COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE

Prof. S. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Members will recall that at our sitting on 4th March, the Member for Potong Pasir asked the Prime Minister "whether he will call a public inquiry to get to the bottom of (what he termed) the Teh Cheang Wan affair and to make recommendations to prevent further corruption at high places." The Prime Minister said that the Government is ready to have a public inquiry into any matter of public interest so that there can be no question of any cover-up. The Prime Minister repeatedly asked the Member to spell out the terms of reference. It was only after the lunch adjournment that the Member read out his proposed terms, although he said that he had it all the time since that morning.

The Prime Minister pointed out that the terms were ambiguous and suggested that the Member refine them. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister said he was prepared to accept the draft as it was and to gazette it because he would not stop any inquiry. In reply, the Member insisted that "as far as the substance of this reference goes, (that is, the reference of the inquiry that he wanted) it stays." The Member also requested that there should be three commissioners instead of one. In response to the Prime Minister's question whether he would lead evidence on the terms requested by him, he said:

'... not only I will lead in evidence but I have certainly people who are willing to assist me in that area.'

And this was noted by the Prime Minister when he said:

'... as he said he would lead evidence and he will bring people to bring evidence. So be it.'

The Member's final words on the terms were:

'I wish to have these terms of reference written out in a form that is accepted under the Inquiry Commissions Act.'

In deference to the Member's stated desire to recast his terms in an acceptable form, the Government waited for his redraft. On the morning of 23rd March, I asked the Member whether he had a redraft or if his terms read out in the House on 4th March were final. He asked for time, and at about 6.00 pm that day he handed me his revised terms of reference.

I now wish to inform the House that the President has appointed a Commission of Inquiry consisting of three members as proposed by the Member. The Chairman of the Commission will be Judicial Commissioner, Mr Chan Sek Keong, and the other two members will be Mr Robert Iau Kuo Kwong and Mr Thai Chee Ken. The full text of the instrument of appointment signed by the President will be gazetted soon and is now circulated for the information of hon. Members. I shall request the Clerk to kindly distribute the said instrument. [Copies of instrument distributed to hon. Members].

Sir, this instrument reproduces the revised terms of reference submitted by the Member for Potong Pasir in their entirety as terms of reference No.(2) and No.(3). The instrument also records the fact that the Member had undertaken to lead in evidence (the words used by him) relating to those said terms.

If I may turn to another matter, Sir. At our sitting of 4th March, the Member made several references which implied that the CPIB had been less than thorough in their investigation of the case. For example, he asked whether, now that the Minister has died, everything will be closed and covered up. He said that there was "evidence that strange goings-on have taken place. This is indeed very, very strange. So I think there is need for an inquiry into that area." Then referring to a core contractor willing to give a bribe, he said:

'It is no small sum. There must be certainly something behind that. If we dig deep enough, we will find the evidence.'

In other words, he casts a doubt over the thoroughness and effectiveness of CPIB's investigations that they did not dig deep enough.

The Government had expected the Member for Potong Pasir to refine his terms to inquire into the adequacy and efficacy of CPIB's investigations. He has not done this. The Government cannot allow these doubts on the effectiveness of investigations of CPIB to stand unchallenged. Accordingly, before proceeding to investigate the terms of reference which the Member has spelt out, the Commission will first address itself to the first term of reference, and I read:

'(1) To enquire whether -

(a) the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau did all that was necessary to uncover all the acts of corruption or criminal wrongdoing of the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan in investigating complaints of or leads to acts of corruption by the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan as Minister for National Development;

(b) the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau was thorough in their investigations before concluding that there was no involvement by any other Minister, Parliamentary Secretary, or Government officer in these acts of corruption or other criminal wrongdoing;

(c) there has been any attempt to overlook, to conceal or to cover-up any information concerning corruption or criminal wrongdoing.'

