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

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, you may continue.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I hope I am going to be given two minutes for loss of time.

Mr Deputy Speaker: One minute.

Mr Dhanabalan: Your watch must be a very fast watch!

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I assure the Leader that I am quite happy to stay here until midnight. I have got enough stamina - I am sure the people of Singapore know - to sit out the whole night as well.

So that letter did not see the light of day. And I am not going to repeat, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all that I have said earlier. But I trust the Members of the House will see that it is as a result of what the Prime Minister did that the whole Commission went off the rails, went off the track. Section 4 came into play. There was a collision between Parliament and the Executive, in the appointment of the Commission. Parliamentary historians will tell you, if you read books on Parliament history, that in England Parliament is very zealous of its rights and will not allow anybody outside, not even the sovereign, to encroach on Parliamentary rights. That is all that I was asserting before the Commissioner, that it is the prerogative of Parliament and the rights belong to the House.

But all this came about simply because the Prime Minister did not keep his words uttered in this House. I say that quite seriously because the Prime Minister went back, as he went back twice on the 21st March in this House. Well, he can go back, as I said, in this House, withdraw something that he said and then come back and say, "I am sorry, I am going to withdraw. I am going to put something else." That is all right for this House. But once it is accepted, then you should stand by it. If he was going to completely alter the terms of reference, then he should have convened Parliament again. That is what any Minister, let alone the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister, let me tell you, as you already know, is a lawyer and he knows his Constitutional history. And he is a product of Cambridge, not a product of the Singapore University, but a product of Cambridge where they investigate and encourage debate, questions, and he knows what the privileges of Parliament are. He knows that if he is going to depart from something that he had told the House, then it was his bounden duty, I say it was his bounden duty to have come back to this House and said, "Well, I have thought about the terms. I am not prepared to accept those terms, Parliament. I think I will now appoint a Commission with these new terms of reference." 4.01 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Your one hour is up.

Question proposed.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the motion and urge the House to reject the motion.

Sir, first, some preliminaries arising out of what the Member has said. The first point I would like to make is to debunk, as I did on 29th July, his attempt to wriggle out which he tried to do again here. When he said in the course of his speech that he never really made any allegations that any of the transfers were the result of Executive interference - that all that he had said was that there were these transfers and there was public disquiet, and all that he had said was to raise this general question of public disquiet - this must be debunked because he keeps repeating his attempt to wriggle out. Therefore, I will quote, as I did on the second day of our debate, Hansard of 10th January 1986, cols. 711 [Vol. 46 No. 7]. This is what he said:

'Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry to have to say this, that was not the first time.'

Mr Jeyaretnam: That a transfer was made, yes.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has had one full hour. Presumably, he will use another full hour which he is entitled to. I did not interrupt but once on a point of order. He talks about courtesy. May he practise what he preaches ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Learning it from the Prime Minister and you.

Prof. Jayakumar: --- and not to make these rude interruptions after he has had one full hour.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right. I will accept that.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is what he said on 10th January in cols. 711-2:

'I am sorry to have to say this, that was not the first time. There were at least two other instances, and I know this personally. There was one case where, after a decision was given, the man was transferred. That was about four or five years ago, and there was one case much earlier than that. These decisions were not acceptable. So what independence of the Subordinate Judiciary is there if the public see these things happening?'

Further down:

'The public see that the District Judges are not immune and that they may suffer the displeasure of the Executive.' What clear statement, what clearer allegation of Executive interference in the transfer of Judges. Then with regard to Mr Michael Khoo, 19th March, col. 696 [Vol. 47, No 10]:

'And the other thing I said ...'.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Col. 696. I am sorry.

Prof. Jayakumar: Not only should he not interrupt, I think he should pay attention.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am trying to follow you.

Prof. Jayakumar: 'And the other thing I said [according to him on 19th March, col. 696] was we were acquitted on three of those charges by the Senior District Judge [and these are the important words] and after he had written his judgment, because an appeal was filed by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal, he was transferred.' Again, a specific allegation that the reason for his transfer was because an appeal had been filed. So no attempts to wriggle out. These were specific allegations.

Other preliminary questions, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. He started off by laying a very interesting proposition that Ministers are accountable - which we accept, and I have already said that the Government stands by everything it says.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Has it?

Prof. Jayakumar: But he wants a different standard for Opposition Members because he said, for Backbenchers, particularly for Opposition Backbenchers, there should be a different latitude. He is laying the groundwork for bringing more Lim Poh Huat allegations into this House. So much for preliminaries.

Now, we go to the substance of his motion. Let us look at the substance of his motion. What he says is "that the terms of reference ... for the Commission of Inquiry ... depart significantly in their purpose and object from the purpose and object of the commission that was proposed." So the critical question is: what was the purpose and object of the Commission of Inquiry?

I do not intend to speak at length, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because this motion is really irrelevant, it is a farce and it is hypocritical. It is hypocritical because the position taken by the Member for Anson at the closing session of the Commission of Inquiry which I demonstrated, and which we saw on the tapes the other day, was that he claimed absolute privilege, that he was prevented even voluntarily from going into ---

Mr Dhanabalan: Absolute prohibition.

