DEVAN NAIR'S ADDICTION TO ALCOHOL

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of Mr Devan Nair's recent statements that he never was and is not an alcoholic, the Government was correctly advised when the Prime Minister made his statement to Parliament on 28th March 1985 that Mr Nair resigned as President because he was addicted to alcohol or was unable to perform his duties, and, if the Government was not correctly advised, whether it will withdraw the condition of a panel of doctors for Mr Nair's pension.

The Prime Minister: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the circumstances of Devan Nair's resignation are set out in the White Paper (Command Paper No. 8 of 1988). It contains medical reports, exchange of letters and other documents. These facts will enable Singaporeans to understand why the Government:

(1) asked Devan Nair to resign as President;

(2) sent him to America for treatment for alcoholism under Dr Stanley E. Gitlow; and

(3) moved in Parliament for a pension to him subject to his taking the advice of a medical panel.

Devan Nair was an alcoholic. The details of his behaviour were withheld at the time because they would have embarrassed him and his family. But his recent public statements on political developments in Singapore as an active participant have made it necessary to put the facts on the record so that Singaporeans can understand his motives and see through his statements.

From 13th March 1985 whilst on a visit to Sarawak, Devan Nair had behaved in a bizarre manner. He was uninhibited with women he met, including the wife of an Assistant Minister who accompanied him in a car, women at dinners, and nurses who looked after him. He outraged their modesty, propositioned them, fondled and molested them. On 15th March, the Sarawak State Physician in Kuching, Dr Wong Chee Liang, could no longer hold the position. So he phoned Devan Nair's Personal Physician, Dr John Tambyah, in Singapore, to ask that we take Devan Nair back to Singapore.

In the afternoon of the 15th March 1985, I received a letter from the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Health. It was addressed to the Cabinet Secretary.

At about 9.00 pm that evening, my wife and I went to see Mrs Devan Nair at the Istana Lodge. I brought my wife along because she knew Mrs Nair better than I did and it would make a difficult meeting less awkward. Mrs Nair was collected and steady. She could barely suppress her disgust and anger at the news that Devan Nair had misbehaved with women in Kuching and had collapsed because of alcohol. She said that Devan Nair was a changed man. He had been drinking heavily from time to time since 1979 when Phey Yew Kok was arrested and charged. She had wanted to tell me of it, but her elder son, Janadas, had stopped her.

For the last few months, he had consumed a bottle of whisky a night, every night. She had sent the Istana servants off early every night to avoid the disgrace of their seeing him totally drunk and incapable. He would often beat her. She had expected something to happen in Sarawak and had refused to go.

In the weeks before his Sarawak visit, Devan Nair had been driving a car alone out of the Istana. He had disguised himself with a wig and gone without his Security Officer or his driver to meet a German woman. One morning, after he had been out for the night, Mrs Nair went to Changi Cottage to check. She discovered liquor bottles, glasses with lipstick marks and cigarettes. Devan Nair had also brought the German woman to the Istana Lodge for dinner. When Mrs Nair remonstrated, there was a row and he had beaten her. He was not in control of himself and of his temper in his drinking bouts. He had talked of divorcing her and marrying the German woman.

The next day, on 16th March 1985, I asked Mr Wong Chooi Sen, the Cabinet Secretary, to check on what Mrs Nair told me that the President had been driving out alone and in disguise, and why I was not told of this. The President's ADC and Secretary told the Cabinet Secretary that they had kept the matter from me because they feared that a report to me would lead to problems for the President.

Under Article 17(2) of the Constitution, as President, Devan Nair could not be charged for any crime. The President was above the law. If he had killed someone whilst driving under the influence of alcohol, there would be a public outrage. The Cabinet discussed these developments at several meetings and decided that because of his alcoholism and his behaviour which demeaned his office, either he had to resign before he was discharged from hospital and could resume his activities, or he had to be removed from office by Parliament.

