COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (FOURTH REPORT)

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Sir, I rise again and I beg to move,

That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Fourth Report contained in Paper Parl. 7 of 1987 and resolves -

(1) that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam is guilty of breach of privilege of Parliament; and

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

At the Parliamentary sitting on 26th March 1986, the former Member for Anson, Mr Jeyaretnam, raised a question for oral answer whether constables from the Commercial and Industrial Security Corporation (CISCO) could be compelled to work on their rest days. In reply, Prof. Jayakumar, the Minister for Home Affairs, said that a CISCO constable is not compelled to work on his rest day unless exigencies of the service so required.

In the course of further supplementary questions and answers, it was revealed that Mr Jeyaretnam failed to declare his pecuniary interest when raising the question concerning CISCO constables working on rest days. He also denied that he had any pecuniary interest in the question when he was asked by the Speaker. He then challenged Prof. Jayakumar to file a complaint against him.

Thereupon, Prof. Jayakumar filed a complaint against Mr Jeyaretnam for failing to disclose the fact that the issue raised in question was the same issue which Mr Jeyaretnam had raised in a case taken up by him in early 1985 in his capacity as an advocate and solicitor. That case concerned the dismissal of a CISCO constable named Cik Norlizah binte Long. Cik Norlizah appealed against the dismissal and Mr Jeyaretnam acted for her in his professional capacity.

Mr Jeyaretnam should have declared his pecuniary interest in the matter as required of him under Section 31 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. Under section 31 of the Act:

'A Member shall not in or before Parliament or any committee take part in the discussion of any matter in which he has a direct personal pecuniary interest without disclosing the extent of that interest and shall not in any circumstances vote upon any such matter.'

In a written reply to the complaint and on subsequent examination by the Committee of Privileges, Mr Jeyaretnam did not deny taking up the case of Cik Norlizah, the CISCO constable who was asked to work on a rest day. Mr Jeyaretnam also admitted to receiving payment from her. His argument was that the matter was concluded in March 1985, and since he raised the question in March 1986, the question of declaring his pecuniary interest did not arise.

Mr Jeyaretnam also claimed that in the UK House of Commons, a matter raised in a notice or supplementary question did not require a Member raising it to declare his pecuniary interest in it.

The Committee of Privileges rejected Mr Jeyaretnam's arguments. The Committee are not denying that Mr Jeyaretnam had a right to raise the question even though he had represented a CISCO constable previously in his professional capacity. The Committee are of the view that Mr Jeyaretnam was wrong in failing to declare his pecuniary interest. He had taken up a CISCO constable's case with the authorities and was paid for his services. The Committee ruled that there were good reasons why a Member should, as a minimum, declare his pecuniary interest. In the words of the Committee, in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Report:

'12. There are very good reasons why a Member should, as a minimum, declare his interest in such cases. The House must know whether a Member, in taking up a matter, has any connection with the case in his personal or professional capacity which involves a pecuniary interest. The House will then be in a position to assess the intentions of the Member and to decide the extent to which the Member might have had his position influenced by his involvement in the case.

13. If a Member did not declare his interest, this could result in abuses of the proceedings of the House. The House will then be used for ventilation of dissatisfaction over failure to obtain redress in the Courts or other forums. Such failure to disclose interest can also lay open to abuse of a Member's position for profit and mischief.'

The Committee also rejected Mr Jeyaretnam's argument that a Member need not disclose his pecuniary interest in questions raised in Parliament because this is the practice of the UK House of Commons. It is quite clear from Section 31 of our Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act that a Member must disclose his pecuniary interest.

Sir, this is not the first time that the former Member for Anson breached this rule on disclosure of pecuniary interest. He did it on two occasions, first on 17th and the next on 19th March 1982. On both occasions, he was let off lightly. He was allowed to apologize for the first occasion and he was reprimanded for dishonourable conduct and contempt of Parliament for the second breach of Parliamentary Privileges.

Non-declaration of pecuniary interest is a serious breach of Parliamentary Privileges. It is much more serious when the person is a repeat offender. After considering Mr Jeyaretnam's arguments, the Committee found Mr Jeyaretnam guilty of the offence of breach of privileges and accordingly recommended that Parliament impose upon him a fine of $1,000 which was the maximum fine under the Act prior to its amendment.

Sir, I move that this House accepts the recommendation of the Committee.

Questions proposed.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion.