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is in the public interest that there can be no suggestion of any concealment or cover- up of any corruption or criminal wrongdoing by the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan or any other Minister or Parliamentary Secretary or Government officer. Therefore, the thoroughness and effectiveness of investigations of the CPIB into the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan should be inquired into by the Commission of Inquiry. With regard to this term, the Deputy Public Prosecutor will lead evidence to show that CPIB carried out its duties effectively and properly. The Director of CPIB will give evidence under this term. After this term of reference has been addressed, the Commission will then address the terms requested by the Member for Potong Pasir. With regard to those terms, he will, as he had undertaken, bring forth his witnesses and lead in evidence.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Deputy Speaker, I must say that the Government do get things done very quickly. My final terms of reference, I believe, were given to the Minister not yesterday but on the 23rd March, and we have here before us the terms of reference in its proper form under the hand of the President. This is the first time I have seen these terms which include the first term of reference which I was unaware of. The reason why I wanted the Prime Minister to call for a public inquiry is because the former Minister has died and there is public interest on the matter. People are talking about it and it is only proper that the Government should let matters be open for the public to see and get their satisfaction, as I said, to the bottom of the matter.

I have not for once accused the Government of cover- up and I hope the Minister will not bring to bear that I was casting any doubts or aspersions or innuendoes on the Government in regard to cover-up. We are also investigating whether or not the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau has done their job properly. I did not say they did not do their job properly. We have to go into that area which is quite separate. In fact, I think it is a completely different issue from what I originally had in mind. What I had in mind was only in matters related to the late Minister for National Development. But, nevertheless, since this has already been given under the hand of the President, I do not think we are in a position now to withdraw this first term of reference. That is in regard to the CPIB.

Of course, we have got the terms of reference before us and I would certainly be writing to the Minister very soon in regard to what is known as the "getting up of the matter" which is no small matter, and the Prime Minister has already given his assurance that all files will be available, and not only available to me and my friends but also we have to go back again to have, maybe, a second look at the files. Also, we would require time to look into these files, adequate time. We do not want it to be a rush job. Certainly we would also require the Government to provide us with the details, maybe an officer of the Police or somebody who has got experience in investigative work with powers to subpoena for bank accounts of persons whom we would like to see. These are essential parts of investigative work.

The other thing is, of course, lawyers are busy people and it is a practice that if their time is taken from their work to do this public service, I think they should be adequately remunerated. I believe there are provisions for this. Perhaps Members are unaware but there is already precedent set on this matter. Perhaps some of the first generation guards, the old guards in this House, will tell you that.

Of course, the composition of the Commissioners has already been decided for us. We note that Mr Chan Sek Keong and two other lay members who are not connected with the Judiciary are acting as Commissioners. These are some of the matters we would be referring to in the letter that I will be sending to the Minister.

The other thing is that it has been stressed that I will be leading evidence. Although the word used is that I will be leading evidence but it is not necessarily so that I shall always be at the stand. There will be other people who will also be leading evidence together with me. I must make that clear, it is not I alone, and for the next 10 days or 20 days, whatever it is, the time that is required in this public inquiry, I will be all the time at the stand. So I must make this clear - that there will be other people who will also be leading evidence.

I would like to also make it clear to this House that if there are any matters which are necessary for us to get evidence, then I hope the Minister will make them available to us and there should be no quibbling as regards time or how we would like to view the files or whether or not we could go back again to view these files. Thank you, Sir.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may touch on the points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir. He commented on the first term of reference. I have explained the reasons why this first term is necessary. I have referred to certain statements that he had made which to any reasonable person reading those statements must imply that the CPIB was less than thorough in its investigations. I am glad to hear him this morning that he did not intend to say that the CPIB did not investigate properly. But I take it that he does not object to this additional term because the Instrument of Appointment incorporates all that he wanted and the Commission's terms of reference will not exclude whatever he wanted. The Instrument includes his terms and more, which is necessary for the reasons I have given.

Second, Sir, he has said that he will be writing to me with various requests. I think it is important to establish one point - that once the Commission of Inquiry has been established, it then is created and has its own life and momentum and the Executive does not interfere with the way the Commission of Inquiry goes about its business. What powers it has are spelt out in the Inquiry Commissions Act (Chapter 48). I will refer him to the provisions and he will note that the Commission has considerable powers of investigation, summoning of witnesses, production of documents, etc. So the requests which he envisages to direct at me, in fact, should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and, when the Commission meets, to the Commissioners themselves, if he finds that his requests have not been adequately dealt with. That is an important point. We have established the Commission. It will be gazetted and thereafter it gets on with the job. The Executive, the Minister for Law, does not give special directions to the Commission and, indeed, it would be improper.