Prof. Jayakumar: Absolute prohibition. From going into the witness box, however anxious he was, however eager he was, to voluntarily - mind you, not being forced, but voluntarily - go into the witness box; there was this rule of absolute parliamentary privilege which absolutely prohibited him. So I say it is sheer hypocrisy to come to this House to cry like a spoilt child about the terms of reference when whatever the terms of reference, whatever conditions, whatever requests are met, his position was that he is absolutely prohibited by an absolute parliamentary privilege.

My second point is, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that the terms of reference, in fact, arose and are based on what the Member for Anson said in this House on the 21st of March when there was a discussion on the Commission of Inquiry. The Member went through the debates but conveniently glossed over the fact that when the Prime Minister repeatedly asked him to draft the terms, he pleaded that he was not capable, not competent, to draft the terms on the spot. Hansard, 21st March, col. 899 [Vol. 47, No. 12]:

'

Mr Jeyaretnam: I do not think we should be too hasty about it. I will send it to you. ... You know, terms of reference have to be carefully drafted out. You do not expect me, this very second, to scribble out something and hand it to you.' He was not competent. He was not capable of drafting it then and there. So what the Prime Minister did was to get what were the points he wanted and so the debate went on. How did it end up? It ended up this way. Col. 914, and this is towards the end of the whole debate, the two days' debate, and this is what the Prime Minister said:

'I therefore propose to have this Commission of Inquiry of one Judge [and I stress this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir] 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. So, in fact, there will be three terms of reference - first, the basis for all the allegations made, all the statements made by the Member in this Chamber concerning the Judiciary and the administration of the law, ...' In other words, towards the close of the debate, after all the discussions on the various aspects of the proposed Commission, the Prime Minister summed it up, and his summing up made it very clear that the proposed Commission of Inquiry would definitely look into the specific allegations of interference by the Executive alleged by the Member for Anson. Let us look at it again, since the Member for Anson is shaking his head:

' ... the basis for all the allegations made, all the statements made by the Member in this Chamber concerning the Judiciary and the administration of the law, ...'.

Now, what did the Member for Anson say? Did he protest that the Commission should not look into these allegations? Did he object to these terms as summarized by the Prime Minister? No. He has attempted to place a special meaning on the words "so be it". Let me repeat:

'Now he proposes that a High Court Judge be appointed. So be it.' He maintains that does not mean agreement. If that does not mean agreement, what does? And he says:

'So it is for the Prime Minister, and if he thinks that is what it should be, well, fine.' He had an opportunity to object. He can say, "That's not fine. I don't agree with it." He could say, "Mr Prime Minister, I don't agree with it. If that is the summary of the terms, I will not appear before the Commission." But he said, "Fine, so be it. I will, if invited, certainly make my representations to whoever is appointed." Famous last words of a man who cannot be believed.

Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, he refers to this letter which he wrote to the Prime Minister on 16th April, really like a spoilt child, complaining about the terms of reference. I might add, in parenthesis, when that debate ended, the Prime Minister made it clear after having noted these points that the actual drafting of the terms would be left to the legal experts in the Attorney-General's Chambers. That was made very clear. In col. 903, the Prime Minister made it clear that it will not be he who will draft it. It will go to the draftsman who looks after these matters in the Attorney-General's Chambers. For obvious reasons. The terms for the appointment of a Commission have to be drafted in order for the instruments to be executed by the President.

I would like Members to focus their attention on the letter which the Member has just circulated. The second paragraph, what does it boil down to? What it really boils down to is that the Member does not want and did not want the Commission to look into the specific allegations. Look at what he says. He says (and he reminds the Prime Minister) he suggested two things: (a) that the Commission look into the general question of the independence and impartiality of the Subordinate Courts, see whether a better system can be constructed; (b) to look into the circumstances of Mr Michael Khoo's transfer. Then he expresses astonishment, surprise, over the terms which include reference to the specific allegations. He did not want the specific allegations to be included. The question is, why? Now we know, because he could not defend himself; he could not justify his allegations. No wonder then that the Prime Minister replied to him, as follows:

'You made serious allegations in Parliament on two occasions, in January and March 1986, that there was executive interference with the Subordinate Court judiciary. The Terms of Reference enable the Commission to investigate the truth of these allegations. It is strange that you do not consider these allegations important enough to include them in your proposed terms of reference.' Indeed strange that he did not want these specific allegations to be included. Because he knew, and it has now been established, that he was unable to back his allegations. But we are still giving him an opportunity, as was indicated two days ago. He would still have an opportunity, if he claims he was shut out, to prove his allegations, bring his witnesses, his evidence, before the Committee of Pri- vileges, as mentioned by the Leader of the House.