The Minister for Community Development has given the facts of the case and I will not repeat them. Sir, it is no joy when any Member of our House is disciplined by this House for misconduct. Parliament is the supreme law-making body of our nation, and Members of Parliament are expected in this House to discuss and debate issues so that the best interests of our nation are served. However, if the personal interests or pecuniary interests of a Member are mixed up with his duties as a Member of Parliament, then objectivity is lost in parliamentary debate.

When a Member declares his pecuniary interest, the other Members are alerted, and we can decide whether the view that is being presented is an objective view or one that is biased. We can then debate with the best interests of our nation as the central focus, and not the pecuniary interests of one Member. In short, the House will not be misled.

More importantly, when a subject is debated in Parliament, the public has the right to know whether the person speaking has a personal pecuniary interest in the subject. The public then can decide for itself (i) whether the facts presented are biased; or (ii) whether the case being brought up is of any national importance. The onus is on the Member to declare so that Members of the House and the public can then look at the issue objectively, bearing in mind that the issue under discussion has been brought up by a Member with a pecuniary interest in the subject.

I mentioned earlier that it is no joy when any Member of this House is disciplined, even if he is an Opposition Member, because we are all in the same ship of Parliament. In the public eye, the image of the Parliamentarian will be tainted each time there is a misconduct by one. Thus, it is important that this House treats seriously the case before us, as Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam has breached parliamentary privilege not once but on five separate occasions, and on three occasions for non-disclosure of pecuniary interest.

What constitutes parliamentary privilege? I quote from Erskine May:

'In the United Kingdom, parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by the other bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law.' Thus we can see that privilege is indeed a serious responsibility conferred on MPs to enable them to discharge their duties effectively.

Direct Pecuniary Interest

In the British House, a Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration) in June 1975 identified nine classes of pecuniary interest or other benefit which were to be disclosed. Here, I would ask the Member for Potong Pasir to take note that guidelines are firmly mentioned. They are:

'(1) remunerated directorships of companies, public or private;

(2) remunerated employments or offices;

(3) remunerated trades, professions or vocations;

(4) the names of clients when the interests referred to above include personal services by the Member which arise out of or are related in any manner to his membership of the House;

(5) financial sponsorships, (a) as a parliamentary candidate where to the knowledge of the Member the sponsorship in any case exceeds 25% of the candidate's election expenses, or (b) as a Member of Parliament, by any person or organization, stating whether any such sponsorship includes any payment to the Member or any material benefit or advantage direct or indirect;

(6) overseas visits relating to or arising out of membership of the House where the cost of any such visit has not been wholly borne by the Member or by public funds;

(7) any payments or any material benefits or advantages received from or on behalf of foreign governments, organizations or persons;

(8) land and property of substantial value or from which a substantial income is derived;

(9) the name of companies or other bodies in which the Member has to his knowledge, either himself or with or on behalf of his spouse or infant children, a beneficial interest in shareholdings of a nominal value greater than one-hundredth of the issued share capital.'

From this list we can see that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam should have disclosed pecuniary interest with respect to at least two items, items (3) and (4).

Under section 31 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act of Singapore, it is obvious, as has been mentioned by the Minister, that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam should have made a declaration of direct personal pecuniary interest. I do not think that here there is any doubt as to what we can do and what we cannot do as Members of Parliament.

Sir, as Backbench Members of Parliament, all of us are part-time politicians. We each have another career or profession to pursue. We receive an allowance as Parliamentarians. In the course of pursuing our career or profession or social contacts, issues of public or national interest are brought to our attention. What are the issues that we know best? Of course, the issues concerning our career or profession! If they are of national importance, can we bring them up in Parliament? The answer is, "Yes". But the onus will be on us to declare personal pecuniary interest. It is then up to the House and the public to decide whether we have acted honourably or whether we have abused our parliamentary status to further our individual careers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the facts of this case are clear. A Member, Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, failed to disclose direct personal pecuniary interest in a matter he raised in Parliament on 26th March 1986.

Sir, before I close, may I just take up a point on the question of courage raised by the Member for Potong Pasir. He has accused my hon. colleague, the Member for Khe Bong, of lack of courage. May I bring to your attention, Sir, that in the proceedings of both Committees in which the hon. Member for Potong Pasir is a Member, at the final meeting when decisions were taken to accept or reject the Report, he was absent. Is that courage? Had he not the courage to be present? Why was he absent?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Fengshan has made a long rambling speech but failed to come to the crux of the matter.

