COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (THIRD REPORT)

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Sir, it is my most unpleasant duty as well as a necessary one to bring before this House three Motions reporting on the Committee of Privileges' Reports for the consideration of the House. Sir, I beg to move,

That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Third Report contained in Paper Parl. 6 of 1987 and resolves -

(1) that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam is guilty of abuse of the privileges of Parliament; and

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

Never in the history of this House that in less than a year the Committee of Privileges have been summoned five times to consider complaints against a Member.

I will recapitulate the event, Sir. On 18th March 1986, in the course of a supplementary question the former Member for Anson, Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, asked the Minister for Home Affairs, Prof. Jayakumar, whether he knew that someone was arrested by the Police in the early hours of 1st March 1986 and was not released until 3.00 pm that afternoon. He also alleged that the detention was unlawful and unjustified.

Then on 27th March 1986 at the Committee of Supply debate, Mr Jeyaretnam raised the same subject of the alleged detention of that person.

On both occasions, Mr Jeyaretnam was asked by the Minister and his Minister of State, Dr Lee Boon Yang, to furnish the details. Whereupon on 22nd April 1986, Mr Jeyaretnam repeated the allegation in a letter to Prof. Jayakumar and gave the name of the person as one Lim Poh Huat.

Being concerned about the seriousness of the allegation and having assumed that Mr Jeyaretnam would not have made the allegation without first satisfying himself that there was credence to the claim, Prof. Jayakumar ordered a thorough investigation into the allegation but found that there was no truth whatsoever in it. No person by the name of Lim Poh Huat was arrested or detained at any police station on the date and time as alleged by Mr Jeyaretnam.

Between 27th March and 29th July 1986 when the matter was again brought up in Parliament, there was a series of eight letters between Mr Jeyaretnam and Dr Lee Boon Yang. Up till 23rd July 1986, Mr Jeyaretnam refused to cooperate with the Ministry of Home Affairs by giving them information on Lim Poh Huat or producing Lim Poh Huat.

Furthermore, at the Parliament sitting on 27th March 1986, Mr Jeyaretnam also claimed that he had made a report on the matter at the Joo Chiat Police Station. But in a subsequent letter and on examination by the Committee of Privileges he denied that he had made a report to the Joo Chiat Police Station. He claimed that his statement on 27th March was a mistake.

Subsequently at a Parliament sitting on 29th July 1986, after a lengthy debate it became clear that Mr Jeyaretnam's allegation had no basis and that he had misled the House. He was given several opportunities to apologize but he refused. Whereupon Prof. Jayakumar had no choice but to complain to the Committee of Privileges.

The deliberations of the Committee are in this Third Report of the Committee. Several witnesses including Mr Lim Poh Huat and Mr Jeyaretnam were called before the Committee. The Committee considered two issues arising from the Lim Poh Huat saga, namely, (1) whether Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam took any steps to verify the bona fide of the complaint; and (2) the failure of Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam to inform the House of the fabricated report.

On the first issue, the Committee of Privileges found that Mr Jeyaretnam failed to check the facts with Mr Lim Poh Huat, though he had every opportunity to do so, and that he had made serious charges in Parliament based entirely on what a third party, Mr Seneviratne, told him. This is reckless and irresponsible behaviour. Mr Jeyaretnam failed to take even the minimal step to contact or speak to Mr Lim Poh Huat to ascertain directly from him his account of the facts. Instead he proceeded to raise the specific allegation of wrongdoing entirely on the hearsay of Mr Seneviratne.

Mr Jeyaretnam's defence was that he had no duty to investigate and he maintained that he was entitled to raise any matter that came to his notice. The Committee rejected this contention. This privilege and immunity enjoyed by Members carries with it a responsibility and duty to the House to refrain from making grave and serious allegations or accusations against persons or bodies based entirely on hearsay or third party reports without first taking steps to verify the accuracy of the accusations, especially when the so-called aggrieved party can easily be contacted.

The Committee felt that Mr Jeyaretnam should have taken the minimal step to check with Mr Lim Poh Huat. The Committee did not expect Mr Jeyaretnam to make his own investigation.

On the second issue, the Committee found that Mr Jeyaretnam had suppressed important information from the House, when he rose on 30th July 1986 on his own volition to offer Mr Lim Poh Huat's address. He failed to inform the House that Mr Lim Poh Huat had given a signed statement that he had made up the story of his arrest and the detention was fabricated. This is a further abuse of privilege and the Committee accordingly found him guilty.

The Committee considered Mr Jeyaretnam had acted irresponsibly in raising a serious and grave accusation without substantiation and in not informing the House of the fabrication of the complaint when he learnt of it. Mr Jeyaretnam also refused to apologize to the House when offered many opportunities to do so.

Sir, may I urge this House to accept the findings and the recommendations of the Committee and that Parliament impose on Mr Jeyaretnam a fine of $1,000.