The third point, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. He makes much ado of the fact that he wanted the Commission to look into this whole question of improving the Subordinate Court Judiciary. The term of reference is in the Commission's terms, the fourth term. But he complains that the fourth term reads, as follows:

'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 ... can be improved.'

Why complain? Because this inquiry into whether we can improve the system must surely depend on whether his allegations are founded. Let me give an example. If the Member for Anson happened to see a crack in this building, suddenly rises and says, "Mr Speaker, Sir, this building is unsafe. It has been built in a negligent manner. We should bring down this whole building and let us put up a new, improved, House of Parliament." Well, sure. But before we look into the question whether we should accept his proposal to build, bring down, demolish the House and build a new House of Parliament, we must inquire whether the premise on which he bases his conclusion is established. We must first find out: is it true that the building is unsafe? Is it true that it has been built negligently? This is commonsense.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the terms of reference, in fact, are based on what the Member for Anson wanted and what the Member for Anson said in Parliament. He alleged Executive interference, the Commission has to look into Executive interference. He alleged impropriety in the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo; the terms of reference authorized the Commission to look into them. Building a better system and his allegation that the system should be improved is based on his scurrilous allegation of Executive interference: yes, the Commission looks into it if his allegations are proved.

So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think I need to add anything else. I will just end up by repeating that this motion is farcical, irrelevant and an exercise in hypocrisy. The real issue before the House is not the terms of reference. The real issue before the House is an issue which I have mentioned the other day - attempts to bring down into ruin, bring into total disrepute and damnation, key pillars of our society. And when such allegations that he has made about the Judiciary are made in this House or elsewhere, the accuser must be able to back up his allegations. Opportunity was given, did not take up. Morning - hithering, dithering, waiver of privilege, "I might waive, I might not" if you produce his witnesses. Afternoon - 180-degree turn: "Sorry, I want to go in voluntarily, but there is a rule of law which forbids me to do it." Pitiful, pathetic display.

But the Government has said it has got nothing to hide. The Government wants to give him yet another opportunity and he has been told that he will have an opportunity to prove all these allegations because, in the ultimate analysis, we cannot let persons trying to bring down the whole edifice of our society in Singapore.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I urge Members to vote against this motion. 4.25 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have got a full hour.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I say that I am simply astounded, astounded at the reply made by the Minister to this motion. I, of course, realize that the Minister was at one time a Professor of Law at our University. That is why I am astounded because he fails to show any grasp - I am sorry to have to say this - he fails to show any grasp of the motion. All he can do is to repeat that I had the opportunity before the Commissioner and I did not take it. But we are not talking about that any more. The Speaker told me, "Mr Jeyaretnam, we are not discussing the Report. We have already finished with it." But I was not talking on that. I was trying to outline the principle. But the Minister of the Government comes up, and what does he say in reply to this motion? He rehashes, plays his record that he played in the last debate, edits it a bit, perhaps SBC helped to edit it. And he comes back and says, "Come along, here is my new edited version now of what I said the last time." Because that is what it all amounted to. He does not realize that the motion is not dealing any more with the allegations or what took place before the Commissioner. The motion is dealing with the question, simply, whether the Prime Minister of the Government in which he serves, and the Prime Minister whom he serves, has departed from the assurance given to this House.

I am sorry to have to say this. The Minister might think that I am insulting him all the time, but I wish the Prime Minister were here. Because I am sure he would have shown a better grasp of the motion. He would have responded to the motion, instead of trying to circle round it all the time which is what the Minister for Home Affairs and the Second Minister for Law has done. It is really a matter for regret and I, again, would say that I think the Prime Minister is failing in his duty to this House. He is failing in his duty to the House to come to this House to answer the motion. That is showing disrespect to the House.

If somebody in the United Kingdom Parliament had tabled a motion which criticized the conduct of the British Prime Minister, and particularly over an assurance she had given in Parliament and which the Member said she had not kept, do you think she could have kept away from Parliament? It is unthinkable. She would have been there to answer the criticism. She would have been there to face Parliament and to stand by whatever act she did, or conduct she did.

Why is the Prime Minister not here? That is lamentable. That shows that the Prime Minister is unable to answer the motion. I am sorry, but that is the inescapable conclusion that I can draw and which the members of the public in Singapore will have to draw. Here is a motion from an Opposition Member saying that the Prime Minister has departed from his assurance in Parliament and the man, the central man in this motion, does not show up. It does not say very much for the Prime Minister, I am afraid. It does not say very much for Cabinet responsibility and Ministerial responsibility in Singapore. And this is a prime example, Members of the House. I know you are all Members of the Government Party. But you have got to take cognizance of this one day, whether you proclaim it outside or not is another matter. But you have got to take cognizance of this because Cabinet government, Cabinet responsibility, if it means anything, means this: that Ministers will appear in Parliament and take the brunt of any attack on the Government, and particularly on them.

