REPORT OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON INVESTIGATIONS CONCERNING THE LATE MR TEH CHEANG WAN (Paper Cmd. 18 of 1987)

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, with your leave, I will continue. I notice that the Government has brought in extra artillery.

Some hon. Members: Where?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Please proceed, Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: My last point I brought up was that the system was not as good as the Prime Minister has made it out to be. I will go on to the next point. In the light of this finding, I would call upon the Prime Minister to give serious consideration whether or not to permit regular public scrutiny of Ministers' assets. I for one would like to see Ministers declare their assets before taking office and thereafter to have regular public checks on their assets on an annual basis. This is the surest way to prevent corruption, although I do not dispute the assurance given by the Prime Minister that there is a good law to punish those who are caught with corrupt practices. We have got a good organ, the CPIB, fearless in their investigations, and also we do have a vigilant public who will report on any acts of wrongdoing. But, Sir, I would still contend that there is no better check than the general public at large.

I am surprised that the Commissioners have taken the trouble to defend the Prime Minister in the Report in relation to what he had said in Parliament on 4th March 1987. It is a pity the Prime Minister is not here. I suppose he will turn up later. The Prime Minister has on record made it clear that he does not need anyone to defend him. He is very capable of defending himself. In any event, the Commissioners, in my view, have done a poor job of it. I will require the Prime Minister to tell this House whether or not he has promised that he will make all files available to me. In my view, he has made that promise. I should like to refer to the relevant parts of the Hansard. I will take it right from the start at col. 45 [Vol. 49, 4 Mar 87]. The Prime Minister said "I chose my words carefully." So he meant every word he said. He intended the full meaning of every word he said. Col. 46 (all this is on 4th March 1987):

'The Member will have full access to this data either in a commission of inquiry or in a proper trial.'

Then I made a comment to this effect. He said that "anything I want I could have access to. I will take his word for it." This statement of mine was never rebutted by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister further said at the same column:

'I can assure him that he will have access to the file, if he wants.' At col. 47:

'There is nothing which we want to conceal. I cannot go further.'

Again in the same column:

'Nothing will be denied him. I cannot go further.' You see the adjective used, all "nothing." What he really meant was every file that I asked for would be made available to me. Then we go to col. 51 at the bottom:

'I assume that he [meaning myself] is going to lead the evidence and all the files will be made available to him. Nothing will be denied him.'

Then we have at col. 54:

'I want to make quite sure that the Member has got what he wants investigated, down in his own words.'

In all these statements made by the Prime Minister, I have no doubt in my mind that he has made a categorical promise to me that if I lead in evidence all the files that I asked for, I will get them. So I want the Prime Minister to keep that promise.

Mr Bernard Chen (Clementi): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Commission of Inquiry on investigations concerning the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan has done a very comprehensive job in dealing with a very complex and painful matter. It is not often that Ministers have been involved in corruption charges. The last one was in 1976. The investigations show that the integrity of the Singapore civil service remains intact as the Minister acted alone in the two cases investigated. Similarly, investigations on other allegations have shown that they are without basis.

One of the cornerstones of Singapore's success in both economic and social spheres is the incorruptibility of the Government and the civil service. In a period of rapid economic and social progress, there are many temptations which would test the mettle of Government leaders and civil servants alike. There are really only two ways to guard against corruption. The first is the calibre and integrity of the individual in Government. He must have the basic qualities of honesty and commitment to do a good job. Our Government can be justifiably proud that the incidence of errant officers involved in corruption, is few and far between. It may have something to do with the moral values that we have inculcated in our population through our education programme and, more important, through the personal examples set by our senior leaders.

However, human nature being what it is, when temptation becomes too great, it is inevitable that some will fall. It is here that the second element comes in. We must have a totally impartial agency such as the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau which is prepared to bring the investigations to the last detail and to the highest level. Without this independence and commitment to act regardless of pressures, wrongdoings will be covered up and corruption will slowly become insidious in the entire administrative system. The Singapore CPIB has an enviable reputation. It is well-known for its thoroughness in its investigations. It is often said that it is less than pleasantundergoing a CPIB investigation. Unless one is innocent of all wrongdoings, one would be hard-pressed not to buckle under the intensity of the probe. The safeguard, fortunately here, of course, is that innocent parties need have no fear because investigations, although thorough, will be fair.

I am pleased to note that the Commission of Inquiry has covered this second aspect in great detail. It has concluded that the CPIB has been most thorough in its investigations despite the seniority of the suspect. It gives us comfort that our system is able to uncover all corruption practices should and when they occur. The Commission of Inquiry's finding that the Minister has acted alone also helps to reinforce the integrity of the administration. All rumours and speculations of involvement by other officers can now be laid to rest. In an open society like Singapore it is not difficult to understand why such rumours spread so rapidly. The only way to counter this is to be open about the findings of the investigations so that all speculations can be laid to rest.