Question proposed.

Mr Bernard Chen (Clementi): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Committee of Privileges in considering the complaint of unsubstantiated allegations of wrongful arrest and detention of Mr Lim Poh Huat has made two conclusions: (1) that the former Member for Anson was guilty of abuse of privilege when he made serious charges without verifying basic facts even though he has ample opportunities to do so, and (2) that he deliberately suppressed important information already in his possession although this information would have thrown light on the whole issue.

I must say that this sounds rather familiar. Since his entry to Parliament in 1980, the former MP for Anson has been in the habit of bringing to this House rumours of all sorts. Very often, based on such rumours, he has levied grave and serious charges against persons and ministries. Yet when he was challenged to produce facts to substantiate his allegations he has been unable to do so. When pressed, he would resort to his often-repeated defence that he is entitled to ask any question on any matter under the sun and that it is the Government's duty to provide answers. His position is tantamount to saying that he should be given the right to purvey rumours of all kinds in this House without having to be responsible for the consequences that it may have on the people who may be adversely affected by such rumours.

The former MP for Anson has categorically stated during the Committee's hearing on this case that he can ask questions based on, and I quote here:

'Hearsay evidence on information that is given to me and which I considered to be not inherently improbable.' Any Member, be he in their position or on the Government side, can speak freely in this House. Indeed the former MP for Anson has been accorded not only the opportunity but the time for him to speak his mind. One only needs to refer to the Hansard to see that the time given to the former MP for Anson has been rather disproportionate, considering that he is only one Member out of a total of 79. However, we would expect that a Member of this House would at least do his homework before making serious allegations. The former MP for Anson was not faulted for not having investigated, in his words, the details of the case. As he said it quite rightly, it was not his job to do so. He was asked why he did not at least verify with the person who claimed that he was arrested.

It is incredible that for some four months he did not even bother to contact the man. It is odd that he ascribes such importance to the seriousness of his allegations but did not even bother to verify this simple fact with the victim. As I said earlier, we should not be too surprised with the former MP for Anson, as he has done this before. However, there is a more serious aspect to the current issue. When Mr Lim's arrest was discussed in the House on 30th July last year, at the MP's own volition, he merely offered the address of Mr Lim. He failed to inform the House that he had in fact been given the information that Mr Lim had fabricated the whole story. Herein lies the much more serious suppression of information. The former MP for Anson, far from having the grace of admitting that he was misled, has opted to hide the truth from this House for reasons best known to himself. It is an act of dishonesty that cannot be condoned.

The Parliament of Singapore should never be reduced to an open House of rumours and unfounded allegations brought by its own Members. We must jealously safeguard the integrity and dignity of this House through our own action. Members of Parliament are expected to conduct themselves with great propriety. They enjoy a freedom of speech that is not extended to the general public. They must however subject themselves to the code of conduct expected of Members of Parliament and behave properly so as not to betray the trust of those who have elected them. There cannot be a free licence to unsubstantiated allegations and rumour-mongering in this House. It is a measure of the former MP for Anson that in today's sitting there are three matters of abuse of privilege, all referring to the Member. It may be added that all these three issues have come from the Member's reckless action. There was no question of the Government going after the Member. We should all put a stop to this flagrant abuse of privilege if we were to maintain the highest standards that our Parliament has enjoyed all these years. I would therefore support the Committee of Privileges' findings and recommendations.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am a Member of the Committee of Privileges but I would like to put my dissenting views.

I would like to repeat what I said in the last Parliament sitting concerning the former Member for Anson, that is, we are talking of a person who is not present here in Parliament. It is only proper that he should be present and it has been brought to the Committee's attention that under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, this Parliament has the power, under section 12, to order him to be present here. He might have a last-minute information which he would want to communicate to Parliament.

An hon. Member: It's over.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I beg to differ. It is not over. The Committee has made its findings and it is for this House whether or not to approve the findings of the Committee, in particular, on the sentence of $1,000 fine.

We come to the issues at hand. It has been said that he did not verify the bona fide of the complaint and did not bother to call this man Lim Poh Huat. But in his mind it was not his duty to do investigative work. At that particular point of time, nobody really knows what a Member of Parliament can do and cannot do or what needs to be done. I think in the present circumstances, due to the amendments to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, it is high time that a separate committee be set up to list out what Members can do and cannot do, what they can say and they cannot say. We are supposed to have freedom of speech in this House, but do we? Do we really have freedom of speech? There are all kinds of pitfalls in Parliament.

In the mind of a Member, he comes here, he gets, according to him, a credible information from a credible person. This is in his evidence. He was questioned more than once whether or not he believed in the credibility of this man called Seneviratne and he said, "Yes. I am prepared to accept his credibility." So he believed him. What more does he need to do? So he comes to Parliament and he reports to Parliament what he thought was a truthful story. And this House demands an apology from him.