Mrs Thatcher, the British Prime Minister, is now being hauled over the coals. I do not know whether you have seen this but if you have been listening to the BBC - they have a programme every week "People and Politics" - you would have heard that she is being hauled over the coals and she will be hauled over the coals, when Parliament resumes in October after the Summer recess over the Civil Service leak. I do not want to go into too many details but there was this Westland deal and there was a purported leak from the Civil Service of a Memorandum to the Defence Minister Haseltyne. Then there was an All-Parliamentary Committee which inquired into the conduct of the Civil Service. There, Members, you see how Parliament controls the Government machinery, which is what I have been pleading for in this House so that we in Singapore may also show ourselves to be responsible.

So there was a Parliamentary All-Party Committee. And what did this All-Party Committee find? That a responsible Permanent Secretary, the Head of the Civil Service, had gone wrong. And they said, "Who is responsible? The Prime Minister." And so they are in full cry after her, not just Members of Parliament, the press is in full cry. And do you think she will stay away? If she stays away, she will have to resign. That is all the stuff of Parliamentary democracy, Members of Parliament. But we merely put up with a show, a pretence, of Parliamentary democracy. I want the real genuine Parliamentary democracy in Singapore. That is all I want. I do not want anything else. I do not want subversion, terrorism, communism or whatever have you. I want genuine Parliamentary democracy to function so that our people can ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, can you confine yourself to the terms of reference? This is not a debate on Parliamentary democracy.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, Sir. The absence of the Prime Minister shows that he cannot reply to this. So is it any wonder that his Minister cannot reply to the motion? Is it any wonder? May I, begging your pardon, Sir, hope that the Prime Minister is not indisposed. I wish him well and I hope it is not because of any indisposition that he has not turned up in this House.

May I take the last part of the Minister's reply. He says this whole thing is a hypocrisy. He says before we look into the independence of the District Judges and Magistrates, before we try and improve the system or whether we need to improve the system, we must first inquire into the allegations, and he gave the example of the crack. I agree that if there is a crack you must first investigate whether there is a crack and what has caused the crack and you do not pull down the whole thing. I agree entirely, yes. But what the Minister forgets is what the Prime Minister agreed in this House. It was open to the Prime Minister on the 21st March to say to me, "Well, I am not going to inquire into the independence of the Subordinate Court Judiciary. I am not going to inquire into all the circumstances surrounding Michael Khoo's transfer until I am satisfied on your allegations." Then I could have responded. But that is not what he said. He did not say, "I am not going to embark on an investigation into the independence of the Subordinate Judiciary until Mr Jeyaretnam's allegations have been proved." You see the whole world of difference. The Prime Minister was prepared, regardless of whether my allegations were true or not - and this is why I said I thought he gave the impression that he was very earnest and sincere about the whole thing - that he was prepared, regardless of whether my allegations were true or not, to allow a Commission to look into it. And the Minister comes here and now says, "Why should we look into it? Should we not first inquire into the allegations made by the Member?" But that is not what the Prime Minister said. This is why I say the Minister for Home Affairs fails abysmally to grasp what is involved in the motion. The motion before the House is:

'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.'

Should we not, Members of the House, determine what was the purpose and object of the Commission that was agreed in this House on the 21st of March? I have taken you, Members, through the Report of the debate in this House on the 21st of March. What was the purpose? What was the object? It is there. Do I need to take you through again? First, the purpose was to examine the independence of the Subordinate Judiciary and to see whether the system needs any improvement. That is the first purpose or object. The Prime Minister did not say in this House, "The first object will be to inquire into your allegations, Jeyaretnam. And after we have dealt with you, then we will embark on this." He did not say it like that.

And he accepted that the second object would be to inquire into all the circumstances of Mr Michael Khoo's transfer. "To inquire into all the circumstances", Members of the House, ie, to examine everything connected with the transfer. Why was the man transferred? Who started it? What were the reasons and was this a transfer really, or was it a demotion? So to examine the whole transaction (for want of a better word). That was the purpose and object, and I for one, Members of the House, went away feeling very glad that the Prime Minister had agreed to this. I thought perhaps I had done him an injustice in thinking that he was not interested in all this; he had shown himself not to be really interested.

So that was the purpose and object. To demonstrate to the people of Singapore, because it is so vital a subject, that the Judiciary in the Subordinate Courts was not only independent but was manifestly seen to be independent, which is what I said. It is important. Just as the maxim in law is that Justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done. The public must see Justice, must see it manifestly being done. So that was the object and the purpose.

And of course the Prime Minister, when he came back, said, "I want also another term of reference, and that is, to inquire into the basis of all allegations." He could have had that if he had first carried out the two terms of reference and found that there was nothing wrong about the whole thing; if they had examined all the circumstances and had come up with a clean slate. Then he could have said, "Go on, after that, to inquire into why Jeyaretnam came to make these allegations when you find that there was nothing wrong about the whole thing." That is perfectly all right. I can see the reason, and I can see such a course of action or conduct. He could have proposed that to me here, "Do you agree that if they come up with a clean slate, you will subject yourself to an inquiry on this as to why you came up to this House and made all these statements?"

