May I also say, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that if the Prime Minister, honouring his statement in this House and abiding by his assurances given in this House, had appointed a Commission with those terms of reference which were accepted by him, then the whole question of section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act would never have arisen. It would never have arisen. The Commission would not have violated section 4 if it inquired into those terms of reference. That is an important point. Ths Commission could have carried out its task without violating in any way section 4 but, on these terms of reference, it was clearly in conflict with section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. I wonder whether the Prime Minister was advised about this.

As I said the other day, I was very surprised that he should have asked the Attorney-General to draw up the terms of reference when he is the man whose conduct is to be inquired into by the Commission because he was one of the two who were responsible for the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo. But I would like to leave that. If they had stuck to these terms of reference, section 4 would never have arisen and the Commission could have done the work without any difficulty and this House could have received the Report it wanted about the independence of the Subordinate Court judiciary. But because these new terms of reference were substituted, the whole thing has been frustrated; frustrated because you immediately set the whole Commission on collision with Parliament. Of course, I had to point out to the Commissioner that he was sitting in contempt of Parliament and he could not plead a Presidential decree in defence to any charge by Parliament that he was in contempt of Parliament.

So I was very saddened, Members of the House, and I wrote to the Prime Minister by my letter of 16th April 1986. I told him that I was surprised to read of the announcement that appeared in the papers. And I said I was surprised for two reasons. I said, "Firstly, I had expected that you would at least, even as a matter of courtesy (and this Government makes so much of courtesy campaigns) have sent the terms of reference to me for my comments before they were announced." Here was the Prime Minister, right in front of me, saying, "Give it to me now. Give it to me now." And I said I would draft it and send it to him. "No, dictate it. Say it now. I will take them down now." So he wanted me to give him the terms of reference. He wanted my agreement with the terms of reference. So I told him that I was surprised that he had not sent them to me for my comment. Then I explained what I have just said, about how in Parliament he had insisted that I should draft the terms.

I pointed out to him that I had offered to send him the terms of reference and he had replied that he was going to ask the Attorney-General to draw up the terms of reference. I pointed that out to him. I went on to say:

'In the light of all this, as I said earlier, I would have expected you at least, as a matter of courtesy...', a courtesy due to a Member of this House, not just a member of the public. I am not saying that courtesy is not due to a member of the public but at least courtesy is due to a Member of the House, in the Opposition, who had asked for these terms of reference. So much for the Courtesy campaigns that are conducted by the Government. Then I said:

'My second reason for the surprise is that the terms of reference, as published in the Straits Times, have completely changed the character and purpose of the Commission which was discussed in Parliament on the 21st of March. The published terms depart dramatically from the terms that I put forward on the 21st of March. I thought the whole intention arose from your desire to ensure that the Subordinate Courts judiciary was not only independent of the executive but was manifestly seen to be. You have now, it would appear, turned the Commission into an investigation on me, not that I am afraid of any investigation. The whole thing is reminiscent, if I may say so, of the Ong Eng Guan inquiry. Is it not, Mr Prime Minister?' [I asked him]. That is it, Members of Parliament. What was agreed by the Prime Minister on the 21st March was a Commission of Inquiry into the independence of the Subordinate Court Judiciary because it is so vital to the country's stability. But what was announced was a Commission to investigate into Jeyaretnam, completely turning and standing on their heads the terms that were agreed upon. They were turned upside down, just as the trade unions were turned upside down and made to stand on their heads, as Hitler did, and as Singapore did soon after the PAP came to power.

Then I said:

'The main purpose and object for the appointment of the committee, as discussed in Parliament, is completely lost sight of in the terms of reference published. Not only does it appear as the last of the terms of reference, the inquiry into the independence of the Subordinate Courts judiciary is made conditional upon the Commissioner finding whether there was any interference by the executive in the functioning of the Subordinate Courts judiciary.'

Again, I go on to point out about the appointment of the person chosen as the Commissioner. I said:

'Finally about the appointment of the person chosen as the Commissioner. He himself was Senior District Judge and was elevated to the High Court Bench a factor which may become relevant when he comes to consider the second term of reference. In the light of that you may feel that some other Commissioner should be appointed.'

Then I also pointed out:

'One other matter. You have appointed Mr Glenn Knight to lead the evidence. It cannot have escaped your notice that Mr Glenn Knight was the senior prosecuting counsel in the trials after which Mr Michael Khoo was transferred from the Subordinate Courts to the Attorney-General's Chambers. Is he not too near the bone?'

I raised these what I thought were very valid questions and which I felt duty bound to raise as a Member of this House. And this is the reply I had from the Prime Minister dated 23rd April 1986. He said in this letter, second paragraph:

'This is no private or personal dispute.'

I mentioned that earlier and I am not raising this as a private or personal dispute.

'You made serious allegations in Parliament on two occasions, in January and March 1986, that there was executive interference with the Subordinate Court judiciary.' I have waited. I have asked time and time again for the specific passages to be drawn to my attention where I had made these allegations in these terms. And then:

'The Terms of Reference enable the Commission to investigate the truth of these allegations.' That is not what was agreed in Parliament. We did not agree in Parliament that a Commission of Inquiry should be appointed to examine the evidence and the basis upon which I made the statements? That is not what we agreed in Parliament. We agreed in Parliament that the Commission would inquire into the independence of the Subordinate Court judiciary. And then he goes on:

'In Parliament in March you accepted the independence and impartiality of the High Court Judges. That Mr Justice Sinnathuray was a Senior District Judge before he was elevated to the High Court Bench, does not disqualify him from determining the truth of your allegations.' It may not have disqualified him. But is it prudent? Is it right that he should be inquiring into it? And then again:

'The fact that Mr Glenn Knight had conducted a prosecution against you is irrelevant. It is the Commissioner, not Mr Knight, who will make the findings.'

Then, finally, he enters a caveat because I had told him that I wished to publish both the letters, my letter to him and his reply, by releasing them to the press. So he enters a caveat. He says:

'Your letter is not covered by Parliamentary Privilege. Parts of your letter amount to contempt.' So that was intended as a warning or as a message to our press.

'We are no longer debating the appointment of a Commission in Parliament. A Commission has already been appointed and gazetted.' Well, I do not agree that anything I said amounted to contempt of the Commissioner or the Commission under the Inquiry Commissions Act. The result was when I sent both these letters to the press, none of the two letters saw the light of day. I did not really expect our press, this responsible press, the responsible press of which the Government is so proud, to publish those letters. And yet those are vital questions, vital issues raised by a Member of Parliament about the Government's conduct and motive. I know the press, "Oh, please don't ask us to publish all this. We can't do that. How can we do this, against the Government?" So those two letters did not see the light of day.

There was, as I said three or four days ago, a letter written by a pensioner to the Straits Times. I see that I have not been challenged on that letter. So I take it that the Straits Times does have that letter and it is not denying it. That letter again expressed the desirability or the suitability of appointing Mr Glenn Knight as counsel to the Commission. Did that letter see the light of day, coming from a member of the public to our responsible press? And he gave reason why he thought Mr Glenn Knight should not be the counsel because, he said, he was present at an interview and Glenn Knight had said something which showed that he was biased against Mr Michael Khoo. So the public did not know anything about all this because our responsible press thought it their duty to the Government to suppress any disquiet in the public mind about the Commission or its counsel.

3.56 pm