REPORT OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON INVESTIGATIONS CONCERNING THE LATE MR TEH CHEANG WAN

The Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this House accepts the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on investigations concerning the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan contained in Paper Cmd. 18 of 1987.

Sir, at the outset I wish to recall three important facts. First, this Commission was established because the Member for Potong Pasir wanted it. On 4th March, 1987, he asked in this House if the Prime Minister would call a public inquiry to get to the bottom of the "Teh Cheang Wan Affair", and to make recommendations to prevent further corruption in high places. He then made statements which suggested that the CPIB had not been thorough in its investigations or that there was a cover-up. In the words of the Commissioners, he suggested that "there was more to be known or discovered than had been disclosed by the Prime Minister. He further gave the impression that he knew something else which the Government did not know in connection with Teh Cheang Wan."

The second fact to be recalled is that the Member's terms of reference were accepted and incorporated in their entirety in the Instrument of Appointment of the Commission. The Government of course included an additional term on whether the CPIB had been thorough in its investigations and whether there had been any attempt to conceal, overlook, cover up any information concerning corruption or criminal wrongdoing. The Government did this because the Member had cast a doubt on the thoroughness and effectiveness of CPIB's investigations. The Member did not object to this term although he did try to disclaim that he had ever accused the Government of cover-up. But the Commissioners thought otherwise and this is what they said:

'The implications are clear. They either suggest that the CPIB had not been thorough in its investigations or that there was a cover-up.'

Thirdly, Sir, the Member categorically undertook to lead evidence on his terms of reference, and he said on 4th March, 1987:

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

This point about "lead in evidence" featured prominently in the proceedings of the Commission. We must therefore recall that at that sitting in March 1987 the Prime Minister repeatedly told the Member that he would have to lead evidence and produce them. In fact, reading the Hansard, one will see that the Prime Minister men- tioned this on nine different occasions, and there was good reason for the Prime Minister to stress this for, as he said:

'We have not seen the need for this inquiry. But we [ie, the Government] are not having this Commission of Inquiry in order that we will commission somebody to produce evidence of wrongdoing or possible wrongdoing when we have not found any.'

Sir, the Prime Minister also warned him that it was no easy task to lead evidence. But the Member replied:

'Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to tell the Prime Minister I am on solid ground and I have nothing to fear.'

Having recalled these three facts, let me now turn to what the Commission had to say of the performance of the Member who had asked for this inquiry, who had drafted these terms of reference, and who said that he would lead in evidence and bring evidence and bring people to bring evidence. First, as to his requests for files and witnesses, the Commissioners quite correctly rejected his requests because he failed to show the relevance of his requests to his terms of reference. They said:

'At no time during the entire duration of the Inquiry was he able to give the Commissioners the slightest indication of what he wanted from the files. Mr Chiam failed to give the Commissioners any sense of direction and purpose in his search for evidence.'

They refused to allow him, in their words, "to go on a fishing expedition because he did not know what he was fishing for. He was merely groping in the dark hoping to find some wrongdoing but with no idea what the nature of the wrongdoing may be." Worse, according to the Commissioners, "He was not even able to say what his suspicions of wrongdoing were." They concluded that no reasonable Commission of Inquiry would have acceded to Mr Chiam's requests in these circumstances.

It is pertinent, Sir, that the Commission felt that his demand to see all the files, including CPIB files, was tantamount to him wanting to act out the role of a super investigator; a super investigator to double check the investigations already done by the CPIB. What is significant, however, Sir, is having said this, the Commission decided to waive the rule of relevance and they bent over backwards to make available the various files and documents. They said that they did this to avoid giving the impression that they were obstructing him. Thus, all the MND files relating to paragraphs (a) and (c) of his term of reference were made available to him and all the monthly statements of the seven bank accounts of the Teh family had been made available to him. But when these files and documents were made available to him, what did he do? Did he proceed to inspect them carefully? He did not. Sir, he did not bother to inspect the files until the last minute. Nor did he give any reason for such conduct. They said that any reasonable person would be justified in concluding from his conduct that either (a) he lacked a sense of responsibility in failing to inspect the files diligently, especially after having protested so strongly about being denied access to them; or (b) he did not really believe that they contained anything useful to his terms of reference. They said he failed to inspect them diligently.