But what did we find when the terms of reference were announced? A complete departure. The object of trying to show the public that the Subordinate Judiciary was not only independent but is manifestly seen by them to be independent was lost sight of, as I said. Because that is the whole object and purpose, to show the integrity of the judicial system in Singapore which everybody on both sides of the House agree is essential and vital. So that was the object and purpose. But what do the terms of reference announced require the Commission? I do not want to read them again. That object and purpose is lost sight of, and we have a new object and purpose. Can you not see it, Members? The new object and purpose is no longer whether the Judiciary is seen to be manifestly independent of the Executive. The new object is an inquiry on Jeyaretnam, "What is the evidence upon which he came to Parliament? That is what we want to know." The independence of the Judiciary is pushed aside. "Let that wait. We want, first of all, an investigation into Jeyaretnam." Is that not a departure, Members?

I am afraid the Minister completely fails to grasp the motion. And it is lamentable because, as I said, the Minister is also a lawyer. So what has the Minister got to say in reply? He tries again his old tactics - Jeyaretnam is trying to wriggle out. Wriggle out? My foot.

May we look at the 10th January Report again, cols. 711-712 that he read. He said I was alleging that the two transfers were caused by Executive interference and I am saying I never said it. Let us look at it. I was talking about the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo and I said, you know that he was transferred after the case was heard and he had acquitted us. Then I said, "I am sorry to have to say this, that was not the first time." First time, what? - that two members of the Subordinate Court Judiciary were transferred after they had acquitted accused persons. That is all I am saying - a fact.

Prof. Jayakumar: Would the Member give me the Floor to clarify?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Are you giving way?

Prof. Jayakumar: Because he is not quoting correctly.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Quoting what correctly?

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

Mr Jeyaretnam: Quoting what correctly?

Prof. Jayakumar: You are not quoting the Hansard correctly.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, tell me which part I am not quoting correctly.

Prof. Jayakumar: This is what he said, and he was paraphrasing it. This is what it actually reads:

'There were at least two other instances, and I know this personally.'

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am going to do that.

Prof. Jayakumar: Let me read it because ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will read it.

Prof. Jayakumar: 'These decisions were not acceptable.'

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes. I am not trying to hide it, Mr Minister, please. Look at that again:

'That, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry to have to say this, that was not the first time. There were at least two other instances, and I know this personally.' Now you know why I know it personally because I appeared on behalf of the two accused persons. So I am talking from personal knowledge. There was one case where, after the decision was given, the man was transferred. That was about four or five years ago. And there was one case much earlier than that. These decisions were not acceptable. Yes, I repeat, they were not acceptable. And from there, the Minister tries to construe that there was Executive interference. I am merely saying that these persons were transferred and there was public disquiet, just as there was public disquiet ---

Prof. Jayakumar: Can he explain what is meant by "These decisions were not acceptable"?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Not acceptable to the Executive.

Prof. Jayakumar: Exactly.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, thank you. Not acceptable to the Executive. And then these persons were transferred.

Prof. Jayakumar: Does that not mean that the Executive interfered in their transfer?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am saying that these persons were transferred and there was public disquiet.

An hon. Member: Don't wriggle out.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Please. And there were these two instances before Mr Michael Khoo, and they need an explanation. The public need an explanation from the Executive about these transfers.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, would he explain whether this is not a specific allegation of Executive interference, "These decisions were not acceptable."? Is he now at this late hour telling us that he wants to withdraw these allegations, unreservedly?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these allegations are before the Committee of Privileges.

Prof. Jayakumar: Is he trying to wriggle out?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Please, let us not waste time, Mr Minister, because I have only got one hour. I know what the object is. May I carry on?

All I am saying is there were two other instances. And I still repeat that these decisions were not acceptable to the Executive, and I instanced that in the case of Mr Jeffrey Chan, the statement made by the Ministry of Communications that same evening saying, "Forget about that judgment. We are going to carry on." So clearly it was not acceptable to the Executive.

Prof. Jayakumar: Is he saying that Mr Jeffrey Chan was transferred because Mr Jeffrey Chan's decision was also not acceptable?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have just said it. His decision acquitting the man was not acceptable. The Ministry of Communications that evening said, "We don't accept it."

Prof. Jayakumar: Was he transferred because the decision was not acceptable? Is he alleging now?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have said, Mr Minister, for the last time that there was public disquiet about all these things and I said the Government had to explain, just as I said about Michael Khoo. If you cannot understand plain English, I am sorry. And then he comes to col. 696, on 19th March.

Mr Dhanabalan: Can you please read on with your quotation?

Prof. Jayakumar: Can you finish your quotation?

Mr Jeyaretnam: He reads from col. 696 on the 19th March, and I was going to answer this because he clasps on to a phrase ---

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I think he should finish reading that quotation.

Mr Jeyaretnam: If you want to read them, Leader, you read them. Take it home and read them.

Mr Dhanabalan: I will read them now.

Mr Jeyaretnam: No. I am not giving way.

