COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (SECOND REPORT) (Paper Parl. 4 of 1987)

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

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 Second Report contained in Paper Parl. 4 of 1987 and resolves -

(1) that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam is guilty of contempt of the Committee of Privileges and of Parliament by his publication of the five offending newsletters relating to the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges between 8th and 12th September, 1986; and

(2) that a fine of $5,000 for each of the five offending letters be imposed upon him.

Sir, under section 30(h) of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, it is an offence for any person to "publish wilfully any false or perverted report or any writing containing a gross or scandalous misrepresentation of any debate or proceedings of Parliament, or of any speech of a member in Parliament".

During the hearings of the Committee of Privileges on the complaint of allegations of Executive interference in the Judiciary, Mr Jeyaretnam issued a daily letter to his constituents purporting to give some account of the proceedings. He issued five letters in all. Every letter had a distortion which amounted to a perverted, biased or injurious report or misrepresentation of what actually transpired in the Committee.

The Committee considered my complaint regarding these letters. The Committee examined these letters and found in each of them wilful distortions.

Mr Jeyaretnam claimed in defence that his letters were not verbatim reports but selective. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is not necessary that the proceedings be quoted verbatim. But whatever is reported of the proceedings must be true and fair. For example, if five reasons were given in the proceedings and the Member said five reasons were given and quoted only one reason, that is not a verbatim report but it is a fair report. But if he said only one reason was given, then that is a perversion. It was clear, from the way he selected the proceedings of the Committee, that his reports were intended to distort what was presented by the witnesses before the Committee.

Let me just take one example. In the letter of 12th September (Day 5), page A 11, if I may refer Members to the Report, in the examination of Mr Yong Yung Sui, this was what Mr Jeyaretnam reported to his constituents:

'After him Mr Yong Yung Sui gave evidence and he confirmed that seven months after he had acquitted an accused for using criminal force on a high ranking police officer he was transferred out of the courts.'

This quotation that I have just read clearly indicates that Mr Yong confirmed what Mr Jeyaretnam alleged in Parliament, that he was transferred after he had acquitted and that this, of course, was a form of expressing displeasure. This was a clear case where Mr Jeyaretnam deliberately did not want to publicize evidence that went against his allegation.

Mr Jeyaretnam first made this allegation on 10th January without mentioning names. Then on 29th July, he gave specific details and I refer to Hansard, Vol. 48, No. 2, col. 154. He says here of Mr Yong:

'Shortly after that he was transferred, taken out of the courts. And he has never returned to the court, as far as I know.'

That was what he said on 29th July.

When Mr Yong appeared before the Committee of Privileges, Mr Jeyaretnam put this question specifically to him on page D 425, Question 2709. I quote again. This is Mr Jeyaretnam speaking:

'That is five months, about six months or so after that. Have you ever been back to the Magistrates' Courts after that? --- [Mr Yong answered] Yes. I was transferred back again, yes.'

So Mr Jeyaretnam got an answer that he did not like because it did not prove his allegation. He therefore very conveniently suppressed this fact when he wrote his newsletter and told only a half truth that was misleading.

I do not intend, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to go through the other distortions. For example, there was a serious distortion about what the Chief Justice said regarding the reasons for Mr Michael Khoo's transfer. The exchange between the Chief Justice and Mr Jeyaretnam in the Committee of Privileges is recorded in the Report of the Committee of Privileges where, as the Committee itself said (page 6):

'It is clear from the above [ie questions that Mr Jeyaretnam put to the Chief Justice] that Mr Jeyaretnam strenuously attempted, but failed, to get the Chief Justice to say that there was no reason for the transfer.'

But in the letter, he tried to convey precisely the opposite, ie, there was no reason.

All these offences of contempt, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, were found by the Committee to be serious and I would like to quote from their Conclusion and Recommendation, page 9 of the Report, paragraphs 30 to 32:

'30. From the above examination of the letters against the actual proceedings in the Committee of Privileges, the Committee are of the view that each of the five letters contains wilful distortions and misrepresentations calculated to mislead the readers. They were not only not a true and fair report, but they were gross distortions of the Committee's proceedings.