We are here to show whether or not Mr Jeyaretnam has brought up some matter in Parliament in which he has a direct pecuniary interest. There is an admission that he was paid by this Cisco employee but this was in March 1985. The appeal in which Mr Jeyaretnam represented this Cisco guard was held on the 9th March 1985. That matter was brought up in Parliament on the 26th March 1986, slightly more than one year. So we have to convince ourselves or we must have evidence to the fact that Mr Jeyaretnam at the time of his bringing this matter, ie up after one year, had direct pecuniary interest. The word is "direct", not just "pecuniary interest". Nowhere in this Report is it shown that he had a direct pecuniary interest at that point of time, one year later. As far as he was concerned the matter of this Cisco guard had been dealt with, gone and forgotten. If we can show that, in fact, by bringing up the matter in Parliament and, having successfully got a favourable reply from the Minister, he could use that reply and get this girl reinstated, I would say that that would be direct pecuniary interest. But nowhere in the Committee's findings there was evidence from Norlizah that he was still pursuing this matter to be reinstated. So there was no direct pecuniary interest at that point of time. So how can we find him guilty? Because the point has not been proven. Somebody has dealt with something a year ago and one year later he must have forgotten about it completely. And even if there is a favourable reply he is not interested anymore unless we can prove that at that point of time on the 26th March 1986 he still had an interest in it. But nowhere in this Report has such a finding been made. So the only thing for this House to do is, if Members really want to come to the truth of the matter, they should stand this down and get Norlizah up and say, "Look, on the 26th, if there was a reply in your favour and you could be reinstated, would you want to be reinstated?" She said, "No, I am not interested anymore." Where is the pecuniary interest? Mr Jeyaretnam would not get paid anything.

So I would suggest to this House that either you find Mr Jeyaretnam not guilty on this charge or the matter has to be stood down, Committee reconvened and call Norlizah up and get this information. Then we can determine whether or not he had a direct pecuniary interest.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai): Sir, I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Do you agree with my arguments?

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Let me continue. Do not interrupt.

Sir, I am a member of the Committee of Privileges. This issue was discussed at the Committee of Privileges. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam was given every opportunity to present his case. We have to take into account that this is not the first time. I think the Leader of the House has mentioned that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam has on several occasions abused his privilege. On 31st August 1982 he was reprimanded in this House for dishonourable conduct and contempt of the House. He was warned against committing a similar breach of privilege in the future. However, Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam chose once again to act in contempt of the House.

When he was given the opportunity to present his case, he brought up two spurious arguments. The first argument was the question of direct personal pecuniary interest and this was dealt with in the earlier case. The Committee of Privileges had in that proceeding rejected his argument. Now he was trying to confuse by saying that he has no interest in this case. But he has admitted at the Committee's hearing that he had acted for Cik Norlizah in a professional manner and that he had been paid for taking up Cik Norlizah's case. The fact of the matter is that for this particular case he had a pecuniary interest and this was dealt with and how he had an interest explained to him in the earlier proceeding.

His second argument was that a Member need not disclose his pecuniary interest in a question raised in our Parliament because this is the practice in the UK House of Commons. The Leader of the House has dealt with this question and our law expressly provides that a Member must disclose his pecuniary interest when participating in a discussion in this House.

I think as a senior lawyer, Mr Jeyaretnam should have known better that his interpretation of our law, ie, to hold that a Member must declare his interest in debates and not in a discussion arising from a question or supplementary question, is an absurd one.

Sir, we must have the highest standards in this House. We are not prohibiting Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam from raising the case. What he simply needs to do is to merely declare that he has an interest and then he can go on if the House allows him to carry on. We are not stopping him from speaking. He merely has to declare his interest.

So in view of this, Sir, I support the motion and I urge the House to endorse the recommendations of the Committee of Privileges.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the Member for Geylang Serai has adequately and aptly answered the point made by the Member for Potong Pasir regarding the interpretation of direct pecuniary interest. In fact, it is the same point that was made by the previous Committee of Privileges. But assuming that what Mr Chiam said is correct ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: --- it is only an assumption. Do not be too presumptuous. A lawyer MP can take up court cases, and if the cases were subsequently lost, thereafter bring up the same cases in Parliament, the same issues. If he does that, then he is, in fact, finding another avenue for bringing up cases that he could not find recourse or could not get satisfaction in the court. So this Parliament cannot be the last forum for such Members who have in their professional capacity acted for their clients' interests or individuals' interests. Surely, this is direct pecuniary interest if the Member does so. If Mr Jeyaretnam had forgotten the case, like what the Member for Potong Pasir has said, then he would not have raised the question in 1986. So obviously the Member for Potong Pasir does not know Mr Jeyaretnam very well. And even if he does, he cannot read Mr Jeyaretnam's mind. Nobody can. Tell me that you can read my mind.

Mr Chiam See Tong: May I be allowed to just say a few words because the Minister ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Are you clarifying?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. Because the Minister has not answered my point. The point I brought up is that on 26th March 1986 when Mr Jeyaretnam brought the question up in this House, did he or did he not have a direct personal pecuniary interest on the matter?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: You said, "yes". But nowhere in this Report does it verify what you have said. Where is the evidence? If you can point out to the evidence that on the 26th March 1986 he had a direct pecuniary interest, then I would agree with you. Pecuniary interest in this instance would mean that there is still a subsisting matter in which he will benefit in monetary terms by asking that question. In our particular case, I repeat myself, that if he was successful in getting a favourable reply from the Minister, then he would bring this reply and put it forward to the authority at CISCO and say, "You have to reinstate this CISCO guard. Here is the authority from the Minister himself." But there is no such evidence before us. That is what I am saying. If you can show me the evidence that he still has a subsisting pecuniary interest on 26th March 1986, I will agree with you. But there is no such evidence.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Member for Potong Pasir one simple question? He is a lawyer and he deals with clients and he comes to this Chamber sometime after dealing with his clients and brings up their cases here because he has failed to obtain satisfaction for them in the usual way. If he does, would he not be benefitting from this procedure so that clients in future would see him as a useful lawyer to go to because he can bring their cases all the way up to Parliament?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think the Member for Whampoa is going off in a tangent. He is bringing up a hypothetical case which does not exist. We are talking of a serious matter today, of an actual case. Assuming you bought a car one year ago and this car caught fire and was already burnt. One year later, can you talk of this car anymore? It has already gone up in ashes. There is no more interest in this car. Similarly, in this 1985 case, it is over and gone. There is no more. There is no evidence before us that it still subsists, that Mr Jeyaretnam could benefit from the information given by the Minister. That is my point. It is true what the Member for Whampoa has said if we are talking about a hypothetical case now. If we are talking about a hypothetical case, assuming if members of the public know that I can bring this to the highest authority on the land, naturally I would be a very popular lawyer. But that is not an issue at the moment, it must be stressed.

Dr Augustine Tan: That is an issue. That is precisely the point, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is not.

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

Mr Chiam See Tong remained standing.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Tan, please take your seat.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The issue before the House is whether or not there is evidential proof. You must assume a man innocent until proven guilty, please. I think this is the standard of proof. And we have got no evidence to the effect that he had a pecuniary interest on the 26th March 1986. That is my point. If all you intelligent people cannot understand this, I am very sorry for Singapore.

Dr Augustine Tan: I do not know about used cars, but I know about used lawyers. Sir, I was honourable enough to apologize when the case warranted it. But why does he not give the same advice to Mr Jeyaretnam? He could have saved himself a lot of bother and not be fined in this way.

Sir, the point is very simple. The Act exists to prevent Members of Parliament from benefitting from their positions here in this Chamber. It is as simple as that.

Mr Chiam See Tong: But you have to prove that.

Dr Augustine Tan: Yes, there would be profit to a lawyer if he is seen to be so effective that he could drag every case that he has dragged through the courts right here into this Chamber.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir has a curious way of arguing his case.

Mr Chiam See Tong: No, I do not have. I am dealing with a fact.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I do not see the analogy of a burnt car or used car with a used lawyer or a lawyer who has been used. But the same point that the Member canvassed here in this House, I believe, although I was not a member of the Committee at that time, was also the same point canvassed by the former Member for Anson. And this argument of direct pecuniary interest was already commented upon and decided upon and ruled by the Committee way back in the previous Report. And the Committee also made reference to this in this Report. But if the Member does not read this Report, there is nothing else we can do.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Fourth Report contained in Paper Parl. 7 of 1987 and resolves -

(1) that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam is guilty of breach of privilege of Parliament; and

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