Mr Dhanabalan: Are you afraid to let the House read?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am not giving way.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Please resume your seat. That is not a point of order.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You take it home and read them, just as I was told, "Look at the tape at your house." I asked for the whole tape here.

Mr Dhanabalan: Why don't you just read a few lines here?

Mr Jeyaretnam: No, you read them at home.

Mr Dhanabalan: You are afraid of the truth.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You have got nothing else to read, read that again.

Mr Dhanabalan: You are afraid of the truth.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He fastens on to a phrase "because an appeal was filed by the public prosecutor against the acquittal" that I am saying that he was transferred because an appeal was filed by the public prosecutor. I am sorry to say it is a complete misunderstanding, an inability to understand the English language there. I am saying that he had written his judgment because an appeal was filed by the public prosecutor. He was transferred after he had written his judgment, and I am trying to explain that he had to write his judgment because an appeal was filed by the public prosecutor against the acquittal. Because normally, Members, the District Judges do not write their judgments unless there is an appeal. That is all to it. But he tries to put some other interpretation. The Minister must know that District Judges do not write their judgments unless there is an appeal. Does he not know? Are you saying they all write their judgments? All I was trying to say there is that after he had written his judgment, because an appeal was filed by the public prosecutor against the acquittal, ie, after he had written his judgment, he was transferred. "Because an appeal was filed by the public prosecutor against the acquittal" is in parenthesis and it explains why he had to write his judgment. That is all. If you cannot understand it, I cannot help you, Mr Minister.

Then he says, "He tries to wriggle out as we saw on the tape that day." Well, what did we see of the tapes? Just what pleased you. You cut it short. I asked for the whole of the tape, and he said, "Well, we will give it to you at home. You go and watch it." You bring that here. And he says, "In the afternoon...", you see, he goes back to the Commission, "In the afternoon he made a 180-degree turn ." It has nothing to do with this motion. And he says, "Whatever the terms we might have published, whatever the terms on which we might have set up this Commission, his position was that he was absolutely prohibited." The Minister forgets again or he is unable. This is all the conclusion that I can make, Mr Minister, that you are simply unable to understand or comprehend. I am sorry, and I will repeat it, outside if you like, that you are unable to understand section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. And I will defend it, before your University students. Would he like it?

Mr Dhanabalan: You can't stand by your own words, can you?

Mr Jeyaretnam: He says, "Whatever the terms,his position..." - I have offered him a challenge. If he likes, we can have a University debate.

Mr Dhanabalan: Why are you afraid to read your own words?

Mr Jeyaretnam: You want to join in, do you? Come along! Come along, before the University students. "Whatever the terms, his position ..." [Interruption] The Leader wants to keep on nagging.

We invite Members of the Government to come and debate with us in public, and they turn away, shy away. Here, because there are 75 of them together, they find strength.

I must not digress. He says, "Whatever the terms his position was that he was absolutely prohibited." I have just tried to explain that if the Prime Minister had stuck to the two terms of reference, which were agreed in this House, which he accepted, I could not have raised privilege at all. Members of the House, I hope you will credit me with a little knowledge of the Act.

An hon. Member: A little knowledge is dangerous thing.

Mr Jeyaretnam: If the Prime Minister had just stuck to those two terms, I could not have raised privilege. If I had, I would have been laughed out of court. I take my profession very seriously, and the last thing I want is to be laughed out of court. So there it is. The Minister cannot say, "Whatever the terms, Jeyaretnam would have raised this privilege question." It is nonsensical because it fails to understand section 4 of the Act. Because those two terms of reference do not raise my statements in the House. They are an examination into something quite external. And how could I raise section 4? Nothing to do with section 4, nothing to do with parliamentary proceedings. So I could not have raised it. I hope the Minister will clear his mind of this misconception under which he is labouring - that I could have raised parliamentary privilege whatever the terms of reference were. I simply could not have raised privilege on those two terms.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, could you resume your seat, please?

Mr Jeyaretnam resumed his seat.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I suspend the Sitting now and will take the Chair again at 5.30 pm. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.00 pm until 5.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 5.30 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Debated resumed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether it is permitted for me to ask for my last one or two sentences to be read back. I have lost the thread of what I was trying to say then. Is it permissible, I am asking you, Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr Deputy Speaker: I do not think it is possible.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is not possible. All right, then. It will come back. Do not worry.

What I was trying to say is that the Minister failed to grasp that I could not have raised privilege at all, not that I raised it and avoided giving evidence before the Commissioner on account of that privilege. I never raised it and avoided giving evidence. But the Minister fails to grasp that if the terms of reference had been as agreed, all this would never have arisen.

