COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (FIRST REPORT) (Paper Parl. 3 of 1987)

The Leader of the House (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their First Report contained in Paper Parl. 3 of 1987 and resolves -

(1) that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam is guilty of abuse of the privileges of Parliament in his allegation of Executive interference in the Judiciary; and

(2) that a fine of $1,000 be imposed upon him.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is just over a year since this House first heard the outrageous allegation that District Judges were under threat or fear of being transferred from their posts when they made decisions which displeased the Executive. The then Member for Anson, Mr Jeyaretnam, made his allegation during the debate on two Bills that were before this House. The allegation was made, as I said, a year ago on 19th January 1986 and it was further embellished and the smear widened to include the Chief Justice in statements that Mr Jeyaretnam made in this House on 19th March during the Committee of Supply's debate. One of the allegations that Mr Jeyaretnam made during the course of that debate was that the three members of the PSC and the Attorney-General who are members of the Legal Service Commission outnumbered the Chief Justice and another Judge of the Committee, and thus insinuated that through these PSC members and the Attorney-General the Government interfered in the decisions of the Legal Service Commission. And he made these allegations specifically when he discussed the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo. During the course of that debate, the Prime Minister produced a note from the Chief Justice which indicated very clearly that the decision to transfer Michael Khoo was taken by the Chief Justice himself. But Mr Jeyaretnam did not accept this note as the final word on the matter and, in fact, challenged the letter and asked who originated or who initiated this decision. Arising out of this, I made a complaint of abuse of privilege which was referred to the Committee of Privileges. I made this complaint because, in spite of the evidence shown to the Member, he did not accept the word of the Chief Justice.

When the Prime Minister made a statement to the House on the 21st March, the debate took a turn which resulted in the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry, and this Commission of Inquiry was established on the 11th April. We all know what happened at this Commission of Inquiry.

The Committee of Privileges in considering the first complaint that I made decided that it would not commence hearings on the complaint until the deliberations of the Commission of Inquiry had been completed and a report had been received. As I said, Members are familiar with the Report of the Commission of Inquiry which was debated in this House on the 29th July 1986. We all know what happened at the Commission of Inquiry - that Mr Jeyaretnam, who loudly proclaimed that he could produce evidence, first insisted that he would not call the witnesses but that the Government should call the witnesses or that he should be given an assurance that the witnesses would be produced. And then in the afternoon he said that he could not give any evidence because it was absolutely prohibited by law.

During the course of the debate on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry, Mr Jeyaretnam repeated the allegations and made further insinuations against the Judiciary. After the debate was over, I made a complaint again of gross abuse of privilege and I moved that this latter complaint should be merged with my first complaint in March and that the two complaints should be considered together by the Committee of Privileges. The Report that is before us today represents the findings of the Committee of Privileges on these two complaints.

The details of each of the allegations made by Mr Jeyaretnam during the course of the debates that I have referred to and the findings on each of the allegations are in the Report. I would just like to take the House through only the main allegations that were made in January and March which gave rise to this complaint.

On 10th January 1986, Mr Jeyaretnam alleged that District Judges were afraid of giving decisions that displeased the Government or the Attorney-General because the PSC members, whom he called "administrative men", and the Attorney-General determined their transfers because they outnumbered the Judges on the Legal Service Commission. On this particular allegation, during the course of the hearings of the Committee of Privileges, Mr Jeyaretnam admitted that the allegation was wrong. But he claimed that he was not aware, that he did not know, that it was the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General to whom the powers had been delegated to determine transfers. He claimed that he only knew of this when the Prime Minister informed him in the House on 19th March. From the Chief Justice's evidence before the Committee of Privileges, it was clear that Mr Jeyaretnam knew that the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General were responsible for transfers, as Mr Jeyaretnam was himself a member of the Legal Service for many years and he was, in fact, the Registrar to the Chief Justice in 1963. Therefore, he was well aware of the procedures and knew that it was the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General who had this function. Thus he made a false allegation, and not only did he make a false allegation but he persisted in it wilfully and without substance. After the matter was clarified in Parliament, he continued to pursue it during the course of the hearings of the Committee of Privileges. The Committee has found that the allegation is without basis and Mr Jeyaretnam, by his own admission, was unable to substantiate it. He never put the question during the course of the hearings to the Chief Justice or the Attorney-General on this matter - whether the three PSC members and the Attorney-General, in fact, overruled the Judges in deliberations of the Legal Service Commission.