Then, Sir, the Member sought adjournment after adjournment and on each occasion he gave a different reason. His first request for an adjournment was on the ground that he needed time for getting up. On the second occasion, in August, it was on the ground that the Commission had wrongly labelled him as an accuser or an alleger. And on the third occasion, on the ground that there was a difference in meaning between "lead in evidence" and "leading evidence". Having caused delays for several months in these ways, not only did he not "lead in evidence" but he even warned the Commissioners that they had no power to terminate the proceedings so long as he had not "led in evidence." They had to wait for him, in other words, however many months or years he was going to take. The Commissioners' ruling, in my view, was a masterpiece of restraint and understatement when they said all this was against common sense.

Sir, after this ruling, the truth finally came out when the Commissioners, in their words, "finally pinned him down" (these are not my words) and they finally pinned him down after 90 minutes of laborious questioning, at the end of which the Chairman pinned him down as follows:

'Do you or do you not have the evidence to lead now, whatever the reasons may be for your not having the evidence?' Mr Chiam's answer was:

'No, Sir.'

Even then he still tried to wriggle out by saying that the reason he had no evidence was that he had not been given the evidence to "lead in" and therefore he could not comply with the undertaking. The Commissioners dismissed this by saying that these were mere excuses and did not affect the truth and in their view the truth was he had no evidence.

The Commissioners also found it relevant to state that the Member, in calling for this Inquiry without a shred of evidence, direct or hearsay, had exaggerated the magnitude of what he called the "Teh Cheang Wan affair" to an extent unjustified by the evidence.

Sir, as to his failure to lead in evidence and his final admission after many months that he had no evidence, the Commissioners described his conduct as quite extraordinary and that he had displayed a singular lack of seriousness in carrying out his role at the Inquiry. He had led everyone on an extended wild goose chase and that his conduct on the whole had fallen short of the responsibility expected of a person who called for a public inquiry into a matter of public interest.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, recently in the Sunday Times of 3rd January, 1988, the Member is reported to have taken great offence over what the Commissioners have said in the report on him. He is reported to have said that he was surprised at the Commissioner's criticism of his conduct because the Commission was set up to look into the Teh Cheang Wan Affair, not to interrogate me. But the report turned out to be an attack on me." Sir, if the Commissioners criticized him, surely he had asked for it and deserved such criticism. He asked for the Commission, he drafted this terms of reference, he said he would lead in evidence and bring people to bring evidence, and it was he who said that he was "on solid ground". "I have nothing to fear." And it was he who said that the CPIB is not thorough, there is a cover-up, there is more to be known, and if I may quote from the Commission's Report:

'... he sowed the seeds of suspicion that the Government had not "come clean" regarding the CPIB's investigations ...'.

Yet, Sir, he did not tell Parliament or the Commission the truth that he had no evidence. The point is that it was not really necessary for him to have made these suggestions of wrongdoing. He could have simply asked for a Commission of Inquiry on the ground that it was of public interest since the Minister had committed suicide and the trial for corruption was therefore not possible. He could have done that. There were other perfectly valid and legitimate reasons for asking for a Commission of Inquiry without making unfounded allegations. Or if on 4th March he believed at that time when we debated this matter that he had evidence of more acts of corruption, he could still have been been quite honest and open about it with the Commissioners when the hearings began. He could have told them that his anonymous or named informants had let him down and that he was mistaken or had been misled. He had the straight and honourable course of action open to him. It would have saved much time. But he continued to give the impression that he did have or could get the evidence and resorted to extraordinary ploys and excuses to wriggle out, caused delays until he was finally pinned down.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we would like to take the Member for Potong Pasir seriously. But he should not follow in the steps of Mr Jeyaretnam whose habit was to make smears, insinuations, allegations and, when challenged, instead of withdrawing, twisted and turned in evasions and equivocations. It did Mr Jeyaretnam no good. It will do the Member for Potong Pasir no good either.

Sir, among the many excuses given by the Member for Potong Pasir for failing to keep his undertaking was his complaint that he had not been given access to all the CPIB files and that the Prime Minister had promised him access to CPIB files. In other words, the Prime Minister had not kept his promise.