I am surprised that the Minister should pick on this. He says, "The Member pleaded in this House that he could not draft the Commission's terms of reference." Nothing is further from the truth, Members of the House. Nothing is further from the truth. All I told the Prime Minister simply was, "Why did we have to go through this like a bullet train? I will draft the terms, send them to you and then you can consider them." But no, he wanted them and I suppose he wanted to settle them. That is the important thing which the Minister does not grasp, that the Prime Minister wanted to settle the terms in this House. That is a very significant point, Members, that the Prime Minister did not want to wait till after the sitting was over for me to suggest the terms and for the terms to be settled. He wanted the terms to be settled. He says, "Don't worry about the legal wording, the draftsmanship. Just tell me what is it you want and we will settle it once and for all in this House." That's why I said I thought the Prime Minister was being deadly serious and earnest. So, because he was insistent, I then told him what the terms should be. They are in there, in cols. 901-2, I think. I read them out, all spelt out, not in legal language but spelt out and which the Prime Minister accepted as being clear enough to him. And now the Minister comes here to this House in this debate and says, "Member pleaded he could not draft." What a dis- tortion, what a distortion of what actually took place. And he has got the whole thing before him. I just read it out.

And then he comes to col. 914 and he says, "Whatever might have been said in the morning, you can forget about it because in the afternoon the Prime Minister was proposing something else." Let us examine what the Prime Minister proposed in the afternoon. Col. 914 which is what the Minister read:

'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.' So maybe he was saying, "I will have your two terms of reference but I also want to add another term to inquire into your statements." As I said, "That's perfectly all right. First of all, have those two terms." And if you find that there is nothing wrong about them, then you can start inquiring into the third term. So there is nothing wrong. But that is what the Prime Minister said:

'including the two terms of reference which I had suggested in this Chamber. So, in fact, there will be three terms of reference, - first, the basis for all the allegations made, all the statements made by the Member in this Chamber concerning the Judiciary and the administration of the law, and to look specifically into the two items he has made.' I took it to mean to look into the two terms which he has asked. Now, of course, I see we are going to have a debate on "items". But I thought that was what the Prime Minister was saying, "to look specifically into the two [terms] ... I am glad that he has accepted ... that he does not impugn that the High Court Judge is free [it should have been "is not free"] from any executive pressure." Anyway, that is the thing.

So there you have it again. In the afternoon, the Prime Minister comes back. He does not say, "I don't want your two terms of reference which you suggested in the morning. Forget about them. Just leave them aside. Push them aside. I will have new terms and these are my new terms." He does not say that, and he is a lawyer. He says, "Yes, I am going to appoint a Judge now and he will look into your two terms, and he will also look into the basis of all your statements." That is what the Prime Minister said, the Commission will inquire into the two terms that he had accepted in the morning. I cannot put any other interpretation to that statement made in the afternoon. But the Minister would have us believe that the Prime Minister was saying, "Forget all about your terms. I will have my own new terms." Because if that was what he was saying, he did not make it clear enough. And he should have made it clear. This is why I say - I am sorry to have to repeat this - I wish the Prime Minister were here to answer to all this because he is the man who spoke these words. And it is for him to answer why he departed from these words that he spoke. So there was not anything in the afternoon which suggested that the Prime Minister was telling the House that he rejected my two terms of reference. Nothing of that sort, Members of the House.

Then the Minister again, which he had tried earlier, talked about my wriggling out because of my agreeing to the High Court Judge. Well, I do not want to go back all over it again. I made it clear, "If you want to appoint a High Court Judge, well, go ahead. It's your province. So be it." That, the Minister and the Prime Minister perhaps want to construe as, "Yes, I agree with you. I think a High Court Judge would be fine." I do not think that is what a literal interpretation of what those words mean. But ---

Prof. Jayakumar: Point of order. Did he not also say that he will appear before whosoever is appointed?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, that I said, please. But that does not mean that I agree with the appointment of the Judge, please, Mr Minister. I said, "It's your province. So be it. Go ahead and appoint. You appoint a Judge or you appoint anybody from the public, I will appear and give my evidence before the Commission." But I should have thought that, if there was any doubt about whether I agreed or not, it would have been resolved by my letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister after the weekend, when I expressly told him about my misgivings about a Judge being on the Commission. So even if I had agreed or seemed to have agreed in this House, two days later I was telling him, "Please". If I had seemed to agree or if the Prime Minister thought I had agreed, two days later I was telling him, "I don't think really a High Court Judge should be the man." And as I pointed out the Prime Minister quite candidly in his letters never says, "You agreed to the appointment of a High Court Judge." In none of his letters he says that directly to the point, "You agreed to the appointment." All he says was, "You agreed that there was no question about the independence of the High Court Bench." And what I said then was that for the High Court Bench, there were provisions guaranteeing their appointment and their removal and I wanted inquiry into the Subordinate Judiciary. So you have the Prime Minister in his letters never making this allegation that I had specifically agreed to a High Court Judge. So please do not try and make so much out of that. It is like trying to make bricks without any straw, Mr Minister.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think I have very many more minutes left. So let me conclude by saying that the reply by the Minister fails abysmally to answer the motion because he has not grasped what is in the motion. The motion is that the object, I repeat again, the motion is that the object and purpose of the Commission which was agreed to in this House by the Prime Minister was all swept aside, was lost sight of, in the terms of reference which were announced for the Commission on the 16th April this year. That is the motion before the House. And I am prepared to defend that anywhere. I am prepared to defend it before University students, before lecturers, before anyone else, and ask them whether they agree that the terms of reference depart from the object and purpose of the Commission which was agreed in this House. And may I say, Members of the House, I have no doubt at all what any audience will say. I have no doubt that if this question is put to academic staff or to a gathering of lawyers, or to a gathering of any other people, professionals, they will agree that there has been a significant departure.