Mr Jeyaretnam further alleged in support of his accusation that the Executive determined transfers by giving what he claimed were specific examples of three District Judges who, he claimed, were transferred after they had made decisions that displeased the Government. The three instances he quoted were those of Mr Michael Khoo, Mr Yong Yung Sui and Mr Jeffrey Chan. He dealt at some length with Mr Michael Khoo's case in the first debate and mentioned the instances of Mr Yong Yung Sui and Mr Jeffrey Chan in passing, without mentioning names. But in a subsequent debate on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry in July, he gave details and the names of Mr Yong Yung Sui and Mr Jeffrey Chan. I am not saying that a Subordinate Courts Officer who gives a decision that goes against the Government prosecutor should never be transferred. But what is interesting in the two cases of Mr Yong and Mr Chan, instances which Mr Jeyaretnam claimed he knew of personally, is that the evidence is exactly the opposite of what he claimed. In the case of Mr Yong, evidence was shown that he was promoted seven months after the decision that Mr Jeyaretnam claimed displeased the Executive and transferred out of the Courts and then after another six months, he was transferred back as a Magistrate. It was also shown in the case of Mr Jeffrey Chan that he was transferred at his own request three years after the case that Mr Jeyaretnam referred to. Not only that, Mr Jeffrey Chan had several promotions after this case that Mr Jeyaretnam claimed displeased the Government. And Mr Chan is now a Superscale G officer.

The Chief Justice gave evidence that there was never any request or interference in respect of the transfer of Mr Yong or Mr Chan. These, as I said, were cases that Mr Jeyaretnam claimed he knew, personally, of instances where Magistrates were transferred out because they gave decisions that displeased the Government. The evidence of these two witnesses as well as the Chief Justice clearly showed that Mr Jeyaretnam's allegation was totally unfounded, and this was the Committee's finding.

In the case of Mr Michael Khoo, Mr Jeyaretnam alleged that Mr Khoo was transferred from his post as a Senior District Judge after he had acquitted Mr Jeyaretnam on three criminal charges in January 1984. The Chief Justice testified again in the course of the hearings of the Committee of Privileges that he made the decision to transfer Mr Michael Khoo and that there was absolutely no Executive interference of any kind. Other officers of the Legal Service also gave evidence that neither they nor others with whom they came into contact connected Mr Khoo's transfer with the decision on Mr Jeyaretnam's case. They stated clearly that they saw this transfer as a normal transfer and they also quoted instances where other transfers had taken place at equally short notice. In examining Mr Khoo, Mr Jeyaretnam did not challenge the evidence of Mr Khoo nor did he challenge the evidence of the Chief Justice. Neither did he produce his own evidence to substantiate his allegation that somehow the Executive had interfered and instructed the Chief Justice to transfer Mr Khoo.

The Committee of Privileges found that the allegation that the Executive caused the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo to be wholly untrue and unsubstantiated.

In the course of the debate on 19th March which I referred to earlier, Mr Jeyaretnam also impugned the integrity of the Chief Justice when he did not accept as conclusive the Chief Justice's note to the Prime Minister that he (the Chief Justice) had taken the decision to transfer Mr Khoo. Mr Jeyaretnam wanted to know who "initiated" or who "originated" Mr Khoo's transfer, thus raising doubts about the integrity of the Chief Justice and questioning the words that he had put in the note to the Prime Minister. Mr Jeyaretnam, of course, said, "I accept the note." But immediately after that, he challenged and asked "Who originated? Who initiated? Well, come clean." He spoke with a forked tongue, as the Red Indians would say. And it was clear what he meant, that he did not accept the letter of the Chief Justice. Mr Jeyaretnam did not substantiate or produce any evidence why the Chief Justice's statement should not be the last word on the subject.