He has said that he hopes that there will not be a rush job, that time will be required. I think this is understandable. Again, this will depend on the Commis- sion. There are certain preliminary matters which will have to be done. There will have to be an advertisement, a public advertisement calling for members of the public who have information or representations to make on any of the terms to submit their views within a specified time, and this will be done. I am sure the Commission will organize its sittings in such a way that all the preliminary work which has to be done and perhaps even requests by the Member for Potong Pasir for whatever information that he needs is obtained by him before they begin to sit. I assume that this will be so. As far as the Government is concerned, we also do not want this to be a rush job and the Commission should take its time with all the preliminary matters before they conduct their public sittings.

He has asked for help by the Police. He hopes the Police will help us - by "us" I take it that he means the Commission of Inquiry. If he will look at the Instrument of Appointment, under the hand of the President, the last page, the Commissioner of Police is directed "to detail police officers to attend upon the Commission for the purpose of preserving order ..., to serve summonses ... perform such ... duties as the Commission may direct."

Then he expressed the hope that the lawyers being busy people, those lawyers I take it from the private sector, I take it including himself, who will be involved in the Commission's proceedings, will be given adequate remuneration. Here, too, Sir, I would like to point out this is not something within my authority to decide. I will refer him to section 7(g) of the Inquiry Commissions Act where the Commissioners have the power to award any person who has attended any meeting of the Commissioners, including interpreters and so forth, such sums as in the opinion of the Commissioners may have been reasonably incurred by him by reason of such attendance. Of course, I do not know how the Commissioners will exercise their discretion. It is up to the Member for Potong Pasir to make a submission to the Commission and it is up to the Commission to exercise its discretion. I understand that in recent Commissions of Inquiry, like the Hotel New World, some of the people in the private sector who gave expert evidence and testimony did not claim any monetary compensation and, perhaps, their view was that they were doing a public service. But it is not for me to tell the Member and his colleagues from the legal profession who are going to help him, whether they should forgo this monetary compensation on a matter of such public interest which, he says, exists in this matter.

Then he said in Parliament that although he has undertaken to lead evidence, he will not always be there - this is something we must leave to him - and that there will be others leading evidence, that he cannot be in the stand all the time. Well, I take it that if he leads evidence, he need not necessarily be in the stand. There is a difference between leading evidence and giving evidence. I am not sure whether there is a confusion here. We have understood him to say that on these terms, on his terms, he will lead in evidence and that he will bring others to give evidence. Quite frankly, I cannot see everybody wanting to lead evidence, but this must be something that we should have to leave to the Commission because, once the Commission is established, they are the masters of their procedure. But, no doubt, I am sure they will take note of the preamble paragraph in the Instrument which notes that the Member in this House had undertaken to lead in evidence. I think I have covered the points, Sir.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is an important document and, as I said, this is the first time I am seeing it this morning and there is a new term of reference and, of course, I am caught by surprise; an element of surprise is there. But, nevertheless, I will go along with it on this part of the evidence. But I suppose the Government will be leading evidence on the first reference. [Interruption] Yes.

The Minister has referred to the Act. If we look at the Act, in fact, this public inquiry is basically the Government's job, not private members of the public. I think it is in the Government's interests to inquire on any matter that has got public interest. I am putting myself, in fact, to do some of the job which the Government should have done in the first place.

As regards remuneration, I am not concerned about myself whether I am paid or not, that makes no difference to me. But I am concerned more with the friends who will be helping me. They are busy people, they have got a practice, a professional practice of their own. I think it is only fair that they should be at least compensated for the time taken. In this kind of work, it is not just attendance on the Inquiry day itself but there is a lot of background work needed and I am sure the Minister realizes that. There will be plenty of time that will be taken off from their work. So I do not think the Minister should make this payment into an issue.