Let me now come, Sir, to the stance taken by the Member for Potong Pasir. As the Minister has pointed out, it was the Member for Potong Pasir who called for the Commission of Inquiry. This was despite assurances given by the Prime Minister in Parliament that, first, the CPIB has concluded in its investigations that the late Minister acted alone and that no other officers were involved. Second, there were no other instances of corruption apart from the two specific instances mentioned. The Member for Potong Pasir in insisting for an open inquiry was not talk- ing of suspicion but of actual wrongdoing. He said in Parliament:

'If we dig deep enough, then we will find the evidence.'

He has himself agreed to the terms of reference which he helped to draft. What do we find in the Inquiry then? The Member for Potong Pasir, after repeated questioning, has to admit that he has no evidence. If he had accepted the Prime Minister's statement at the outset, there would have been no need for such an inquiry. Having failed to produce evidence, the Member for Potong Pasir has resorted to technicalities to get out of involvement in the Inquiry. Playing on words, he got off from having to prove the allegations and accusations he levelled at the Government in Parliament earlier. He has, as the Commissioners said in the Report, to their surprise, given up the opportunity even to probe the CPIB officers.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I be allowed to clarify a point he made?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Do you want to give way, Mr Chen?

Mr Bernard Chen: Yes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Does the hon. Member accept the principle that if a Government investigates on a matter and it has satisfied itself that it has done a thorough job, nobody else can ask for a public inquiry? Does he accept this principle?

Mr Bernard Chen: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government has no need to call for an inquiry because it has done its full investigations and made the facts public.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes or no, please.

Mr Bernard Chen: If you cannot understand my answer, there is no point saying yes or no.

Mr Chiam See Tong: No. Yes or no? I want to clarify. Don't avoid the clarification I asked for. Come on, be a man.

Mr Bernard Chen: Let me continue with my statement, please. As I said just now, he has bypassed the opportunity to examine the so-called shortcomings of the system used by the Ministry of National Development and other related companies which he had himself inserted as a term of reference for the Inquiry. In his statement this morning in Parliament he has covered grounds that have been dealt in great detail by the Commissioners. It is disappointing as an MP to see a fellow Member of Parliament casting aspersions on the character and calibre of the Commissioners of this Inquiry who are all notable professionals in their own right. It is even more amazing that he has not said this at the Commission but rather choose the opportunity ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I be allowed to clarify?

Mr Bernard Chen: Please let me finish. He could have said all this at the Commission and then it would have given the Commissioners a chance to rebut. Instead he chose the easy way out by saying it here where he has got protection. This does not speak well of Members of Parliament. All this evasiveness shows that the Member for Potong Pasir actually stands on very shallow and unsteady ground. He cried, "Wolf", but no wolf showed up. He alleged wrongdoings of a momentous scale ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Massive.

Mr Bernard Chen: None surfaced. "Momentous" is not very different from "massive". Let us remind ourselves that the Government has come clean right from the start without prompting from other parties, much less the Member for Potong Pasir. The Commission of Inquiry called for by the MP for Potong Pasir merely confirmed findings concluded much earlier on, which findings had already been revealed in Parliament. It speaks well of the Government and the administration that we are prepared to uphold the integrity of our system even though it may involve very painful and difficult decisions as the case before us has demonstrated. The Government's total impartiality is to be commended.

I support the Report of the Commission.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs.

Sir, before I comment on the report on the investigations on the Teh Cheang Wan Affair, could I just comment on the Chiam See Tong affair in the whole affair?

The Minister for Home Affairs in his statement did express the hope that the Member for Potong Pasir would not follow in the footsteps of Mr Jeyaretnam. I am afraid his hope will not be entertained because it would appear that the Member for Potong Pasir is following in the footsteps of Mr Jeyaretnam all the way.

Mr Chiam See Tong: That is not your concern, isn't it?

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: You would recall that the Commission of Inquiry that was set up in Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam's case, when the report was not in his favour, he tried to discredit the Commissioner. I think, in like fashion today, the Member for Potong Pasir is doing the same, ie, because he has got no case to put across, he is trying to retrieve whatever reputation he has lost.

Mr Chiam See Tong: May I be allowed to clarify?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Sia, do you want to give way?

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: He can clarify after I have finished.

Mr Chiam See Tong: All right.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Coming to his point that he raised earlier, his argument as to what was what - to lead in evidence or to lead evidence - I do not wish to enter into an argument as to which is correct at this point of time anyway. Whether it is to lead in evidence or to lead evidence, as far as I am concerned, it is irrelevant. What is more important is to proceed with the evidence, to proceed with helping the Commission to come out with whatever evidence that he claimed to have initially. I think everybody, not just the Commissioners but the public too, was waiting for the Member for Potong Pasir at the proceedings to come out with something dramatic. But instead, he chose to behave in the way he behaved. I do not have to repeat what has already been said in the Report and what has been stressed by the Minister for Home Affairs. The point is that he never had evidence in the first place. I think that is the position.

Is he now saying that he denied saying those things in Parliament in March - that he was going to lead evidence, that he was going to bring people who would help him to produce the evidence? In fact, he went further and asked whether the Government would be prepared to pay those who assisted him in preparing the evidence and helping the Commission.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What is wrong with that?

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: No, there is nothing wrong with that. But the point goes to prove that you did say that you were going to lead evidence, that you were going to produce people who were going to lead evidence, help you to lead evidence, and you were asking whether they should be paid. All these go to confirm that you did at that time made it very clear. And as the Minister for Home Affairs said, nine times the Prime Minister repeated, "Are you going to lead evidence?" And your answer was very firm and you said you were "on solid ground".

I think it is quite extraordinary that the Member today should try to come and say that he never said such a thing and accused the Commissoners of being biased towards him. I think the Commissioners were trying to do their work, finding out what evidence the Member for Potong Pasir was trying to produce. Is it not their duty to do that? Is not the whole purpose of setting up the Commission of Inquiry was to determine whether there was any evidence to prove that there were other wrongdoings apart from what was revealed? In fact, that was the whole essence of setting up the Commission of Inquiry - on the strength of the statement made by the Member for Potong Pasir. Because the Prime Minister has made it very clear that as far as the Government is concerned, it is satisfied that the investigation by the CPIB is thorough, it is in the process of investigating further, that there is no lapse in the efforts of the CPIB in investigating any corruption cases, and let the CPIB proceed, as its function is to do that. There was no need for all this hullabaloo created as if the Government was trying to hide something. Because, I think, as is proven in the Report, that if at all there was any intention to hide anything, the whole investigation would have stopped at some point of time.

The Member also said just now that there is a flaw in the system and that is why the late Minister for National Development, Mr Teh Cheang Wan, could abuse that. The Prime Minister has explained it very clearly. In the system itself, where is the flaw? As Members of Parliament, we often receive requests from constituents who are not happy with decisions taken by Government Ministries. They want the decisions to be reversed, as the decisions affect them either in acquisition cases or resettlement cases, or whatever the case may be. All decisions taken by Government Ministries very often inconvenience our constituents, and some decisions are sometimes made without taking into account all the considerations - the human factor, the constituent's point of view. Very often they approach us, as Members of Parliament, to appeal to the Minister to rescind certain decisions so that they would not be inconvenienced. I think we have come across cases where we find that some of the requests are justifiable. So I think the system which allows the Minister to exercise discretion is a system that works in the interest of the public. It not only works in Singapore, it works elsewhere.

Therefore, it is not so much the system that has got a flaw but it is the human nature of the individual who holds the position. It is the character flaw that induces the person to abuse his position resulting in all his acts of corruption. So if you could attribute the Teh Cheang Wan Affair to anything, it is due more to the flaw in the human nature of the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan, with due respect to him. It has nothing to do with the system because the system that allows Ministers to exercise discretion has to continue in the interest of our constituents.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the report of the Commission of Inquiry on investigations concerning the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan, to me is comprehensive and thorough, despite the Commission's inability to obtain cooperation from the Member for Potong Pasir who had asked in the first place for the inquiry because he suggested that there was more to be known or discovered regarding the Teh Cheang Wan affair. He not only would lead evidence, according to him, but there were also people who would assist him. He was given every opportunity to do so to support his claim, but he did not do so. And according to the report, it was after quite some time that finally the Commissioners got him to admit that he never had any evidence.

As a Member of the Opposition, of course, the Member for Potong Pasir has a right to ask for a Commission of Inquiry. But as the Minister for Home Affairs has said, he could have done so and argued his case for a Commission of Inquiry in a legitimate and valid way. That is to say, that he would ask that since the late Teh Cheang Wan committed suicide and no trial was possible and since the public was keen to know what happened, a Commission of Inquiry would be quite in order in the public interest provided, of course, he did not in the process try to go further and suggest that there was something that he could produce to show that the Government was trying to cover up something.

I think his right to ask for a Commission of Inquiry is not being questioned. It is the manner in which he went about it. And when he, as a Member of Parliament, did that in this House, of course, the members of the public naturally got excited and thought that there must be something because members of the public, or at least most of them, take very seriously what goes on in this House and therefore expected to see a lot of interesting things coming out. He was given every assistance to produce the evidence which he could not. The Commissioners had finally come to the correct conclusion that he, in fact, had no evidence. I think it would be very honourable for the Member for Potong Pasir to just accept the conclusions of the report instead of taking the opportunity today to cast doubts over the competence and integrity of the Commissioners and trying to bring in red herrings.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in Singapore one of the main reasons why we have succeeded so well is the honesty and integrity of our public institutions. It is not by chance that this is so. It is the unwavering position that the Government takes against corruption. No acts of corruption from anyone will be tolerated and will eventually be exposed. This is, as what the report stated, Singapore's "enviable reputation for the honesty and integrity of its public institutions" and that this reputation should be protected and preserved.

The Government's position in response to what the Member for Potong Pasir had said regarding the late Teh Cheang Wan's case is that it is ready to hold a public inquiry into any matter of public interest so that there can be no question of cover-up." This Report before us has done precisely that. The Report concluded that there was no cover-up and that the CPIB was fearless and thorough in its investigations on the late Teh Cheang Wan case. It has also concluded that the integrity of our system to deal with corruption is intact. Going through the Report and following the proceedings over television, any reasonable person would also come to the same conclusion.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, you wanted to make your clarifications?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Thank you for this opportunity. Sir, I want the Member for Moulmein to clarify three points. He said that I have no case. Can he please tell me what is my case? I do not even know myself. He said that I have got no case with reference to the terms of reference of the Commission.

Then he said that I have to proceed with my evidence. Tell me, please clarify, where in the Instrument of Appointment does it say that I need to give evidence? Please let me know.

Thirdly, he says I have to support my own claims. What is my claim? Just tell me where is it mentioned anywhere in the Instrument of Appointment that I have a claim to make? Please let me have your clarifications.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on 4th March 1987 in this House, he created the impression that he had evidence to show that there was something more to be revealed.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, please resume your seat.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: I am explaining to you what I mean by "you have no case". Your case was that you had evidence to show that there was more to be revealed than what the Prime Minister had stated. That was your case.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Quote the column, please.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Then you went to the Commission of Inquiry. When you were asked to produce the evidence to reveal extra wrongdoing, more than what the Prime Minister had revealed, you were not able to do so. Therefore, you got no case. Is it not correct?

Next, you said about ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: You are a man of ignorance.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Leave it to the public to judge who is the man of ignorance. [Laughter].

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: You said something about payment for you which is not mentioned in the instrument. I am not talking about payment for you. I am only strengthening my argument that, in fact, you are trying to wriggle out from your statement that you never made a statement to the effect that you were prepared to lead evidence.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, I did.

Mr Sia Khoon Seong: I was only strengthening my argument when I said that you not only said that but you also said that you were going to bring people who were going to support you. And you were wondering whether they would be paid. I am giving all these facts to strengthen my argument that, in fact, you did say that you were going to lead evidence. Therefore, you cannot come here today and say that you never said this, you never said that, and that the Commissioners were biased against you. That is what I meant when I said all that.

Have I answered all your points? Or have you got any more?

Mr Chiam See Tong: You said that in the terms of reference I need to give evidence to the Commission.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law.

Sir, the fact that the Government was prepared to set up a Commission of Inquiry is in itself indicative of the fact that, firstly, we have an open Government, that this Government has nothing to hide. And, more importantly, nobody is above the law, even if he is a Cabinet Minister.

There are not many countries in the world where the government in power willingly sets up a commission of inquiry to probe into the wrongdoings of one of its ministers. This in itself is ample evidence of the strength, confidence and integrity of this Government.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, only a government which is run on the principles of higher standards of public morality and code of conduct will have the confidence and gumption to open up its books, so to speak, to the scrutiny of a public commission of inquiry.

The work of the CPIB came under very close public scrutiny. And it is indeed very gratifying to note that the Commissioners in their observation, notwithstanding what the Member for Potong Pasir said, concluded:

'We are of the opinion that the CPIB has done as much as they could have usefully done in uncovering all acts of corruption and wrongdoing.'

Sir, I am satisfied and I think the public generally is satisfied that the CPIB did everything that was necessary. They were thorough and there was no cover-up. It is an added testimony to the strength of the Government, in that we have a good system and it works and nobody, let alone the Member for Potong Pasir, should go round making wild allegations.

What did the Member for Potong Pasir do? He called for this Inquiry in this House. According to the Report:

'to produce evidence that there was more to what he Government had disclosed.'

Did he do this at the Inquiry? I think the people of Singapore know what he did. In the words of the Commissioners, Sir:

'Mr Chiam failed to give the Commissioners any sense of direction and purpose in his search for evidence.'

The Commissioners refused to allow him to go on a fishing expedition because he did not know what he was fishing for. The Commissioners went on to say:

'He was merely groping in the dark hoping to find some wrongdoing but with no idea what the nature of the wrongdoing would be.'

Sir, he also threw away an opportunity to cross-examine the Director of CPIB and other witnesses. He would have had whatever information he wanted. I am sure he is a clever lawyer. He would know how to cross-examine people and get the information which he wanted. And I think he threw away a golden opportunity to cross-examine Mr Evan Yeo and all the other CPIB witnesses. Maybe the Commissioners were right in concluding:

'Maybe he did not know what to question the witnesses about or he did not have any reason to disbelieve the testimony of each of the witnesses.'

Sir, I believe the findings of the Commissioners is a serious indictment on the Member for Potong Pasir. The Commissioners expected the Member to be serious about this Inquiry since it was he who asked for it. The Commissioners were, in fact, too polite when they concluded that his conduct was extraordinary. Sir, in fact, his conduct was most deplorable. The Member must know as a lawyer that coffeeshop gossip is no basis to ask for a Commission of Inquiry.

Sir, his feeble attempts had failed to cast aspersions on the integrity of our Government and our public institutions like the CPIB. His feeble attempts had failed and, in fact, failed miserably. His incoherence has not produced any new evidence but, in fact, has exposed him merely as being very shallow.

The Inquiry was held at great public expense and I really would like to ask the Minister for Home Affairs how much did the Commission of Inquiry cost the Government. On 21st August, the Member for Potong Pasir admitted he had no additional evidence, either direct or hearsay. I hope the Member for Potong Pasir hopefully has learnt a lesson, ie, the next time when he asks for a Commission of Inquiry he better think twice.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to make an observation. I do not think I can sit there and hear speaker after speaker making all kinds of wild allegations against me. Please ask them, if they want to make an allegation against me, to back it up.

The last speaker has said that my conduct was deplorable. Can he justify what he has said? There is nothing in the Report which says that my conduct was deplorable.

Mr Bernard Chen: I suggest to the Member that he read the Commission of Inquiry's Report more thoroughly.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Where is it? In page 54? Is that what you mean?

Mr Bernard Chen: Every page. 2.40 pm

The Prime Minister: Mr Deputy Speaker, sometimes we utter words in this House without an appreciation of the repercussions it has outside this House. When the Member for Potong Pasir asked for a Commission of Inquiry on the 4th of March last year, it was the nature in which he asked for that Inquiry - the words he used, the expressions, his countenance, his gestures - which conveyed a total impression. All of us who have watched television know that the printed word in Hansard is an inadequate record of what took place. But we could replay the Member for Potong Pasir when he had that exchange with me. I was under no doubts whatsoever that the allegation, the insinuation, the innuendo, was that there was more to it, not about the one-third land acquired being returned. That was a disclosure made by me to this House. I needed no Commission of Inquiry to investigate what I had disclosed. But he indicated that there was more wrongdoing of that nature.

Sir, I think we should know that when we hold a Commission of Inquiry in this case, we were in fact having a posthumous trial. And if that were justified, I would yield. My reluctance to having a Commission of Inquiry was not because I wanted to evade disclosures but because I wanted to save the widow and the daughter a terrible discomfiture and embarrassment which an opening of the whole proceedings, including the bank accounts, must bring.

I am sorry that this was visited upon them. I think we ought to know that it was because the Member insisted and because I gave him the privilege of drafting the terms of reference, in case it be said that I persecuted the family after the husband had committed suicide. I left him to draft the terms of reference. But there should be some human compassion for the embarrassment of the family and as a result of which, before the Commission of Inquiry sat, the daughter resigned from Government Service and has gone away and so has the widow. It was not our intention to persecute them. We could have had this Commission of Inquiry without these slurs that there was more.

I feel a certain distaste when I heard the Member this morning because I felt he had learnt the wrong lesson from what happened to Mr Jeyaretnam. The Member is a different person from Mr Jeyaretnam. He is basically a simple, straightforward man. And he is quite right. People know what he thinks and people can see that he is trying to follow in the footsteps of someone who is totally devoted to the theory that if he asserts and denies all assertions against him, he will always keep his following. The end result, of course, was less than ideal.

I have three simple points to make today. I had not intended to speak. First, the Commissioners need no defending, either in this House or anywhere else. They are men known in the community as people of some standing, of some status in their professions, and command respect for being what they are. It was for those reasons that they were appointed in the first place by the President. Their conduct was seen publicly and reported in the Press and enough excerpts were shown on television to give a fair sample of what took place. The official Report, I suggest, does them the credit that they deserve because they have put themselves to some effort to garner and muster a long, fluid, sometimes inchoate, mass of tangential evidence and side statements into a coherent whole. And where they have made a ruling, the Chairman has found authority to back his ruling. There are over 1,400 lawyers, advocates and solicitors, at the Bar. Mr S.K. Chan, Judicial Commissioner, has a reputation amongst them. Before I appointed him as Judicial Commissioner, he was one of the leading practitioners at the Bar and he may decide to go back and be a leading practitioner. If he does improper things, it must affect his standing with his equals, with his peers.

Secondly, I need no defending, and the Commissioners know that. I think they are sufficiently aware that they need not defend me. It was not their duty to defend what the Prime Minister does, either in this Chamber or outside. The Member for Potong Pasir is not totally ignorant.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I said that. I just said what you said.

The Prime Minister: Yes. He is not totally ignorant. He must know that regardless of what I or anybody said in the debate in this House, once a Commission has been constituted, the powers to summon to produce documents, witnesses, lies not in what has been said in this House but in the authority of the Commission with regard to the terms of reference. All lawyers know this. The Commissioners, I assume, went through Hansard because the Member claimed that, regardless of whether it was relevant or not, I had promised him that everything would be made available; therefore, that included the CPIB files. And therefore whether it was relevant or not, since that was promised it must be produced and the Commission must sanction it. So they went through Hansard and found no such undertaking. And indeed, I invite the Member himself to go through and point out.

Mr Chiam See Tong: You were not here. I pointed them out.

The Prime Minister: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been patient with the Member because I think he does not really mean us evil. I know he wants to extricate himself out of an awkward situation, and I sympathize with him. But throwing us off our tracks, so to speak, by saying, "Yes, I promised him the CPIB files", implies that I must be daft. In the context of the debate, I said, "All files will be made available and nothing will be denied" - nothing will be denied which will help him establish that an illegal act or an act of corruption was committed by Teh Cheang Wan. If Teh Cheang Wan had made use of the CPIB and committed an act of indiscretion, of course he is entitled to those files. But Teh Cheang Wan had no jurisdiction over the CPIB. I am the Minister-in-charge. What the CPIB files contained is not acts by Teh Cheang Wan minuting, "Please return one-third of the land", but the investigations of the Director of CPIB and his staff on other files where Mr Teh Cheang Wan had minuted.

The Member said in this Chamber that he did not impugn the integrity of the CPIB but as he got involved in the argument about to "lead in evidence", about what he was going to do at all in the Commission, having taken a somewhat audacious stand in this House, I could sympathize with his dilemma. Because to stand up and to tell the Commissioners that really it was all an error would have meant that he did not do his homework. But if he will recollect, I had offered him two choices. One to sit on the Commission and to hear the evidence - [Mr Chiam See Tong interrupted].

The Prime Minister: I did not. [Mr Chiam See Tong interrupted].

Mr Deputy Speaker: Prime Minister, can I interject? Mr Chiam, you do not like to be interrupted and I think others do not like to be interrupted too. If you have something to say, if you want to make any interjections, please rise from your seat and follow the procedure laid down by Standing Orders. The time constraint on speeches has been lifted and I intend to allow you to say all you want to say, but in the meantime I suggest that you conduct yourself with some decorum and stop shouting from your seat. Prime Minister.

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

The Prime Minister: The CPIB files are a total red herring. Suppose we black out the names of all the informants which are sensitive (because it will show who told what, who made what allegation) and the names of all those informed against were given as aliases, and provide it to the Member. What can he lead in, which the Director, CPIB, has not produced which was relevant? It is a red herring, is it not? Does he allege or suggest that there are facts and documents in the possession of the CPIB which have not been produced before the Commissioners? Surely not. He said that the Director is an honest man. And he is, otherwise he should not be Director. And if there is anything which is in his possession which is relevant, and the Member suspects it, even now, let us hear it. But all this is just so much persiflage.

I have said the Commissioners need no defending. I have said they do not have to defend me and they were not defending me, and I do not need to defend myself because I was prepared for this debate. I had offered the Member (remember?) either to sit as a Member of the Commission or to lead the evidence and warned him that it meant hard work. And he wanted to show that he was capable of doing the hard work and he preferred to "lead in the evidence". This is the first time I have heard that phrase and therefore I was careful when I asked my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, to settle the terms of reference to quote him. He was given the draft terms of reference, asked to amend them. He amended them, and the words he used were the words then gazetted.

The person who needs to defend himself is the Member for Potong Pasir. We are not here to accuse him. We have not accused him. All we are saying is, "Let us accept the Report", and that is as it should be. The Member says, "Let us reject the Report." Why? Because the Commissioners were biased against him. When did he think up that argument? When did he feel that the Commissioners were biased? The moment he felt that, he should have stood up before the Commission and said, "Mr Commissioner, I feel that you and your colleagues, Mr Chairman, are not qualified to make a finding in this case because I consider you biased and for the following reasons." That is a proper challenge; not to wait for the end of the Inquiry and the Report and, finding that it is unfavourable, then turn up in this House, and in the privileged circumstances of this House make this totally baseless accusation.

What is it he is rejecting? The findings that he did not do his job? Well, I am not interested in that. We are interested here in the findings on the terms of reference, and I ask him seriously to consider this: that if he is, by his rejection, saying that those findings are wrong and that "if you have three Commissioners who are not biased, there will be another and a different finding", I say, let us go on with that. Please sit back and think. Because the Member does very off-hand decisions. Since Prof. Jayakumar says he accepts the Report, the Member finds the contrary word and says he rejects the Report. Is he saying that he rejects the Report because the findings are wrong and perverse, contrary to the evidence which he, if given access to CPIB files, will show? Because if he is, provided the names are changed and aliases are used, we will make those files available to him, although he is not entitled to them, and let us go through with another Inquiry and he can draw the names out of a hat: all the Judges - High Court Judges, District Judges, and all the committees of the honourable professions in Singapore. Is that what he is saying? Because if that is so, I take him very seriously and I say we will go through with the operation again. Or is he only saying (when he said, "I reject the Report"), "I reject those parts which unnecessarily censure me."? If that is what he is saying, I say that is perfectly legitimate because, after all, he has got to face his voters at Potong Pasir. And I understand that.

Now, I ask him to consider carefully whether he rejects the Report in toto, in other words, it is biased, the Commissioners are biased, the findings are perverse and contrary to the evidence, and the proper evidence was never adduced because he was denied the CPIB files; or that those parts of the Report which are a censure on him should be rejected. That is a matter of some importance. I suggest he think about it and make a considered response. Because I thought about it carefully over lunch before I put this to him and this House. I have discussed this with my colleagues, and if he wants it, so be it.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The Prime Minister was not here when I spoke after lunch. I had asked him whether or not he had made me a promise that I would be given all files and nothing be denied me. Perhaps we could get an answer, preferably a yes or no answer, from Mr Prime Minister. If his answer is no, then it would appear that what he said at col. 45 (Hansard, Vol. 49, 4th March 1987.) is not true because you said "I chose my words carefully." If you do not mean what you say, then you did not choose your words carefully. I do not know which is which now.

The Prime Minister: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can I shorten these proceedings?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, go ahead.

The Prime Minister: What I have said is on the record. I am not under inquiry. I am not asking for another inquiry. We are suggesting that the Report be accepted, and that is the end of the matter.

The Member for Potong Pasir is saying that the Report should be rejected. I am suggesting to him now that he can reject the Report in toto and have another three Commissioners; and this time, although he is not entitled to the CPIB files, he will get the CPIB files with the names changed so that there will be aliases, and he will then resume where he left off. Or is he saying, "Enough is enough. Just reject those parts where they censure me because I have to go back to Potong Pasir." If he accepts the second position, that is another matter.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Can you respond to that, Mr Chiam?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, it would appear that this Government has got a standard method of dealing with the Opposition. Whenever we make a criticism of the Government, we are expected either to build four new blocks of flats or now to have another whole inquiry. Does the Government ---

The Prime Minister: What does rejection of the Report mean? Is it perverse, the findings?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have got no answer in regard to my first query from the Prime Minister. I will go to my second and third points. Does this Government accept that whenever the Opposition (at least there is one Opposition) criticizes the Government very strongly, he must justify his criticisms? I have given an example. I talk from facts and figures which we have come out with and it has never been disputed that there was a profit in regard to building of the flats. He said, "All right. Since we made so much profit, why don't you go and build four blocks of flats." What kind of argument is this?

Over here, we have before us a motion moved by the Hon. Minister. We are here to debate on it and to say yes or no to it. We have been doing this all the time. I am not making any aspersions. I am putting my reasons forward why I reject the Report. What is wrong with that? Does it mean that if I give my reasons and reject the Report, all right, you go and have another inquiry?

The Prime Minister: Do I understand from that, in a roundabout way, what he is saying is he does not want another inquiry and all he really wants is to have a little show about the censures that have been made against him in the Report? If that is so, so be it.

Mr Chiam See Tong: How much time do we have?

An hon. Member: As long as you want.

Mr Chiam See Tong: There are many points which the Prime Minister has brought up. Of course, whatever is reported in the Hansard does not give justice to what takes place in this House. I think this is very true of what the Prime Minister has said. But again, then, whatever our arguments in future we will have to fall back on what is recorded in the Hansard. There are no other avenues in which we can go along unless the Prime Minister is setting a new precedent that in future we will have a video-tape here and if there is any argument we have to play it not only ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, can I suggest that you be relevant to the motion under discussion?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am answering his points.

Mr Deputy Speaker: You are talking about Hansard.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The Prime Minister brought up this point. Am I not allowed to reply?

The Prime Minister: I have only one point to put to him, and that is, is it a rejection in toto? Or is it a rejection of those parts which censure him? If it is a rejection in toto, he is saying that it is perverse and contrary to the evidence, in which case I am suggesting to him, what more does he want? Draw up the list. He may want more than the CPIB files. Let us have everything drawn up and let us go through it.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, this is the first time I am hearing whether or not to accept a Report in toto or parts of it. I have not come prepared to accept parts of it. I only come either to reject it as a whole or accept it as a whole. Now you are telling me that I am allowed to accept paragraphs 1 to ..., and then the rest I can reject. This is the first time I have heard of this. Unless you want to adjourn this sitting, I will go back and have a careful look at every paragraph and then I can come back and tell you which are the ones I reject and which are the ones I would like to have them retained. On the spot now it is impossible for me to say, "All right, we will reject what line, what paragraph, make amendments." Really I can tell you I come unprepared for that and I am not going to be drawn into this situation. If the Prime Minister really is serious about whether or not I can reject parts of it, I will certainly accept his offer and go back and have a good look at it again and then, like in court documents, I will underline in red the parts that I want to have them rejected.

Sir, the Prime Minister has brought up a very important point this afternoon. Is the Opposition allowed to criticize very strongly Government policies or Government action? I do not think we need to go back and justify it in a practical way about our criticisms. I have given an example of the building of four blocks of flats, and now today if I am not happy with it, "all right, let us have another inquiry." I do not think this is the kind of situation which we should accept.

An hon. Member: So you don't want another inquiry.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I do not think it is as easy as all that to have another inquiry. Please, it is a massive exercise.

Sir, I have made my points but I would be very happy if Members here would rebut me on the points that I have brought up rather than going about and making all kinds of allegations against me. Now, the Prime Minister comes up and says, "All right, let's have another Commission of Inquiry." I am not prepared for that unless, of course, all that I have asked for are given to me. I can tell you now that I am not prepared, or even in future, to go on any public inquiry unless I can get certain guarantees. Because it is a massive exercise. Each file is about two inches thick. It took me one afternoon just to go through one file.

The points that are brought up by hon. Members here do not confine themselves to the terms of the Inquiry. They just have a free go at me, making all kinds of allegations without backing them up. We are here to debate on the Report. If we accept it, well and good. I have no objection to all Members accepting it. If I do not accept it, why should Members be so disturbed?

The Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I sum up very briefly. The Member started off by saying that he would ask the House to reject the Report on the following grounds. First, the Commissioners were biased. Second, they were wrong in the interpretation of "lead in evidence", that they had denied him facilities and files, and so on.

As to the first point, Sir, the allegation of bias has been dealt with by the Prime Minister who had asked him categorically to state if he was alleging that the Commissioners' findings were prejudiced and perverse or whether he was rejecting the Report in toto or he had objections only on those parts which were critical of his performance. We have heard him just now not accepting the offer and he also said that he might be able to point out certain parts which are objectionable. I take that to mean that he does not reject the Report in toto.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have gone through the transcript and I should point out that there is no reference during the entire course of the proceedings of any instance when the Member had alleged in the proceedings that any one of the Commissioners or all the Commissioners were biased against him. He has also said, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Commissioners had blocked him every inch of the way. I think the Members heard him say that - that the Commissioners had blocked him every inch of the way. I have gone through the transcript of proceedings, and the Commissioners specifically asked him:

'Q Are you now implying you do not have the evidence because we have blocked you?

A I am not saying that.

Q Then what are you saying.

A I am not saying that...

And the Commissioners referred to it, in page 43 of the Report, when they said:

'Mr Chiam made the following points:

(c) the Commissioners had not blocked him in his attempts to get evidence.'

Yet today he comes and says that the Commissioners blocked him every inch of the way. The truth is that the Commissioners were highly accommodating of his various requests.

As to the duty to give evidence and that they had misinterpreted the term "lead in evidence", I do not want to belabour the point. But to add to what the Prime Minister said, that in drafting the terms of reference we had consulted him, I would like to add that the Instrument of Appointment used the words of the Member, "to lead in evidence". And in a rather acrobatic way this morning, he said now these are not his words. Being contained in the Instrument, they are now the President's words. I think he cast a slur on all lawyers by saying that this is a trick of the lawyers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we knew that he is going to try this ploy. So not only did the words appear in the Instrument but they are the only words that are in inverted commas, suggesting that these are words used by him, words which we have not found in any reputable Law library, three words "lead in evidence".

Sir, he said he was denied facilities. I went over that point this morning. The Commissioners gave him the facilities after waiving the Rule of Evidence but he waited till the last minute. He was given the opportunity to cross-examine the wit- nesses but he did not take up this opportunity.

Finally, Sir, I am tempted to go over all the other points that he mentioned, but to do so I would have to repeat the points which I mentioned this morning, such as the question of the Prime Minister's promise, and so on. I would like to round up by saying that the Report of the Commissioners speaks for itself because it deals with each and every point that the Member has raised and detailed reasoning is given for every one of the conclusions and reasons.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

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.