As the Commissioners pointed out in the report, the Prime Minister made no such promise. The Commissioners carefully examined exactly what the Prime Minister had said in this House on 4th March and they concluded, after careful analysis, that the Prime Minister made no such offer to make CPIB files available to Mr Chiam. Indeed, Sir, it would have been grossly improper for him to have access to CPIB files because they did not contain evidence of acts of corruption but only CPIB's investigations on corruption but only CPIB's investigations on the two acts of corruption against Mr Teh and other allegations of corruption by many persons which had been investigated and were not substantiated. It was right that the Commissioners rejected the request but they took pains to set out the reasons for the ruling. As these reasons are important, I would like to refer to some of them.

First, the Commissioners said that "because of the confidential and sensitive nature of information and evidence on corruption and its propensity to tarnish the reputations of innocent persons", the Commission had no justification to accede to his request "unless Mr Chiam could show that the CPIB files were relevant to his terms of reference". They also said that:

'Corruption is by its nature difficult to detect. The detection of corruption, more often than not, depends on the willingness of informants and complainants to report corrupt acts to the CPIB. Further, allegations of corruption, whether they turn out to be true or otherwise, when investigated by the CPIB, tend to have an immediate adverse effect on the name and reputation of the person complained against, if made public. Also, investigations on corrupt acts cannot be done openly without destroying their efficacy. All information obtained or developed in the course of investigation by the CPIB is highly sensitive and therefore should be accorded a high degree of confidentiality.'

Sir, while having repeatedly insisted that he must see CPIB files, what is surprising and even remarkable is that when he was offered the opportunity to cross-examine the Director of CPIB, Mr Evan Yeo, and the other CPIB officer, he threw away the opportunity. One CPIB officer had testified on oath. That was "the best evidence of what they had been told by witnesses and what they had seen in the files and documents." As the Commission said, "if he believed or even suspected that there was somethingin the CPIB files which could assist him, ... he could put the proper questions" to them. Thus the Commission concluded:

(a) either he did not know what to question the witnesses or he did not have any reason to disbelieve their testimony;

(b) they could not allow Mr Chiam to rummage through all the files of the relevant Ministries of the Government to look for unspecified wrongdoings; and

(c) at no time during the whole of the Inquiry was Mr Chiam able to tell the Commissioners what was it that he wanted to establish from or see in the CPIB files.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me now turn to other aspects of the report. First, let me refer to the Commission's findings on the first term of reference, whether the CPIB did all that was necessary to uncover acts of corruption, whether it had been thorough, whether there was any attempt to overlook, conceal or cover-up. This was an important term of reference in view of the insinuations and innuendoes by the Member. What were the Commissioners' findings?

They found that:

(1) the CPIB did all that was necessary to uncover all the acts of corruption;

(2) the CPIB 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; and

(3) there has been no attempt to overlook, to conceal or to cover-up any information.

What were some of the factors that led the Commissioners to arrive at the findings? They are all set out in Chapter 9 of the report, and I will only highlight the following. First, the two acts of corruption of Teh Cheang Wan, in their view, might never have been uncovered but for CPIB's commitment in investigation. Although initial investigations were unpromising, the CPIB perservered and finally succeeded in uncovering the identity of the suspect. The Commissioners said that if the CPIB had been reluctant to investigate further because Mr Teh was a Minister, they could have terminated the proceedings. Instead, they investigated fearlessly and impartially as a result of which a second allegation against Mr Teh came to light. The Commissoners said the CPIB "lost no time in investigating him thoroughly". They accorded top priority to his case. No one should have cause to believe that the CPIB had been tardy or reluctant. The fact that Mr Teh was a senior Minister, in their conclusion, made no difference to the manner in which the investigations were conducted, ie, impartially and fearlessly.