The point is: has he misled the House? According to him, he has not deliberately misled the House because he believed the information that was handed to him and that was the reason given by him for not seeing the necessity of apologizing. [Interruption]. Please. I think somebody must put his point of view. This incident of 30th July which has just been mentioned that he failed to reveal that he had a statement or he knew that Lim Poh Huat had lied to Seneviratne. But again he had given a good reason. He did not bother to tell this House because, according to him, there were already open Police investigations. If the Police had investigated the matter, the Minister would have known of it. So he would not see the necessity of informing this House. At every one step, he has got a genuinely good explanation. It is only that this House and the Committee refuse to see his point of view. It is so easy just to shut out your minds to the reasons given by other people and just look at one point of view. I think it is important in this House that Members should be given the real freedom to speak so that they could represent the interests not only of their constituents but also the public at large, especially in Singapore today. What other forum is there can a person bring up his grievances? I have known personally of many cases in which all avenues seem to be closed to them except coming to an Opposition Member. And I am the last surviving Opposition Member. Hopefully, there will be more coming after me. It is not only a question of freedom but a question of democracy and the task of building up what we want of Singapore. Thank you.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Tang Guan Seng): ( In Mandarin): The Member for Potong Pasir pleaded for a last opportunity for the former Member for Anson to say a few words in Parliament as though it will be his last words. But the former MP had ample time and opportunity to give his reasons and arguments which were recorded clearly in the Committee's Report which shows that whatever he had said was nothing new. He said that he had lodged a report at Joo Chiat Police Station, but later denied his own words. Could an MP do this? Within five months from March to July, the former Member persisted in alleging that a Mr Lim Poh Huat had been wrongfully detained by the Police. However, Lim Poh Huat subsequently said that all that was a fabrication. The former Member was trying to blow up a balloon until the balloon burst on the 30th July last year. Today, we have seen the Member for Potong Pasir trying to blow up that burst balloon. Could he do that? He can't. On the other hand, we have seen that when the Member for Anson raised this matter, the Minister for Home Affairs said, "Well, you give us all the details." He did not give the details. And then on 27th March, the Minister of State for Home Affairs also requested him to provide all the details. However, after a delay of five months, nothing came out of it. During that time, the Government carried out an investigation to get to the truth of the matter. Here, we have two different approaches. The public can then compare these two different approaches - one on the part of the Government who was determined to get to the truth, and one other on the part of the former Member for Anson who perfunctorily made allegations in the House. As the Parliament is the highest law-making body, any allegation made in the House must be investigated. Therefore Members must be fully responsible for what they say in the House. They cannot base their speeches or allegations on rumours or hearsay. Just now the Member for Potong Pasir questioned why the former Member was not allowed the last chance to come here to speak his mind. In fact, during the course of the investigations carried out by the Committee of Privileges, he had been given the opportunity to speak. It was not so that he had gone to the Joo Chiat Police Station to make a report. As a Member for Parliament, how could he belie on his own words? This is just a simple example.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, can I clarify a certain point? Just one point of clarification. I hope the Member will give way.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Tang, are you giving way?

Mr Tang Guan Seng: ( In Mandarin): I would like to continue with my speech.

Mr Chiam See Tong: You are not a courageous person, are you?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, he is not giving way. Mr Tang, please carry on.

Mr Tang Guan Seng: ( In Mandarin): He said that he went to the Police Station to lodge a report. Actually he did not. It shows that his words do not count. Finally, the investigations showed that the story given by Lim Poh Huat was a fabrication. And even after this, he refused to apologize to the House although he withdrew the allegation. What is wrong with saying, "I am sorry for the mistake"? I don't understand the great difference between withdrawing an allegation and giving an apology. Had he apologized, then it would have shown that he could be a responsible Member, but he did not do that. I think it is a question of attitude. If he was sincere, he should not put on tinted eye-glasses to look at things. To him, it seemed that everything was wrong. He even asked the question of whether Singapore was a police state when he made that allegation. If he had such premises, he must have looked at things from a very wrong perspective, and therefore everything would be wrong to him. How could he then arrive at any correct answer or judgment?

The Committee of Privileges has done a correct thing and is justified in handing out the punishment to him which is not done for the sake of punishing him, but was intended to safeguard the dignity and lofty image of the House. This was also to ensure that all Members would speak with reason and truth so that whatever they say in the House would be based on facts and not on baseless ramblings. I support the motion proposed by the Minister, and I would like to put forward four suggestions, two don'ts and two dos: Hearsay stories should not be broadcast in the House. Unfounded allegations should also not be brought into the House. If one is going to make any serious allegation in this House, then one must be responsible for it to the very end. When there is something amiss or wrong with what has been said then, an apology should be given and the matter closed.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I must certainly congratulate the Member for Potong Pasir for his courage which, he said, that the Member for Khe Bong does not have. But I have no doubt at all that the Member for Khe Bong has the courage of his own conviction. But I am also bemused by the Member for Potong Pasir's sense of self-importance when he said he is the only surviving Opposition Member in Singapore.