The Committee "condemns the conduct of Mr Jeyaretnam in impugning the integrity of the Chief Justice by questioning the Chief Justice's statement contained in his note produced in Parliament on 19th March 1986. We find on all the evidence before us that by questioning the note Mr Jeyaretnam was implying that the Chief Justice had not told the truth. We find the allegation totally unfounded and unsubstantiated."

The Committee also considered the allegation of Mr Jeyaretnam on 19th March, that the prosecution of the Chairman of the Workers' Party, Mr Wong, and himself was politically motivated.

A considerable part of the time of the Committee of Privileges was taken up because the Committee permitted the evidence to be led to show whether the prosecution and subsequent convictions were proper and in accordance with the law. Members of the House, who followed Mr Glenn Knight leading the evidence on this particular allegation, and members of the public must have wondered why the Committee spent so much time on a case that had already been heard before the courts. This was because the Prime Minister told the Committee to consider all the evidence and determine for itself whether the evidence was sufficient for the prosecution and the conviction. If the Committee found that there was no evidence, the Committee was asked to recommend to Parliament that the convictions be set aside. It is for that reason that the Committee spent considerable time considering the evidence led by Mr Glenn Knight.

The Committee was satisfied and concluded that the evidence produced was such that both the prosecution and the conviction were proper and in accordance with the law, and the allegation of Mr Jeyaretnam that the prosecution was politically motivated was a reckless allegation made to take advantage of his Parliamentary immunity.

The Committee also considered other allegations which I will not go into in detail, allegations that the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General were beholden to the Prime Minister; that there was public disquiet at Mr Khoo's transfer as it was linked to Mr Khoo's decision on Mr Jeyaretnam's criminal case; that Mr Khoo was demoted; in fact, he consistently and persistently used the word "removed", that "Mr Khoo was removed"; that the Attorney-General was being groomed by the Government and therefore had some undue influence over the Chief Justice. Having made all these allegations, Mr Jeyaretnam did not produce any evidence to substantiate even a single one of these allegations. Neither did he challenge the witnesses when they gave evidence contrary to these allegations. Mr Jeyaretnam, as I said, did not produce evidence even to back a single one of his allegations.

I would like to make just two general points about the proceedings in the Committee of Privileges and the Report. First, the Committee gave Mr Jeyaretnam maximum latitude to substantiate his allegations by setting aside the normal rules of evidence. The accepted rule designed to protect witnesses from unwarranted attacks in cross-examination is to require the cross-examiner to make out a basis for asking the questions that would otherwise scandalize or defame. The Committee waived this rule. In other words, the Committee did not insist that Mr Jeyaretnam should show before he called the witnesses what he wanted to prove through these witnesses.

Members will recollect that when I moved that the complaint be referred to a Committee of Privileges, he insisted that instead of him calling for the witnesses, we, the Government, should give an undertaking to make available witnesses for his cross-examination. It was clear from his conduct during the hearings why he did not want to call the witnesses but wanted the Government to call them for his cross-examination. He asked for this because he did not know precisely what he wanted to prove through the cross-examination of the witnesses. He was afraid that if he called the witnesses he would have to show what he wanted to prove through them. He therefore wanted the Government to call them so that he could embark on an expedition to fish and hope that in the process of this fishing expedition something would emerge which would support his allegation or which could be of use to him.