31. The Committee do not accept Mr Jeyaretnam's statement that he was being selective or did not intend his letters to be a verbatim report to be a valid excuse for such gross distortions in letters which he published for five consecutive days.

32. The Committee accordingly find Mr Jeyaretnam guilty of contempt of the Committee and of Parliament in respect of each of the five offending letters.'

These offences of contempt come under the new provisions of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act under which one of the penalties is a maximum fine of $50,000 for each offence. Mr Jeyaretnam committed five offences of contempt and each of them can be subject to a fine of $50,000. The Committee has, however, recommended that Mr Jeyaretnam be fined $5,000 for each offence.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that we accept the Committee's recommendations. 2.41 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, again, I am a Member of the Committee of Privileges. I would like to say that I was against the recommendation for the punishment of a fine $5,000 per letter written by Mr Jeyaretnam. In all, if this punishment is agreed to by the House, Mr Jeyaretnam would suffer a fine of $25,000. What I recommend to the House is just to admonish him. There is such a provision in the law where the Committee could mete out this punishment. So it is not outside the powers of the Committee of Privileges or of Parliament.

Again, I would like to make a comment that normally in court where a defendant or an accused person is convicted and sentenced, he must be present. No court will convict a person if he is absent from the court. As far as I know, it is never done.

An hon. Member: This is not a court.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Parliament is a court, the highest court in the land.

It is regrettable that we are straying away from this practice because it is only fair for the defendant to have a say. I would say that if the sentence is passed or agreed to by Parliament, it is manifestly excessive, $5,000 for one newsletter written in the heat and the pressure and stress of the five-day hearings of the Committee of Privileges under the glare of the spotlight and it was an open public hearing. He had to rush home, gather his thoughts, put it down in writing, get it printed and distributed. I do not know how many copies were really distributed and what damage could have resulted. I think this was left out.

Normally, when a sentence or punishment is meted out, it is just either punishment for the offence or sometimes it is as a form of deterrence so that the person will not repeat the offence and to make sure that others do not commit the same offence. But in this case, if Parliament imposes a $25,000 fine on him, it would appear to be a form of deterrence rather than just punishment for the offence.

Now, Mr Jeyaretnam is already out of Parliament. I cannot imagine him wanting to report on any of the sittings of Parliament and even on Parliament itself and distribute it to the public. I just cannot imagine that. I do not think he will ever do that. So there is no question of repeating the offence of writing newsletters for as long as he is not a Member.

As regards deterrence, I think that is definitely out. For punishment, there must be gravity. What is the gravity? Has he really undermined the system? Has he really created such a national problem? Or is he a security threat to the country? Or is he somebody that has to be punished severely because of some very serious danger to the Parliamentary system in Singapore? What is it actually? They say, "Of course, it is contempt or a breach of privilege of Parliament." A breach of privilege of Parliament can rank from just calling a fellow Member a dog perhaps. We can call that a breach of privilege of Parliament. But in his case they say there is distortion, there is misrepresentation of what he wrote. But again we have to look at the surrounding circumstances. He was not reporting word for word. He had an impression and he reported on it. And for that he is being punished $5,000 for each newsletter written. I think we have to be objective. Let us not lose sight of the offence and what consequences it would bring. So I would urge Members here to give it close scrutiny and to know exactly what they are voting for. If they feel that the punishment is too excessive, then I would say, "Do not be afraid to speak up."

Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is natural to expect those who seek to become representatives of the people to be persons who place the interests of the people first and foremost. Any person, once elected by the people, must always seek the truth and speak the truth. Without adhering to this fundamental principle, public debate degenerates into a game of deception. How can the public interest be served then?

From what the Member for Potong Pasir has said, the debate may be on how much we value the truth. Thus the motion before us is whether the fine of $5,000 per offence is too severe or not severe enough. I think it is worse if we, as a Parliament, do not exercise our responsibility to punish a duly elected Member of Parliament who misrepresents what actually happens in any of our proceedings. It is even more serious when these are proceedings of the highest body in the country, Parliament and its Committees. Can we afford to allow this to happen? If we, as Members of Parliament, do not set the example, then how can we enforce the law? How can we uphold the system? If we allow Parliament to be misrepresented, then the logical consequence is the erosion of public confidence in Parliament. Can we afford the erosion of public confidence in the highest body of the land? If people do not have faith in Parliament, it would not be possible to conduct public affairs and all systems will break down. That is why the action of the former Member for Anson must be dealt with promptly and firmly. There is no other authority in the land that can keep this House in order. It is for us, the Members of this House, to keep our House in order.