Mr Chiam See Tong: That is a fact. Admit that.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: And I would also say that the less he speaks, the less he would reveal his ignorance of parliamentary practices, rules and laws. Perhaps he wants an induction course on what MPs can and cannot do. I am sure that the remaining 76 or 77 Members here do not need that. But I do not know who can provide him with that kind of induction course. Earlier on he quoted section 12 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. He said that Parliament has the power to call upon or compel a person to attend Parliament. Let me just read to him section 12 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. It says:

'Parliament and any committee which is duly authorised by the Standing Orders or by a resolution of Parliament to send for persons, papers and records may order any person to attend before Parliament or before the committee, and to produce any paper, book, record or document in the possession or under the control of that person.'

This clearly says that Parliament or the Committee can call for the person. If we were to look at the Report, the Third Report, we would have seen that Mr Jeyaretnam was indeed called by the Committee and was examined in detail and he was given every opportunity to present his case.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Point of order.

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

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am talking about getting him here, not to the Committee, please.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: You quoted section 12. Section 12 says this.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Not a Committee, please.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: So the Committee actually summoned him and he appeared, and he said all that he wanted to say and still Parliament found him guilty. Parliament also gave the opportunity to Lim Poh Huat to appear, and he said what he wanted to say.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I was talking of appearing in Parliament.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: The Member for Potong Pasir certainly has got his section wrong.

Mr Chiam See Tong: No. Please. Have I got my section wrong?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Read me the section.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course. "... by a resolution ... to attend before Parliament ..."

Mr Wong Kan Seng: To do what?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Whatever you want. He can speak, he can ask questions.

An hon. Member: In other words before Parliament.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Before Parliament. Am I wrong? Are you saying that I am wrong?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: What does the Member propose that we call Mr Jeyaretnam here for? What does he propose us to do? Tell us.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not a lawyer. The procedure in court is always to have the defendant present when sentence is being passed. That has been in practice for hundreds of years in England and we have adopted their court procedure here, and it is clear.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: This is not a court.

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is a wise move and I think it is only proper even if there is no precedent. [Interruption.] There is a precedent. What I am saying is that even if there is no precedent, it is proper to have the person here. It is not just right talking about somebody who is not present. You may disagree with me but I think I am still right.

Mr Dhanabalan: You are not right. It is your opinion.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: The Member brought the same point up at the last sitting when we were debating the First and Second Reports. He was asked to produce precedents. Well, what did we have? We had not a shred of evidence or a single case that could support his contention. So section 12 does not require Parliament to compel him to come here to say anymore. What Mr Jeyaretnam wants to say has already been said by him at the Committee of Privileges.

Mr Chiam See Tong: May I ask the Minister one question? Is it proper to speak of somebody in his absence? Is it proper?

An hon. Member: He was heard already.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Of course. Because the particular person, Mr Jeyaretnam, has already been given the opportunity to be heard, then Parliament or the Committee must make a decision. After having made a decision, then he will be informed accordingly. It is definitely proper.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, but the sentence has not been passed yet. Until this House approves the recommendations of the Committee, then the sum of $1,000 cannot be obtained from him. Do you not agree with me on that?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: That's right, yes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Parliament gives the Committee of Privileges the task of making a finding. The Committee of Privileges has made a finding with Jeyaretnam present. Now it is before the House whether or not to accept these findings. Before you make the finding, in other words before you sentence him, in other words until that finding is made, he is not liable to pay this $1,000. Until you make the finding, then he need not pay the $1,000.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: So it is equivalent to a sentence not being passed yet at this stage, until this House approves this.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes. What is your point?

Mr Chiam See Tong: My point is that before you pass the sentence, before you approve, he must be heard here. That is the point.

An hon. Member: What is the Committee for?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I am not a lawyer and I do not feel sorry for it. But let me help the Member for Potong Pasir.

An hon. Member: He is a lawyer.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: He is a lawyer. Yes, of course. If you were to look at section 24 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, it is quite clear that:

'Parliament may order any person guilty of an offence to attend before Parliament to be informed of or to receive any punishment which Parliament has decided [has decided] to inflict upon him.'

Is it not clear? [Interruptions]. Yes. But Parliament may do that, which means Parliament has the discretion to do that. Now, Parliament need not do that.

Mr Chiam See Tong: That is not proper.

Mr Deputy Speaker: All right. Mr Wong, have you finished?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Third Report contained in Paper Parl. 6 of 1987 and resolves -

(1) that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam is guilty of abuse of the privileges of Parliament; and

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