Sir, what we have is a situation where the Member had no evidence but sought to cast doubts on the effectiveness of the CPIB and insinuated that there was a cover-up. One of the most important points which emerges from this whole episode, Prime Minister's statement to the House in January, 1987, the debate on the Member's request for a Commission of Inquiry and the Commission's report and its findings is that the integrity of our system to deal with corruption and to punish corruption is intact. Consider first the position taken by Government. The Director, CPIB, testified that when he first informed the Prime Minister of the alleged involvement of Mr Teh, the Prime Minister authorized discreet investigations and told the Director that if Mr Teh accepted bribes, he had to go to jail. Six days later, Prime Minister approved open investigations. In other words, the CPIB received the fullest backing of the Prime Minister, even though the person investigated was a full Cabinet Minister. Secondly, CPIB's investigations were found by the Commissioners to be thorough, fearless and impartial. Third, when insinuations of cover-ups are made by anyone, the Government has no hesitation in having a full public inquiry. This was clearly stated by the Prime Minister when he said in March:

'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.'

Finally, Sir, the Commission of Inquiry, as Members will know from its terms, was not asked to make any finding about the overall integrity of our system. But the Commissioners were nevertheless moved to make the following observations on page 54:

'Mr Chiam could not have been ignorant of the fact that Singapore has an enviable reputation for the honesty and integrity of its public institutions. This reputation is a hard-earned national asset which should be protected and preserved.'

Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is precisely because it is a hard-earned national asset that we are prepared to go to any length to bare all the facts when that reputation is unjustly attacked.

Sir, this is the strength of the Government.

Question proposed. 12.29 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): I am much obliged to you, Sir. Sir, I rise to urge the House not to accept this report. But before I give my reasons, I would like to ask the Minister: what is the result of the CPIB's investigations as regards to three complaints which were still outstanding at the end of the inquiry? Perhaps the Minister could give us his when I have finished my address here.

Sir, I take great objection to the Minister when he said that I did not tell Parliament the truth that I had no evidence. I do not lie and I say so openly. Was it my duty to come forward and say, "Mr Prime Minister, I got no evidence whatsoever. But nevertheless I would like to have an inquiry." Is that what I should have done? I do not think I have that duty to say that I have no evidence. I do not think it is fair to attack me and to cast aspersions on my integrity.

Sir, I want the Minister to point out the relevant columns of Hansard where I made unfounded allegations. Let me know where I made the unfounded allegations in Hansard of 4th March 1987. The Deputy Public Prosecutor has made great pains on one particular statement that I made. This is to be found in Hansard, Vol. 49, col. 52:

'... we have already in fact, evidence that strange goings-on have taken place.'

Sir, he has quoted me out of context. Of course, there were strange goings-on. But you must read this sentence in the context of what I said. The strange goings-on were in relation to the acquisition of land at Chua Chu Kang. I believe I have already told this House that I have knowledge that in the case of land acquisition, it is never the practice of the Commissioner of Lands to return land after it has been acquired. In this particular case, one-third of the land acquired had been returned to the developer. Of course, there were strange goings-on. That was what I meant. Sir, what false allegations have I made? Please let me know.

Sir, I am not accepting the Report for the following reasons. I believe the Commissioners erred in at least five aspects. (1) They were biased. (2) They were wrong in imposing a duty on me to produce evidence which I had no such duty. (3) They misinterpreted the term "to lead in evidence". (4) The Commissioners denied me the necessary facilities and the relevant files. (5) They interpreted the rules of relevance wrongly.

Sir, I say the Commissioners were biased because first they branded me "an accuser". Then they changed their minds and said, "No, you are not an accuser. You are an alleger." Whether it makes any difference, I really do not know. What is the difference between "accuser" and "alleger"? It is all the same. By calling me an accuser or alleger showed that they did not have an open mind. They were not neutral. They had taken a position which they should not. If they had taken a position, they cannot be objective. If they cannot be objective in their findings, their report too would be slanted. The Commissioners like a judge in a court of law must be absolutely neutral or unbiased. As soon as it can be shown that any Commissioner in a public inquiry or a court of law is prejudiced and cannot carry out his duties objectively, he must default himself.

In my case, Sir, I had every justification not to proceed with the inquiry. I knew that I would not be able to do my job properly, in the knowledge that all the Commissioners were already biased when all of them agreed that I was an accuser or alleger. So how could they be objective? They had already made up their minds.