When the findings of the Commision of Inquiry were debated in July, the question of another Inquiry was mooted in this House and the Prime Minister many times asked Mr Jeyaretnam for an assurance that he would give evidence. Now, Mr Jeyaretnam is a lawyer and he should know that to give evidence does not mean just to appear to answer questions but to provide, to supply, evidence on his own to back his allegation. Mr Jeyaretnam categorically said that he would give evidence. His whole argument was that if the witnesses were produced he would prove his case. Yet when the key witnesses, including the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General and even the Prime Minister himself were in the stand, he never challenged the evidence or put to them questions to pursue his allegations of his interpretation of their actions. In fact, it was clear that he was on a fishing expedition, as I said, pursuing irrelevant and inane points, hoping that the witnesses would say something that he could chase. It was a pathetic performance, even laughable if it were not for the fact that the allegations were very serious and no laughing matter and the allegations were grave and calculated to injure the national well-being.

The Committee of Privileges has quite rightly concluded that Mr Jeyaretnam showed complete lack of good faith and that he acted with malice. Under the guise of caring for the rights of the Judiciary, he was in fact doing his utmost to undermine it.

The second point that I would like to make is Mr Jeyaretnam's defence that he never made any allegations about the Judiciary or Executive interference in the Judiciary and that he was merely conveying to Parliament public disquiet. Throughout the debates in this House and in the Committee hearings, he now and then made this claim and he seemed to have been torn between wanting to plead this defence and at the same time wanting to give in to his urge to make wild, reckless and unsubstantiated allegations. His urge to vilify always got the better of his discretion.

Members of this House have heard him. They can refresh their memory by reading the relevant portions of the Official Reports of Parliament. The Committee of Privileges went through these portions of the Official Reports and was satisfied that Mr Jeyaretnam made specific allegations and was not merely conveying public disquiet. I would just like to quote two instances to prove this point, lest the public are still under the impression that Mr Jeyaretnam was just merely conveying public disquiet.

The first instance was in the debate on 10th January, and it is in Hansard (Vol. 46, col. 710). Members can judge for themselves whether these words are the words of a man who was concerned with rumours circulating outside about Executive interference in the Judiciary, a man who did not believe these rumours but wanted to draw Parliament's attention so that the Government could clarify. Or whether these are the words of a man who was himself making an accusation and, in fact, quoting public disquiet to buttress his own allegation. In col. 710, he says, in replying to the Second Minister for Law's Statement:

'I mentioned, speaking on the other Bill, about the free transferability of District Judges from the courts to the Attorney-General's Chambers or to other departments. The Minister, in replying, would seem to dismiss the idea that there is any compulsion or there is any fear felt among District Judges about displeasing the Executive. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the beginning of 1984 a Senior District Judge, and he is the head of the Subordinate Courts, a man whose next elevation should be the High Court Bench, delivered judgment in a criminal case. Some months later, he was removed and he was transferred ...'.

This was not just conveying public disquiet. He said he was quoting his own knowledge of a case to back his allegation. Then he said, further down:

'But in this particular case, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Senior District Judge, a very senior qualified man, was removed from that post ... May I say that ... that transfer was a demotion for that District Judge. So much for the independence of the District Judges who administer the criminal law.'

"So much for the independence of the District Judges who administer the criminal law." Are these the words of a man merely conveying public disquiet, or are these the allegations of a man? And further down he quoted another instance, and then "two other instances that I know of personally" and those were the instances I mentioned, Mr Yong and Mr Jeffrey Chan. And he asked (col. 712):

'So what independence of the Subordinate Judiciary is there if the public see these things happening? The District Judges are under threat or fear of being transferred from their posts when they administer justice, whether it is civil or criminal.'

Those are not the words of a man who was merely concerned with rumours and talk in the market and who wanted to convey to Parliament these rumours for the Government to deal with them. Those are the words of a man who was himself making an allegation.

Again, in the other instance which is recorded in Hansard (Vol. 47, col. 706, 19th March 1986) which relates to the letter given by the Chief Justice to the Prime Minister, he asked in these words:

'He [that is the Prime Minister] says the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General were responsible. Who initiated it? How did it come about? Well, come clean.'

These are not the words of a man who was just expressing public disquiet.

Members will recollect that I offered Mr Jeyaretnam at the beginning of the hearings of the Committee of Privileges that if he confirmed that he was not making these allegations, that we had somehow misunderstood him completely, and if he categorically said "I am not making these allegations", then I would withdraw my complaint, and that would be the end of the matter. Mr Jeyaretnam's answer was that he stood by everything that he said, and he further broadened and repeated his allegations during the course of the hearings of the Committee of Privileges. The Committee has found that Mr Jeyaretnam was not able to substantiate any of his allegations. I would like to quote a summary of the Committee's findings in paragraph 5.1, page 20, of the Report:

'General Findings

5.l.l The allegations made by Mr Jeyaretnam are of an extremely serious nature. The allegations accuse the Executive arm of Government of having acted unconstitutionally by interfering with the Judiciary. It was also alleged that the independence, impartiality and integrity of the Judiciary had been compromised. Such allegations erode public confidence in the administration of justice and demanded thorough investigation.

5.1.2 Mr Jeyaretnam wilfully and deliberately made the allegations with full knowledge of their seriousness. He was given several opportunities to apologise and withdraw his allegations in Parliament.

5.1.3 Mr Jeyaretnam has not, at any time, retracted his allegations. Instead, during the Committee's hearings, Mr Jeyaretnam repeated and broadened his allegations.'

And the conclusion, in paragraph 5.1.9, states:

'The Committee find there is no truth in any of Mr Jeyaretnam's allegations and he had no evidence from which he could reasonably base the allegations. Accordingly, the Committee specifically find that Mr Jeyaretnam is guilty of a serious abuse of privilege.'

This whole episode, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, must be considered as a low and shameful point in Singapore's experience of Parliamentary meetings and procedures. These were not merely allegations against persons whether in the House or outside the House. These were not merely distortions of Government policy. These were allegations that were meant to malign and undermine a vital and respected pillar, and institution - of our society, that is, the Judiciary. This is reprehensible behaviour. It is not just a political act against the PAP Government. It is an act against the nation and the people. It is an unpatriotic, anti-national act, inspired by a blind urge to tear down the very pillars of our society.

It is a pity that Mr Jeyaretnam has ceased to be a Member of this House by virtue of the fine of $5,000 imposed by the Court of Appeal. This particular abuse of privilege which I referred to the Committee of Privileges is covered by the law as it was before it was amended. And the maximum penalty that is now available to the House is just a fine of $1,000. I would prefer that this House should have the opportunity to suspend him and to make him apologize for every wild allegation that he has made before he is readmitted to this House. But unfortunately that course is not open to us. To try and describe his reprehensible conduct would be to strain Parliamentary language.

I move, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that we accept the recommendation of the Committee.

Question proposed.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am a member of the Committee of Privileges. When it was recommended that the punishment imposed upon him be approved by Parliament, I thought that we would be here only to discuss the punishment itself. As I said there, I note the Leader of the House is going through the whole case all over again on its merits. We are discussing matters in relation to Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam. And as I said there, it would appear to me that it does not look right. We are talking a lot of things about a man who is not present. It just does not look right to me because he has got no chance to answer. The Leader of the House, in fact, said that it is a pity that Mr Jeyaretnam has not apologized. I do not know. If he were here now, I do not know whether he will apologize. He may have just apologized. So we are saying a lot of things in his absence which is just not right.

I had the impression that this matter would be brought to this House just to discuss the punishment, ie, whether to accept the recommendation of the Committee or whether to set it aside, or whether to increase it or substitute it for some other form of sentence. Perhaps I could be guided on this point whether we are going on the right order of things.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I refer the Member to Standing Order No. 95(7)(e), which he should be aware of, because he is a member of the Committee of Privileges. He should have read all the sections relating to this Committee. It says here:

'The Leader of the House shall, upon receiving notice from the Clerk that copies of a report from the Committee have been made available to Members, give notice of a motion expressing the opinion of Parliament in regard to the report.'

And that is what I have done.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The sentence?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Encik Sidek bin Saniff): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Report made by the Committee of Privileges regarding Mr Jeyaretnam's abuse of privileges of Parliament in his allegations of Executive interference in the Judiciary.

Sir, fighting is an exceptional necessity. It is true in war as well as in peace. The only difference is that in peace we use every available law or legislation to fight the problem or to fight the most potent enemy like untruth. Whether in time of war or in time of crisis, expressing something out of fear, false repetition, hearsay, gossip or rumours can be dangerous because, if true, they may give a wrong impression, a wrong signal; the timid will be frightened; the brave will have some misgivings. But if such rumours are false, they may cause needless fear or unnecessary alarm.

Sir, false news, unfounded rumours will be ammunition to the enemy or those who are envious of us. It will encourage them to strengthen their position. Their stand as well as their posture will be markedly different. In peace-time, untruths can be equally dangerous - politically and economically. Even our very social fabric can be threatened or damaged. So we must check untruth. We must checkmate it. Not to do so is to fall directly into the grip of the unscrupulous. That can cause irreparable damage to property and life.

The decision made to fine the former Member for Anson a sum of $1,000 - it should be more, if possible, or maybe the $25,000 later on in the Second Report - is fair and justified, humane and balanced. Whether one is managing one's home or governing a nation, balance or fair play or justice must be seen and adhered to. Singaporeans should know by now that we have all along tried our very best to look after the affairs of the state or the affairs of the nation with our utmost care.

Mr Chiam See Tong: On a point of clarification. Does the Member realize that the $1,000 is the maximum allowed under the law?

Encik Sidek bin Saniff: I know about that. Maybe we should have reviewed it earlier.

The findings of the Committee and the deliberations of this august Chamber will be for all to see and judge. This is the hallmark of this Government. We will be strong but not arrogant. We will not abuse authority but we will be firm. Any wrongdoing will be nipped in the bud. There is no two-way about it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many a time the unscrupulous and the wicked will try to appeal for the highest sympathies with most honourable motives to deceive and use anybody at all as an instrument for defeating justice. We should be very careful and very cautious about this. We must protect our people against any form of deception. And we have firmness when dealing the strictest justice without fear or favour. To do otherwise is to betray the trust thrust upon us. As trustees, we must defeat all attempts made to mislead the people. This is a sacred trust.

Sir, the gravity of the accusations made by the former MP for Anson we have, if anything, to my mind, been lenient. I believe ultimately, as always, humanity still wins the day as it must. 12.40 pm

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to make a few observations.

First of all, I totally disagree with what the Member for Potong Pasir has just mentioned. The Leader of the House, in moving the motion, said that this House doth adopt the First Report of the Committee of Privileges, particularly when the Member for Potong Pasir said, if I got him right, that we are saying a lot of things about the former Member for Anson who is not present and it is just not right. I thought, Sir, that is already covered in this thick volume which the Leader of the House took us through. Since it is a motion that this House adopts the Report, it naturally follows that a debate can take place and I for one, having gone through part of the Report, heard very clearly in this House too, when the Leader took us through, that every opportunity was given to the former Member for Anson to defend himself. As a result, the Committee's findings are presented to Parliament and that the Leader of the House has asked that this House doth accept the Report and its findings. In that respect, Sir, I beg to support the motion.

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, some people think that although Mr Jeyaretnam has lost his seat in this House, yet Parliament is still discussing about what he had done in this House before. They say this is like hitting an underdog, meaning that we should not be doing this. I would not argue whether Mr Jeyaretnam is an "underdog" or "dog-in-deep-waters". I would only talk about whether underdogs or "dogs-in-deep-waters" should be hit. To those who sympathize with Mr Jeyaretnam, his present situation makes him out to be exactly like an "underdog" or a "dog-in-deep-waters" and these people regard things in the light of and with the feelings for such a "fallen dog" or an "underdog". But we should not forget what a modern Chinese literary master, Lu Xun, had taught in his article "Fair Play" where he talked about this question whether a "dog fallen in deep waters" should be hit or not. According to him, it all depends on how this dog has fallen into the water. Sometimes a fallen dog could be hit and should be hit. For instance, if the dog is very fierce and bites you without provocation or without any reason and you strenuously try to defend yourself and personally beat it down into the water, then you could also use a bamboo pole to hit it as much as you like; yet it is not too much ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have to interrupt on a point of clarification. Is it correct for the Member to refer to Mr Jeyaretnam as a dog?

Mr Deputy Speaker: On what point are you raising? Is the Member giving way?

Mr Goh Choon Kang: No, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: He is not giving way.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: ( In Mandarin): It is very reasonable to hit a biting dog in the water with a bamboo rod. According to Lu Xun's view, any dog that bites people should be hit, whether it is on land or in the water. He is of the opinion that a dog does not know morality or ethical virtues and also a dog can swim. If it happens that the dog is beaten and has fallen into the water, it could still struggle to climb out of the water. It could also shake its body and if you are not careful the water is splashed onto your body. Then the dog will put its tail in between its hind legs and run away. In spite of that, its nature will not change. Honest people would think that if a dog has fallen into the water it will, after it has come out of the water, be repentant and will change its character or nature and would not bite people anymore. But this kind of thinking is very wrong. What I have quoted is the experienced talk of Lu Xun. It is worthy for us to learn the lesson from him.

As regards the predicament of Mr Jeyaretnam today, we should not forget that it has all been caused by himself. He has got himself to blame.

His serious allegations regarding the judiciary, the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, etc have been proved, in the end, to be baseless and without foundation whatsoever. Because there was no foundation or basis for his allegations, he could not stand on his legs, just like choosing to stand on a river where there is no bridge across it. But he chose to stand on it. Of course, naturally he would fall into the water.This cannot be compared with an innocent person who by accident falls into the water. That is to say, a dog which accidentally falls into the water cannot be compared with a dog which has bitten somebody and because of the beating it falls into the river. The two cannot be compared in the same breath.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I feel that the findings of the Committee of Privileges are just and correct, as it has provided ample opportunity for Mr Jeyaretnam to defend himself. However, truth is not on the side of Mr Jeyaretnam. The punishment recommended by the Committee is correct and justified. The abuse of privilege is a serious offence. But as it had been committed before the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act has been amended, the highest penalty that can be imposed now is only $1,000. This does not reflect the seriousness of his offence. Even after the Act is amended, the highest penalty, a fine of $50,000, is still not enough to compensate for the serious damage and harm done to the good image and reputation of the Judiciary which is one of the three main pillars of our democracy, just as the Committee of Privileges has pointed out in its Report, the damage is incalculable.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Question is,

"That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their First Report contained in Paper Parl. 3 of 1987 and resolves -

(1) that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam is guilty of abuse of the privileges of Parliament in his allegation of Executive interference in the Judiciary; and

(2) that a fine of $1,000 be imposed upon him."

As many as are of that opinion, say Aye.

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr Deputy Speaker: To the contrary say No.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I abstain.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I was not a Member of the Committee of Privileges but I have been informed and I have read the Report of the Committee of Privileges. I did not note any abstention or dissenting vote when these two recommendations were made by the Committee of Privileges. So I would like to ask the Member for Potong Pasir what is his position on this.

Mr Chiam See Tong: As far as I was aware, I was absent from one of the meetings, and in a subsequent meeting I was shown that there was a recommendation in respect of item No. 5. But as regards item No. 1, I could not remember when it was recommended. Perhaps we should have a look at the records.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can I be of some assistance? This Report, the draft Report of the Chairman, namely, the Speaker of the House, was made available to Members of the Committee of Privileges and they had it with them before the last meeting held on 19th January, which was a Monday. At that last meeting on Monday, 19th January, the Member for Potong Pasir was present. The Report of that meeting is set out in the last two pages of this volume (Parl. 3 of 1987), pages E12 and E13. If Members refer to it, they will find that the Member for Potong Pasir was present. And on page E13, the decision is that the Committee agreed and resolved that its Report be agreed to.

I also have with me, Sir, the Official Report of the transcript of that meeting. I was a Member of the Committee and I recall (and the transcript bears out) - that the Chairman at the outset of the Committee meeting made it clear that there would not be a minority report and if any Member of the Committee wished to indicate disagreement with the Report or any paragraph of the Report, then the Member must call for a division. And I read from the transcript the words of the Chairman:

'I would like to inform Members that there is no minority report and that no Official Report of the proceedings of the Committee on the Report will be published. If any Member wishes to indicate his dissent in the Report or in a paragraph of the Report, the course for him to take would be to call for a division. For instance, if a Member is against the full Report, then he would call for a division on the Question, "That the Chairman's Report be read a Second time, paragraph by paragraph."

Again, if a Member wishes to voice his disagreement with a particular paragraph, he would claim a division on the Question, "That that paragraph stand part of the Report." I hope I have made myself clear.'

Those are the Chairman's introductory remarks. Then the Chairman went through the Report, paragraph by paragraph, and it was unanimously accepted by the Members of the Committee and no Member, including the Member for Potong Pasir, sought a division on either paragraph or on the Report as a whole. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Leader of the House is surprised. I am also surprised that, after having indicated assent and had not called for a division in the Committee, the Member now here abstains.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I understand it, we are not debating now on the Report itself. We have come here to approve or not to approve the amount as being recommended at the Committee level. This debate ---

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what is the question before the House? The Question is whether we accept the motion of the Leader of the House to accept the Report. Then we must ask, "What is the Report proposing?" That is covered in page 24 because the Committee of Privileges has made two recommendations in paragraph 6.3. The first recommendation is:

'(a) that Parliament find Mr Jeyaretnam guilty of the offence of abuse of privilege;

(b) that Parliament impose upon him a fine of $1000 which is the maximum fine under the Act...'.

These are the recommendations of the Committee of Privileges unanimously agreed to, and that is the issue before the House.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I have said, I do not know whether or not the Minister was reading from the other Report. Which Report are we reading from?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I can help. We are reading from this thick Report (indicating Parl. 3 of 1987). Paragraph 6.3, page 24, which sets out the recommendation of the Committee of Privileges. Has the Member for Potong Pasir got the page? Page 24, paragraph 6.3. It reads:

'Now that the Committee have found that Mr Jeyaretnam is guilty of abuse of privilege the Committee accordingly recommend:-

(a) that Parliament find Mr Jeyaretnam guilty of the offence of abuse of privilege;

(b) that Parliament impose upon him a fine of $1000 which is the maximum fine under the Act prior to its amendment.'

I also find it, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a little surprising that the Member for Potong Pasir can be under the impression that we are discussing the fine without discussing whether Mr Jeyaretnam is guilty or not. How do we impose a fine without having determined whether he is guilty or not? The two go together; they cannot be separated.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. It appears that there is nothing in the Standing Orders to prohibit Mr Chiam from abstaining in spite of the stand that he has taken in Committee. At any rate, the Ayes have it.

Resolved,

That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their First Report contained in Paper Parl. 3 of 1987 and resolves -

(1) that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam is guilty of abuse of the privileges of Parliament in his allegation of Executive interference in the Judiciary; and

(2) that a fine of $1,000 be imposed upon him.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. I suspend the sitting now and will take the Chair again at 2.30 pm.

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