May I say this, when these new terms of reference were announced and lawyers came to read them, a number of them told me, "Don't take part. They have completely changed. They have switched the whole terms of reference. This is not what you agreed to." But I said, "No, it does not matter." I said that, and there were lawyers who are telling me not to take part. I said, "It does not matter. I will still take part, even if they have switched the terms of reference." But this is what the lawyers told me. I did not have to ring them up and ask them, "Do you think the terms of reference had been changed?" They rang me up. In fact, one of them came and left a note for me, "You should seriously consider whether you should continue with this Commission. You have every right to withdraw." But I did not withdraw. I went there and I said, "Just give me an assurance that you will produce these witnesses for cross -examination and I will then testify and supply the evidence."

So I ask you, Members of the House, to examine your conscience, because I shall be calling for a Division on this, to examine your conscience and to vote according to your conscience. Do you agree or not agree that the terms of reference as announced are a complete departure from the terms of reference that were agreed and accepted in this House by the Prime Minister.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, by way of clarification, all I want to say is that every item that had been agreed to in the debate is to be found in the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry. What the Member for Anson wanted is in the terms of the Commission of Inquiry. Allegations about Mr Michael Khoo is here. His suggestion for improvement is here. But what he wants is, as he said, that the whole system of improving the Judiciary ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, point of order.

Prof. Jayakumar: By way of clarification, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is this clarification?

Prof. Jayakumar: Yes, clarification.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is this clarification or another go?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Could you sit down, please? I think he is entitled to make a clarification.

Prof. Jayakumar: My clarification is this. That the terms cover the points that were agreed. What he wants, as he has said, is that the Commission should have looked into the proposal to establish a whole new system of Subordinate Court Judiciary and then look into the allegation. In other words, to take the analogy again, we should first inquire and decide on the establishment of a new Parliament building and then later find whether there were reasons - negligence, and that the building is unsafe - to come as the secondary item of investigation. It is so absurd, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we should have no hesitation in rejecting the motion.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Since the Minister has clarified, may I ask him to reply to my challenge? Will he accept my challenge and arrange a debate before his own University students on the question of the terms and about section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, whether I could have raised them, whatever the terms? Would he like a debate at the University? Will he accept my challenge?

Prof. Jayakumar: The proposition is so ludicrous that I do not see why we must inflict this on the rest of Singapore. But since he has mentioned that he wants to repeat this outside, let me ask him now, again, in addition to all the requests made, will he repeat outside the Chamber (a) his defamatory allegations made under privilege about Mr S.R. Nathan; (b) his defamatory allegations made here under the cloak of privilege concerning the Howe family, and (c) what he was asked to repeat outside by the Chief Justice who made the request to the Prime Minister that he repeat the allegations. Will he repeat all these allegations outside?

Mr Jeyaretnam: This is old hat.

Prof. Jayakumar: Will he repeat his allegations outside?

Mr Jeyaretnam: The man refuses to accept the challenge. He refuses to accept the challenge and then he digs up things from the past and says, "Hey, what about that? Why don't you bring it in now?" For goodness sake.

Prof. Jayakumar: Will you repeat those allegations?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Will you accept my challenge?

Prof. Jayakumar: Repeat all those allegations. He doesn't repeat them.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He doesn't accept my challenge.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The Question is the motion* standing in the name of the Member for Anson.

*The motion reads as follows:

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 Jeyaretnam: I ask for a Division, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: All right. Ring the bells.

The House divided: Noes, 34; Ayes, 2; Abstention, 1. Noes Noes (cont.) Abdullah Tarmugi Ow Chin Hock Ahmad Mattar Rajaratnam, S. Ang Kok Peng Tan Cheng Bock Beng Kian Lam, Tan Tee Yong, Philip Arthur Teh Cheang Wan Chandra Das, S. Teo Chong Tee Chin Harn Tong Vasoo, S. Dhanabalan, S. Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri Goh Chok Tong Wong Kan Seng Goh Choon Kang Yatiman Yusof Ho Tat Kin Yeo Choo Kok Ibrahim Othman Yeo Toon Chia Jayakumar, S. Zulkifli bin Mohammed Koh Lip Lin Lai Tha Chai Ayes Lau Ping Sum Lau Teik Soon Chiam See Tong Lee Hsien Loong Jeyaretnam, J.B. Lee Yiok Seng Lee Yock Suan Abstention Leong Horn Kee Ng Kah Ting Tan Soo Khoon

Motion accordingly negatived.