As regards the second reason, I say that I had no duty to give evidence of my own. Throughout the proceedings, the Commissioners insisted that I give my evidence. They were wrong in imposing this duty on me when I had no such duty. I was not a witness. If I were a witness, then I had to give evidence before the Commissioners. If the Commissioners had studied the terms of the instrument of appointment closely, they would know that my duty was to lead in evidence which cannot be interpreted in any way to mean that I was to be a witness. In fact, throughout the inquiry proceedings, the Commissioners were labouring on this wrong premise. Therein lay their major fault. The Commissioners were aware that the inquiry had its genesis or beginnings in the debate between myself and the Prime Minister in Parliament on 4th March last year. There is nowhere in the report of that debate to show that I had evidence to adduce. I gave no such undertaking. At that time, I was only doing my duty as the sole Opposition Member in Parliament.

Since there was evidence that the late Minister had taken massive amounts of bribes and that he had committed suicide and the criminal proceedings against him cannot be proceeded with, the next logical thing the Government should do was to hold a public inquiry because there was public interest on the matter. It would appear that the Government did not intend to hold a public inquiry. It was therefore incumbent upon me to call on the Government to hold one. I was right in doing so. I think the Government should thank me for it. The Government's position was clear. It did not want to hold an inquiry. The Government said, "We have done all that can be done. We have done a thorough investigation and we are satisfied that there were no other instances of corruption involving the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan or any Minister, Permanent Secretary or Government official. Therefore, there was no necessity to hold a public inquiry."

I think this principle adopted by the Government is wrong in relation to matters that have public interest. This is in a way akin to the stand taken by the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) which the Government rejects. The FEER's position in regard to its recent encounter with the Singapore Government was this. They claim, "We have checked our source of news and we are satisfied that the news in fact came from that source and we are not obligated to check the veracity of the news itself."

In the case of the Teh Cheang Wan affair, the Government said that its investigations were thorough and were satisfied that there were no other wrongdoings and therefore it was unecessary for other probes on the matter. I say that this principle must be wrong. If it were not wrong, then the Government which is elected by the people forever need not account to the public on any matters of public interest. The principle of accountability is paramount in our Western-type style of parliamentary system. If the Government need not give public accountability, sooner or later corruption will creep into the system, as it has done.

Sir, let me emphasize again that nowhere in the debate of 4th March 1987 did I say that I would be a witness at the inquiry. The Report has quoted what I said, namely:

'It should be recalled that Mr Chiam had said in Parliament that "if we dig deep enough, then we will find the evidence."'

What I wanted to was investigations on the Teh Cheang Wan affair. The word "dig" implied an investigation which is far from being a witness.

The next complaint against the Commissioners is that they were unable to understand the meaning of the term "to lead in evidence" which is different entirely in meaning from the term "to lead evidence." They are world's apart. The preposition "in" appearing in the former term made all the difference to the two terms. At one stage, the Chairman of the Commission even said that my English was bad and that I had made a mistake in putting the word "in" between the words "lead" and "evidence". Believe it or not, he did say that. I am surprised that a leading Judicial Commissioner could say that. He thinks that if we use "to lead evidence" is good English and to use "to lead in evidence" is bad English.

The Prime Minister: Sir, may I ask the Member whether he can find any phrase in any legal dictionary with these three words, "lead in evidence". I was careful in asking my colleague, Prof. Jayakumar, to quote the Member for Potong Pasir because he used the words "lead in evidence" which have not been used in any judicial or legal context ever. So in order not to misinterpret him, we quoted him and put it in quotation marks. There is no such phrase in any legal dictionary.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I anticipated that the Prime Minister would be here and I have looked up the meaning of the words "in evidence" in Black's Law Dictionary. Yes, there is a recognized phrase "in evidence" - "included the evidence already adduced." The example given under that meaning is, "The facts in evidence are such as have already been proved in the cause." So facts in evidence are such that have already been proved in the cause. So "lead in evidence" means to lead that evidence which has already been adduced. It is as simple as that. There is a very major difference. I am sure the Prime Minister can understand me. I do not need a QC's opinion on that. I am quite certain of what I am saying. There is a distinct difference between "lead evidence" and "lead in evidence". So the DPP who went before the Commission of Inquiry, what he was doing was not leading evidence, he was leading in evidence. In other words, he has already got all the evidence. He has looked into the CPIB files. He has got the evidence there and he is just leading the Director of CPIB. He could even refer to the page in his file at one stage. You can replay the videotape. That is called "leading in evidence".