When any Member has breached Parliamentary privilege and misrepresented proceedings of Parliament or its Committees, it is our unpleasant duty to take disciplinary action.

I concur with the Committee of Privileges' findings and support the motion, and urge my fellow Members to do likewise.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Kampong Ubi): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, permit me to respond to the Second Report tabled by the Leader of the House. We witnessed this morning the recommendation contained in the First Report of the Committee of Privileges that the former Member for Anson was found guilty of contempt of the Committee of Privileges and of Parliament. The essence of his offence lies in his allegation that the administration of the Judiciary is tarnished thereby raising doubts about the sanctity of our laws. He casts aspersions that the Judiciary is being manipulated, influenced and interfered with. However, we all know that the Committee of Privileges in its First Report has totally repudiated all these smears made by the ex Member for Anson as untruths. We are now debating the Second Report of the Committee of Privileges which accuses Mr Jeyaretnam of wilful distortion and misrepresentation of the proceedings of Parliament in his five newsletters addressed to his constituents. The Second Report has vehemently rejected his unfounded allegations. My reaction to both these Reports is that the former Member for Anson was robust enough to challenge our judicial system as well as the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges. I liken him to a bulldozer that crushes anything in its path without realizing that in the process the bulldozer itself might be damaged. The two Reports have now clearly proven that he, Mr Jeyaretnam, like the bulldozer, has become a casualty as a result of his own recklessness. But more importantly, we should attempt to evaluate the quality and personality of the Opposition in this House. Do we need an Opposition of the quality and personality of the former Member for Anson? Do we need an Opposition of the quality and personality that distorts truthful reports? Do we need an Opposition that cannot offer constructive contributions to the proceedings of our Parliament?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there may perhaps be quarters that applaud and consider the former Member for Anson as a political hero. Maybe some regard him as a political hero who can rock the stability of this Government. But we have seen what has been exposed by the two Reports that he is masquerading as a political hero, a political hero masquerading in the name of justice, a political hero masquerading in the name of the sanctity of justice, and a political hero who ostensibly wishes to uphold the pillar of justice. The two reports have clearly unmasked his pretensions and, further, arising out of these reports has emerged a pattern of politics that is blurred and obscured. But what is more important to me is that these reports form an object lesson to our people, especially the voters of Singapore. Do we need an Opposition which, since its entry into Parliament, I think, want to snare the Government but eventually got itself trapped? This brings to memory a folklore in Malay literature. We all know the story of Pak Pandir who was always doing a good turn to others. But because of his ignorance and stupidity, he got himself entangled and finally destroyed. I liken the brand of politics as practised by the Opposition to that of the modern Pak Pandir. Why do I say that this is the brand of politics of the modern Pak Pandir? If Mr Jeyaretnam is a person of modern politics, certainly we must have heard from him cogent arguments. If he represents a man of modern politics, he must possess rational thinking. Again, if he is a man of modern politics, we must have discerned the progressive elements in his arguments, but the two Reports have shown that the arguments he had advanced so far were intended to destroy our present political system. His arguments are retrogressive, lacking in substance. This is what I mean when I say that he depicts the modern Pak Pandir, except that in the course of embarking in politics of this nature the humorous aspects which are present in the folklore of Pak Pandir are absent.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, nobody can prevent the Opposition from continuing to indulge in this kind of politicking. This reminds me of yet another folklore character, Lunchai, who jumped into the river with his pumpkin. If there are people who have a penchant to indulge in the politics of modern Pak Pandir, let them jump into the sea with their pumpkins.

The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I say a few words? I have listened to the Member for Potong Pasir and I noted that most of his comments were devoted to the question of penalty. But at the same time he also did comment that in his view Mr Jeyaretnam spoke in the heat of the moment and all the surrounding circumstances should be taken into account. This puzzles me because I wonder whether he was also disagreeing with the finding of the Committee of Privileges that Mr Jeyaretnam was guilty.