As regards the advertisement, I think this is necessary to notify members of the public to come forward and give any evidence which they have. But I hope that before this advertisement is inserted, I will be consulted in regard to how it is worded because, of course, we already have this advertisement in mind.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the Minister has said that he is not involved in this matter since the Commission has been involved, I hope that I will be hearing from the Secretary of the Commission very soon on this matter.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may join in the debate here. Sir, as I understand the issue, the question of the Commission of Inquiry did not arise from any Member of the Government; but as a result of the suggestion or the proposal by the Member for Potong Pasir, we now have this Commission of Inquiry. And as I understand it, it is going to take time, it is going to involve a lot of people, so a lot of public money is going to be involved in the process.

I was glad to hear that the Member for Potong Pasir is indifferent whether he is going to be paid or not. Sir, we all recognize that, as Members of Parliament elected by the people to represent the interests of the people, we ought to give of ourselves to the public. We are paid an allowance for that purpose and, therefore, if we choose to raise matters concerning public interest, there is no reason why we should expect additional payment. What I would like is an undertaking from the Member for Potong Pasir that he will gladly give his services free. In other words, even if the money is offered to him for his time and services, he will refrain from taking it.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, perhaps I could urge the Member for Whampoa and others who are intending to speak that we should not have a long debate on this. I have said that it is up to the Commission to decide whether it wants to exercise its discretion to make any payments. The Member for Potong Pasir has made his point and I think these are matters which should be taken up in the Commission of Inquiry.

Two small points. Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir said that it is the Government which must do the job on this Commission of Inquiry with regard to his terms of reference. I think it is necessary for me to place on record who wanted this Commission of Inquiry. If we refresh our memory of the debate on the 4th March, it was the Member for Potong Pasir who wanted it. The Prime Minister made it clear that, as far as the Government was concerned, we had nothing to hide. But it was not the Government which wanted the Commission of Inquiry; he wanted the Commission. The Government responded that if he wanted the Commission, we will agree to the establishment of the Commission, and he agreed to lead evidence. I think we should get that clearly on the record.

As to the terms of the advertisement, Sir, these are matters which must be determined by the Commission and by the Commission themselves. There are set forms and precedents on this matter, and it is up to the Commission to decide whether they want to consult him at all. I would have thought that the Commission would proceed on the basis that other Commissions have proceeded and use the formula and format which have been used from time immemorial. Thank you, Sir.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I just got one point to make. It is true that I was the one who put the question to the Prime Minister. But the Minister will certainly realize that when I am standing here, I do not speak on my own behalf. It is not I who want this public inquiry. I have got feedback. People talk to me and I assess what the people want, and that is how I get the question framed and put before the Prime Minister in this House. I think the Minister must get it very clear. Whenever I am standing here speaking, I am not speaking on my behalf. I am the voice, basically, the voice of Potong Pasir but generally the voice of the people of Singapore. You cannot say that just because the Government has not taken the initiative, I am the one who want it. I do not think that is the correct position.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I did not get the response to my question. I would like an explicit commitment on the part of the Member for Potong Pasir that he will refuse any remuneration for his work before this Commission. And I would like to make an additional suggestion to him, that since he represents the Singapore Democratic Party, perhaps his Party can bear the expenses for the entire Commission.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are talking of serious matters but the Member for Whampoa did not seem to understand what the Minister has said. As regards remuneration and payment, the Minister has spelt it out quite clearly that it is for the Commission to decide. If the Commission decides to pay me for my services, it is for me to decide whether to take it or to donate it to a charitable organization. But it makes no difference whether I am paid or not, as far as I am concerned. But I am concerned for the people who assist me. If I am paid, of course, I will make sure that it is given to a good cause.

Dr Augustine Tan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Council of Social Services will be glad to receive the remuneration that will be due to the Member and I gladly accept on behalf of the Council.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Prof Jayakumar, do you wish to continue?

Prof. Jayakumar: All I wish to say, Sir, is to repeat again that whether or not the Member likes to believe that he represents the masses, the point is that at the sitting on 4th March, we made it clear that the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry on those terms as read out by him was in response to his request. He made the request and we responded on the grounds that we do not want to give any impression that there is any matter of public interest on which we want to conceal or cover up. And to quote the words of the Prime Minister, he said, "I assume that the Member will lead evidence. Because we have not seen the need for this Inquiry." It is the Member who wanted the inquiry and I think we must get that on record.