The Commissioner has forgotten that it is not my duty - I am so sorry about this - but the Commissioner has forgotten that once the phrase gets into the Instrument of Appointment, it is the President who is deemed to have used those words; and no longer me. I am sure the Hon. Minister, a Professor of Law, understands that. Once the word is incorporated in the Instrument of Appointment under the signature of the President, it is no longer mine, it is his. That is how we lawyers operate.

Sad to say, one of the Commissioners not only showed prejudice but he was also ignorant on a very vital aspect of the Inquiry. My duty, as spelt out in one of the terms of reference, was to lead in evidence. The words "in evidence", according to Black's Law Dictionary, which I have just pointed out, is an authority on legal terms, and "in evidence" means evidence already adduced. So, as I pointed out, "facts in evidence" are facts that are already proved in the cause. Similarly, "to lead in evidence" means to lead in such evidence that has already been adduced. Therefore, according to the terms of reference, I was never to be a witness but to present the evidence that has already been adduced. So my duty was exactly the same as that of the Senior State Counsel, Mr Lawrence Ang, who had full access to all CPIB files. Mr Ang just produced the evidence which had been laid before him.

As a result of the wrong determination of my status or position in the Inquiry, the Commissioners had refused me the necessary facilities and also a secretarial staff and access to the relevant files. In my view the most relevant files are the CPIB files. Sir, I am a Member of Parliament, an elected representative of the people. I am not a party in a litigation as far as the Inquiry is concerned. This important point distinguishes me from the parties in the legal cases quoted by the Commissioners at page 51 of the Report. My position is to lead in evidence. I am not a witness. My position, as I have stated, is exactly the same as that of the Senior State Counsel, Mr Lawrence Ang, to assist the Commissioners in doing their work. So if Mr Ang had a right of access to all the CPIB files, so would I. Since I had no access to the CPIB files which were vital to my work in the Inquiry, I could not do a proper job of it. As such, I had every right not to proceed with the Inquiry.

My fifth and last objection, Sir, to the Commissioners is that they blocked me every inch of the way by imposing on me the strict rules of relevance. Sir, as far as I am concerned, any matter which has the slightest or remotest connection with the terms of reference has relevance. And I have a right of access to those matters. As a result of the misapplication of the rules of relevance, I was blocked out. That was the position if one views the whole proceedings objectively.

Perhaps I could just briefly enlighten hon. Members here as regards the obstacles that could be put up if one insists on observing the strict rules of relevance. Say, I ask for the CPIB files. They will say, "All right. What particular aspect do you want to look into it?" Then if I say, "All right, I want to look into the Teh Cheang Wan". They will ask me, "Which part of the Teh Cheang Wan aspect you want?" And if I narrow it down, they will again ask me, "Which are the ones?" There is no end to it. So how can I proceed? In any event, the Inquiry is not in an adversarial position where there is a plaintiff and a defendant, or a prosecutor and an accused person. Of course, each party is trying to win the case and they will use these rules to block evidence on the other side. But in the case of an Inquiry we are not in an adversarial position. The duty of all those present is to assist the Commissioners. We should not be in an antagonistic position. We are in the same camp. We should produce evidence and let the public know the truth or at least come down right to the bottom of the matter. So I think the Commissioners really were unjustified in using the strict rules of evidence in trying to shut me out. That is their words. Although they disclaim it, I still maintain that they have shut me out.

Now we come to the findings. The findings are very important although much I have said are against them. (1) It proved that contrary to what the Government has said, it has not done a thorough job in investigating on the wrong-doings of the late Minister. The Director of the CPIB himself - he is a very honest man - admitted that he did not realize that he had powers to enquire from all banks in Singapore whether the late Mr Teh and members of the family have accounts with them. Only upon being told that he had in fact, such powers did he speedily make the necessary enquiries from all the banks in Singapore, and he received of course only negative results. But that was not really important. There were no other amounts or credit balance in other banks than those already found in the name of Mr Teh Cheang Wan or his family. But as I said, that is not important in our debate. The important point is that due to ignorance or oversight of the law, one Government official could not do thorough investigations on the matter, or thorough investigations could not be carried out on the matter because there was a gap in his knowledge as regards his powers of investigation. The Government was just lucky the last time they could not find any other amounts stashed away. What would have happened if there was no public inquiry and the Teh family actually happened to have large sums of money put away in some other banks and that the CPIB had not investigated those banks due to their ignorance of the law? Then corrupt money would not have been traced. That is the point I am making. The point I am making is that the Government was not thorough.You may turn around and say, "Well, later on we checked, nothing came out of it." But that is not the point. The point is that the Government was not thorough in its investigations and it just happened to be lucky that no amounts could be found. But assuming -