As a member of the Committee, I recall that the hon. Member for Potong Pasir did, during the Committee hearings, express his views on the question of penalty. But on the rest of the Report, including paragraph 32, where there is a finding of guilt by the Committee, the Member for Potong Pasir did not express dissent nor did he ask for a division. I would take it that this afternoon he is not really disagreeing with the finding of guilt. If so, I think he should make it very clear.

Secondly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, he spoke about the opportunity to be heard. The fact is that the Committee did invite Mr Jeyaretnam to give his views on the complaint of the Leader of the House. He did send in his written representations and these were considered by the Committee.

Finally, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir suggested that the most appropriate penalty would be not a fine but for Mr Jeyaretnam to be reprimanded under the provisions of the Act. If one looks at section 20 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, as amended, section 20 provides for four different types of penalties. First, committal to prison. Second, a fine not exceeding $50,000. Third, suspension. I think that if Mr Jeyaretnam was still a Member of the House, the Committee may well have taken the view that these contempts were so serious as to even warrant consideration of a penalty of suspension. But he was no longer a Member of the House. That is why the Committee considered a fine to be appropriate.

As regards reprimand, section 20(1)(d) says that Parliament may "direct that he be reprimanded or admonished in his place (ie, in his place in this Chamber) by the Speaker." But the Member for Potong Pasir must know that the previous Member for Anson lost his right to the seat and this penalty does not arise any more.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose -

Mr Deputy Speaker: You have already spoken once on the motion, Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong resumed his seat.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I suggest that after I have made two points, the Member for Potong Pasir be given the opportunity to say what he wants.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Thank you.

Mr Dhanabalan: The Member has raised a number of points which my colleague has answered. I just would like to touch on two points. The Member asked whether this offence is serious enough to warrant the recommendation of a $5,000 fine for each of the contempts committed against the Committee. We cannot allow Parlia- mentary proceedings to be treated with contempt, without any respect. We have had many examples of the former Member for Anson treating the proceedings of the Committee as well as this Parliament without the respect that is due to Parliament.

Regarding the specific offence of publishing distorted proceedings of a Committee, it is because it is a serious offence that there is a specific provision in the law that there cannot be wilful distortion of anything that a Member says in Parliament or of any proceedings of Parliament or any Committee of Parliament. It is a serious offence, and that is why it is specifically dealt with in the law, and I think that the penalty should not only be punitive but also a deterrent not only to the former Member for Anson but also to others - that they cannot treat Parliamentary proceedings with contempt.

Secondly, the Member has made the point, and he made the point again this morning, that it is not fair to discuss the conduct of anybody in Parliament because that person is not here; it is against the rules of natural justice and this never happens in court. Parliament can, of course, choose if it wants to, ie, Parliament as a whole, hear a witness or deal with an offence with Parliament constituting itself into a Committee of the whole House. But there is specific provision in the Standing Orders for Parliament to form this Committee of Privileges to deal with these offences and for people against whom complaints are made to appear before the Committee or to make representations before the Committee. The Committee can hear them, cross-examine them, and then find whether that person is guilty or not guilty and make its recommendation to Parliament as a whole. That is what has happened in this particular case.

In the Report that we discussed this morning, the Member had full opportunity. In this Second Report, the Member was asked to explain and he explained and the Committee could have heard him. I do not know whether the Member for Potong Pasir wanted to hear Mr Jeyaretnam. I do not have the record of the proceedings. I assume he did not. Well, Mr Jeyaretnam made his representations. The Committee considered and came to the conclusion that his explanation did not justify what he did, and found him guilty and has recommended accordingly. I think the fine is not excessive. It is, in fact, only one-tenth of what Parliament can impose; it should be punitive as well as a deterrent.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point brought up by the Minister is whether or not I agreed with the findings of the Committee that he is guilty. The fact that I had suggested a form of punishment, what does it mean? Can you punish a person without finding him guilty? You are a lawyer. You are a Professor of Law; so I cannot understand why you asked me this question.

Again, there are prominent lawyers in this House. There is a practice or custom - or now it is probably made law - that a person who he is about to be found guilty and punished is normally required to be present. This practice was started not only recently. It goes back to English history, probably 300 or 400 years ago. There must be a reason for it. Probably there might be a last minute plea or whatever you want to take note which might change the whole course of this debate here. The English have in their wisdom this procedure because of certain things that may happen at the last moment. You are going to find a person guilty and he is not present here. The world will be laughing at us.

Prof. Jayakumar: Point of clarification, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Are you giving way, Mr Chiam?

Mr Chiam See Tong: All right, I give way.

Prof. Jayakumar: Could he produce authorities such as Erskine May to show us that this is so in Parliamentary practice in the United Kingdom or elsewhere?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think we are all intelligent people. We are all people of wisdom. Now out of the blue, you want me to produce authorities from Erskine May. I have been reading Erskine May and I have looked at all the footnotes. I do not think we have all those authorities in this Library. Do we have it here?

Some hon. Members: Yes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have never made research here but I am not sure whether you have authorities in our Library.

The Prime Minister: The Librarian will only be too happy to oblige.

Mr Deputy Speaker: If you like a copy of Erskine May, the Clerk will produce it for you.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I do not want Erskine May now. I have looked at Erskine May and there are many, many footnotes and references to all the decided cases.

The Prime Minister: Very confusing.

Mr Chiam See Tong: My point is that we are setting a precedent here and you are going to find a person guilty and to punish him with a fine in his absence. This goes against the grain of every trained lawyer in this House.

The Senior Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr S. Rajaratnam): Untrained lawyers too!

Mr Chiam See Tong: I know of the trained lawyers but I do not know who are the untrained ones. Anyway, my point is made. It is up to the House whether to take my point or not. If we are going to find a person guilty, he should be present and maybe even given a chance to mitigate or given a lesser sentence.

As regards the law, I think there is a provision which says that a stranger can be admonished. This is rather conflicting because when the offence was committed, he was a Member and now he is a stranger to this House. It is a question of interpretation. So we have a moot point there.

One point the Leader brought up which I think he wants me to answer is about conduct. Did you want me to answer a point?

Mr Dhanabalan: No.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to speak a second time.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to pursue this point because it will not be fair if we give the impression that we have gone against precedents or rules of natural justice. The Member for Potong Pasir said that we are going against all precedents in imposing a fine on a person who is not here. We would like him to quote the precedents so that we will know exactly where we stand. Erskine May is there. How can we break precedents unless he quotes us precedents? If the Member can quote us any precedent, then maybe he has got a case we can reconsider.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I also point out that it is very convenient to say, when at a loss for argument, that the point is a moot point. The question is: was the contempt by Mr Jeyaretnam committed when he was a stranger, or was it committed when he was a Member of Parliament? If it was committed when he was a Member of Parliament, section 20 applies. If it was committed when he was a stranger, then section 20(3) applies. Quite clearly, it was committed when he was a Member of Parliament.

Mr Chiam See Tong: He is not sitting here now, is he?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Are you going to quote precedents? I will allow you to take the Floor again.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Precedent on what?

Mr Deputy Speaker: The point that the Leader of the House has raised.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since we are quite early in the stage of our proceedings today, perhaps we can take a ten-minute adjournment for the Member for Potong Pasir to come up with a precedent if he wants to avail himself of the time.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I think that is a good suggestion.

Mr Dhanabalan: It is a very good suggestion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. We would like to know whether he can quote precedents either in the UK or anywhere else where, after the Committee of Privileges has considered a matter and come to a conclusion and makes a recommendation to Parliament, Parliament is required to have the Member against whom a complaint has been made to be present when Parliament debates and accepts the recommendation of the Committee.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I just be allowed to answer that. The precedent which I referred to is a precedent in court, and I said that Parliament was the highest court of the land. I never said Parliament as Parliament. I would say now that I have not looked at Erskine May and come across this kind of precedent. But the important point here is that we ourselves are setting a precedent for future Parliaments to follow.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I will suspend the Sitting now and will take the Chair again at 3.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.15 pm until 3.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Question is, the Motion so moved by the Leader of the House. Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what exactly do you call me for?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, when the House took a suspension earlier on, you were having the Floor and you were asked to come back and give your precedent. So I am giving you the Floor.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have been asked to give a precedent. Assuming I come up with a precedent - this is like playing poker, does he have the card or I have the card? If I have it, what then? Are you going to call Mr Jeyaretnam, or what?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, I have looked up Erskine May, and I thought I found something in the Australian precedent in 1955 House of Representatives there. But I asked for this report; unfortunately it was not there. What I am going to say is that in 15 minutes' time I am not going to find on all fours, as in Court we say, a case which will fit exactly. But I thought I found something there and it was not in the Library. Maybe more time could be given for research, we could look up the matter. I don't know. In 15 minutes I flipped through the page on Privileges content. Of course, Parliament has powers to call witnesses and there is a provision, as the Minister has said. But as regards precedent on all fours, well, at the moment I do not have it. But I thought I saw something there. Unfortunately, this particular report was not in the Library.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, we are deadly serious. If it is alleged that we have not followed the law and if he can give us the precedent, we will follow the law. The Member for Potong Pasir said that he thought he saw a precedent, an Australian case ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: I saw something there, please!

Prof. Jayakumar: Could he tell us which authority or which page of Erskine May this authority is referred to? And what is the proposition of law concerning hearing that this Australian case is authority for?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I thought you would like to call for Erskine May at the Library, please. [Copy of Erksine May's "Parliamentary Practice" handed to Mr Chiam.]

Mr Chiam See Tong: Is this the 20th edition?

Prof. Jayakumar: Yes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Perhaps you should call for the copy that I looked at. I made a mark there. It is on page 125. Have you got page 125? You look at footnote 20.

Prof. Jayakumar: May I ask which particular proposition on page 125 is he relying on?

Mr Chiam See Tong: "For sentences of imprisonment imposed by the Australian House of Representatives in 1955 see House of Representatives Debates."

The Prime Minister: We are not imposing a sentence of imprisonment.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, that is a sentence. Nevertheless, it is a sentence. We want to see whether there is a need for the defendant to be in the House. That is the point in issue now.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this authority referred to is Erskine May in the Chapter on Committal to Prison. May I ask, where is the authority for the proposition that before the Committee can impose a fine or the House can impose punishment or fine for contempt, we must call the Member or the former Member before us in this House? Where is this precedent?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Please, Professor. Our point here is whether or not we should or should not be calling Mr Jeyaretnam whom we are going to pronounce guilty and on whom we are going to impose a fine. That is the issue before us at the moment. So you are asking me to look for a precedent to say that on all such occasions the defendant must be called, otherwise we cannot impose a fine. Is that not an issue now?

But what I am saying is that we are setting a precedent here. To me, as trained in the law, I am giving an opinion, that is, I think that Mr Jeyaretnam should be called. I say yes, you say no; so what? And now you want me to look for a precedent. It takes time, isn't it? I am not sure whether I can find one. But the point I am making is - this is what I think and this is my opinion, and if you does not accept it, as always this House does not accept it, so be it. But what I am trying here is to put a point across. Is that wrong? That is certainly not wrong. I think every Member of Parliament here is entitled to put forth his opinion. And when I put forth an opinion, you say, "Go and look for a precedent." Please. What are we becoming now? We are taking up precious Ministers' time looking for precedents.

An hon. Member: You are.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Which normally is done by legal assistants or pupil lawyers. We here are all Members of Parliament. You give us time to go and do research on this kind of thing? I do not know what is becoming of our Singapore Parliament.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are not going through this exercise just to have fun. It is a very serious matter.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What serious matter? Everything is serious to me.

Mr Dhanabalan: The Committee of Privileges made a Report. It specifically found Mr Jeyaretnam guilty and recommended an appropriate penalty. This Report was circulated to all the Members. The Member for Potong Pasir was a Member of the Committee. So he was aware of the Committee's conclusion and the recommendations long before even the other Members knew. He had notice of the motion that I have moved. He has made out that this is an important point - that Mr Jeyaretnam should be present when Parliament decides. One would have thought that if he thought this was an important point and if he felt strongly, he should have come here prepared to make out a case. Our time is being wasted because he has not prepared himself. He has come here and just shot off an argument. We have asked him to substantiate his argument and as a result we have had to adjourn. He should produce precedents because he says, "We are setting a precedent."

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course you are.

Mr Dhanabalan: All right. If we are setting a precedent, it means that we are not following past practice. That is when a precedent is set. Right? We are setting a new precedent, you said. That means we are not following past practice and we said, "Please show us the past practice." I would have thought the Member would have come prepared to make this very important point - that justice has not been done in this House because Mr Jeyaretnam has not been called to appear before this House. Well, it is fair, I think, for him to produce the past practice to show that we are not following past practice and setting a dangerous precedent.

An hon. Member: He does not understand the word or meaning of "precedent".

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, where we do not have any precedents in Singapore of our own, we are guided by the practice in the United Kingdom House of Commons. The Member for Potong Pasir has not cited a precedent but may I refer him to page ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think you are getting me into a position which I need not be in. Am I not entitled to come to this House and give an opinion? Am I not entitled to? You just answer me on this point.

Prof. Jayakumar: The Member for Potong Pasir, like all Members, of course, has a right to express an opinion.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course.

Prof. Jayakumar: But where the opinion expresses a view that this House is deviating from a particular procedure or has not followed what the Member considers to be a proper procedure, then the question arises from that Member's opinion, what is the proper procedure? The implication of what the Member for Potong Pasir has said is that there is a proper procedure which calls ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Where did I say that?

Prof. Jayakumar: --- for the previous Member for Anson to have a right to be heard in this House before this House inflicts the penalty of a fine. Now I refer the Member for Potong Pasir to page 171 of Erskine May. I read:

'If the committee reports that a serious breach of privilege has been committed, the House usually proceeds to consider the kind or degree of punishment which it would be proper to inflict on the offender.'

Then I refer him to page 175:

'A Member not yet adjudged guilty of contempt may return to his place [this of course is talking of Members who are still Members of the House] when debate on his conduct has been adjourned, but it is otherwise if he has been adjudged guilty, even though debate on the question of the punishment to be inflicted on him has been adjourned.'

And a precedent is cited therein. And I quote the precedent:

'A request, made through another Member, that a Member who had been adjudged guilty of a contempt, but whose punishment had not been determined upon, might be heard in his place has not been acceded to.'

I repeat:

'A request, made through another Member, that a Member who had been adjudged guilty of a contempt, but whose punishment had not been determined upon, might be heard in his place has not been acceded to.'

What more of a person who has ceased to be a Member?

Mr Chiam See Tong: So what? He has already been adjudged guilty. Please! Look at it properly. He has been adjudged guilty of contempt. We are going to pronounce it here. He is not guilty yet.

An hon. Member: But the Committee has.

Mr Chiam See Tong: We have not moved the motion yet.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Motion has been moved. Are you replying, Mr Dhanabalan?

Mr Dhanabalan: It is a very simple point. The Member for Potong Pasir says that Mr Jeyaretnam should be here. We are prepared to have him here if he can tell us past practice and that we ought to follow this past practice. We want to follow the procedures properly. If the Member for Potong Pasir still insists that following past practice would mean that Mr Jeyaretnam should be here, we are prepared to have him here. That is all we are asking. If he cannot make out a case, then I think we should proceed with the motion that I have moved.

Prof. Jayakumar: One final point, Sir. The Member for Potong Pasir in the Committee never made a request for Mr Jeyaretnam to be called, to be heard in person, either on the charge or on the penalty. I also refer him to page 172 of Erskine May which says:

'In some cases the House, after agreeing to the report, has then proceeded to adjudge the offender guilty of a breach of privilege or of a contempt ... This step, however, is unnecessary in cases where the committee has reported that, in its opinion, the person implicated has been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, or of an offence which amounts on the face of it to a breach of privilege.'

And there has been no hearing.

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is neither here nor there.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Second Report contained in Paper Parl. 4 of 1987 and resolves -

(1) that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam is guilty of contempt of the Committee of Privileges and of Parliament by his publication of the five offending newsletters relating to the proceedings of the Committee of Privileges between 8th and 12th September, 1986; and

(2) that a fine of $5,000 for each of the five offending letters be imposed upon him.