On 26th March 1985, at 4.30 pm, the doctors, Rajaratnam and I met Mrs Nair and her elder son, Janadas Nair. We told them of the need for Devan Nair to resign. Mrs Nair hoped that the Government would not disclose alcoholism as the reason for his resignation as that would reflect badly on the family. I said that given what had happened in Kuching, it was better that the cause of his behaviour, namely alcoholism, be made known.

Shortly after that, Rajaratnam and I met both of Devan Nair's sons, Janadas and Janamitra. The elder son, Janadas, accepted the doctors' reports. He acknowledged his father's condition. But the younger son, Janamitra, rejected the doctors' diagnosis and insisted that Devan Nair was not an alcoholic. He did not want his father to be sent for treatment in America where he would be put together with other alcoholics who, he said, were rough types. Furthermore, his father's alcoholism would reflect badly on the family, he said. Devan Nair himself preferred to go to an "ashram" (or retreat) in India, to meditate and to cure himself in the Hindu way.

On the 27th March, when he had recovered sufficiently to understand the implications of what he had done, Rajaratnam and I saw him at the Singapore General Hospital. At first he refused to resign. Eventually he agreed, but most reluctantly, and only after I told him that I would move a motion in Parliament for his removal.

My colleagues and I eventually persuaded Devan Nair to go to the Caron Foundation to be treated by Dr Stanley Gitlow of New York. The treatment at Caron Foundation appeared to be successful. One and a half years later, in the issue of the 29th January 1987, he denied in a letter to the Far Eastern Economic Review that he ever was an alcoholic. I asked the Cabinet Secretary to check with Permanent Secretary (Health) the meaning of this. Permanent Secretary (Health) sent the Cabinet Secretary a letter dated 14th February 1987 signed by all the seven doctors in Singapore who had managed Devan Nair in March/April 1985 confirming their previous diagnosis of alcoholism. No doctor has been cited by Devan Nair to contradict the diagnosis of alcoholism made by seven doctors in Singapore, three from the public and four from the private sector.

The public sector doctors are (1) Dr Teo Seng Hock; (2) Prof Chan Heng Leong; (3) Dr Ong Thiew Chai. Their designations are published in the White Paper. The four from the private sector are: (4) Dr J.A. Tambyah, Visiting Consultant, Singapore General Hospital; (5) Dr R. Nagulendran, Consultant Psychiatrist, Ministry of Health; (6) Dr Loong Si Chin, Visiting Consultant Neurologist, Ministry of Health; (7) Dr Ho Kok Tong, Visiting Consultant Physician, Ministry of Health.

This diagnosis was confirmed by Dr Stanley E. Gitlow, a specialist in the treatment of Addictive Diseases in New York and Consultant to the US State Department. Dr Robin J. Mitnick of New York did a CT Scan of Devan Nair's brain on 17th June 1985. Dr David R. Coddon of New York did an EEG on Devan Nair on 18th June 1985. Their reports, both in the White Paper, supported the findings of our Singapore doctors.

Under the law, the President is not entitled to a pension. There is a provision for a resolution in Parliament for a pension in special circumstances, as with our first President, Yusof Ishak, when we moved a resolution for a pension for his widow who had done good work for over 10 years.

Devan Nair had not completed one term of four years when he was forced to resign his office under less than honourable circumstances.

I thought it more appropriate that the NTUC offer him a gratuity, as it was in the trade unions that Devan Nair had rendered his service. The NTUC was of the same view. They passed a resolution to that effect. Subsequently, the President of the NTUC wrote to Mrs Nair. She replied rejecting it. She said that it should have been given direct to Devan Nair.

However, my Cabinet colleagues thought that a pension could be justified, provided he abided by the advice of a medical panel. I did not support this decision. Therefore, it was the Minister for Law, E.W. Barker, and not I, who moved the resolution in Parliament. He supported the majority view.

To sum up: first, the Government is satisfied that the doctors were correct when they advised the Government that Devan Nair's medical condition was due to alcoholism. Second, the Government was fully justified, for the reasons given in this statement and the accompanying White Paper, in the decision to remove Devan Nair as President in March 1985. Third, the Government does not have any reason to lift the condition in the pension resolution passed in Parliament.