Mr Ng Kah Ting: You got evidence?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Again, that is not an issue.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: What do you mean by "not an issue"?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course. Again - I think the Member has interrupted me. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, you chided me yesterday, but you keep quiet with regard to the Member -

Mr Deputy Speaker: You can continue.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Anyway, I said that even if moneys have not been found stashed away in some other banks, that is not an issue. The issue is that it could not have done a thorough job. That is the point I am trying to make. So assuming there had been money stashed away, because of the Inquiry it would have been found.

Sir, as regards Term 2(a), the finding was that Teh Cheang Wan was able to accept bribes by abusing his position as the Minister for National Development. This is an important finding. Why? Mr Teh Cheang Wan was able to accept bribes and he was able to abuse his position so that he could accept bribes. What can be more damning on the Government system than that finding? Again, I say the Government should be thankful to me for calling for this Inquiry. At least now we know that there is a flaw. It has revealed a flaw in the Government system. The system is not as good as the Prime Minister made it out to be.

The Prime Minister: Can I ask what the flaw is that the Commissioners have not pointed out to the public?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, the flaw is so obvious.

The Prime Minister: What is it?

Mr Chiam See Tong: The flaw is that the system allows for a Minister to be in a position where he could abuse his powers. That is the flaw.

The Prime Minister: Sir, can I clarify? Because this is a very serious matter.

Mr Chiam See Tong: This is the finding of the Commissioners, Sir. I am just quoting from the Report. I am not saying anything else.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister: This is a matter of considerable importance.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, can you let the PM have his clarifications?

Mr Chiam See Tong: All right. Yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Go ahead, Mr Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: Was there a flaw in the system that allowed the corruption? If there was, that flaw must be put right. The bribes took place because the Minister exercised a discretion which he had under the law, but for a consideration. Had Mr Teh Cheang Wan exercised his discretion as a Minister to have returned one-third of that piece of land as redundant to the needs of the Government, it was perfectly within his Ministerial powers. But when he did it for a consideration, that is corruption. The first one against Liaw Teck Kee. In the second case, he had the powers to sell a parcel of land to Mr Ho of Riverside Hotel, now dead. And had he not accepted a bribe, that again was within his Ministerial power. That is what Ministers are here for - to exercise discretion. But that discretion must be exercised in the public interest and not for private gain. Where is the flaw in the system? Show me any system in the world where Ministers have not got Ministerial discretion to exercise their responsibilities?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, we have to confine ourselves to Mr Teh Cheang Wan. We do not want to talk about Ministerial powers at large.

The Prime Minister: What is the flaw?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, the flaw in the Government system is that the Minister was able to be left in such a position where he not only could exercise his discretion according to law but, in fact, he could exercise his discretion exceeding, within even his powers. Let us take the case of the land at Chua Chu Kang. I think it is Chua Chu Kang. What happened was that the developers had made a search and the reply was that this land was not going to be acquired. They had already spent $10 million and they had plans to develop the land. But subsequent to that, unknown to the MND the Ministry of Defence required the land. According to the Report, Mr Teh Cheang Wan felt that he was obligated to these developers because apparently the Government had already given them an assurance that this land would not be acquired. Therefore, when he said that he felt obligated ---

The Prime Minister: Where is the flaw in the system?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Let me finish, please. So what happened was that he exercised at that stage beyond his Ministerial powers of discretion. He was able to take into consideration which he should not have taken. In other words, friendship, goodwill and a moral duty, as he said. So if a Minister in exercising such a position is unable to be checked from exercising that discretion, then there is a flaw in the system. That is what I am saying.

Mr Wong Kan Seng rose ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, can you resume your seat?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker.