PRESIDENTIAL PARDON TO MR J B JEYARETNAM

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to table a motion for Parliament to resolve that the President be asked to grant a pardon to the former MP for Anson to honour the Prime Minister's statement made on the 12 September 1986 before the Committee of Privileges of the last Parliament.

The Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question.

Sir, there is no reason for the Prime Minister to table a motion to ask the President to pardon Mr Jeyaretnam. The Member should read carefully what the Prime Minister said on 12th September 1986 in the Committee of Privileges. The Prime Minister promised Mr Jeyaretnam to get Parliament to ask the President for a pardon or set aside the convictions and order a new trial if Mr Jeyaretnam proved his innocence, namely, by having the two witnesses, Ivy Chew and Ping, as witnesses to say that although the cheques were made out to the Workers' Party, they had, at the time they handed the cheques, said that he was to do with it as he wished. The fact is Mr Jeyaretnam never produced them as witnesses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, after the Privy Council delivered their judgment in the case of J B Jeyaretnam versus the Law Society of Singapore, as Minister for Law, I asked the Attorney-General to advise on its legal implications for the Government.

The Attorney-General studied the judgment and has given his advice, the full text(Cols. 361 - 364) of which will be circulated to hon. Members this morning. The Attorney-General in his advice has given his views on the Privy Council's ruling on Mr Jeyaretnam's disbarment as well as on the Privy Council's comments on Mr Jeyaretnam's criminal convictions. text - ADVICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE'S JUDGMENT IN PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 1988 - JOSHUA BENJAMIN JEYARETNAM v THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE (Cols. 361 - 364)

As regards the question of disbarment, the Attorney-General has stated that the judgment of the Privy Council, insofar as it relates to their ruling on Mr Jeyaretnam's appeal against disbarment, is binding on the parties, namely, the Law Society of Singapore and Mr J B Jeyaretnam. That ruling has been implemented and Mr Jeyaretnam's right to practise has already been restored.

As for the comments of the Privy Council on convictions, Mr Jeyaretnam's appeal was not, and could not be, against the convictions. Mr Jeyaretnam had previously sought special leave from the Privy Council to appeal to them against these convictions, but the Privy Council had refused him leave to do so.

The Attorney-General has advised that the comments of the Privy Council on the criminal convictions of Mr Jeyaretnam do not bind the Government. The Privy Council had no jurisdiction to decide this question. They themselves admitted in their judgment that this was the law. In the view of the Attorney-General, the Privy Council's statements do not in any way reverse these criminal convictions.

While the Privy Council heard counsel for Mr Jeyaretnam on the question of his convictions, it did not invite the Singapore Public Prosecutor to argue the prosecution's case on the convictions. This violated a basic rule of natural justice: that a court should not reach a decision without hearing both sides of an argument. As a result, several issues which were crucial to the case were not fully argued. Had the Public Prosecutor been invited, he would have been able to show that Mr Jeyaretnam's convictions were fully justified under the laws of Singapore.

After studying the Privy Council's criticisms of Mr Jeyaretnam's convictions, and after again reviewing the record of the case, the Attorney-General has advised the Government that Mr Jeyaretnam was correctly convicted by the Singapore courts and he has stated that he is satisfied that there has been no miscarriage of justice.

Sir, it is clear from the Official Receiver's examination of the accounts of the Workers' Party that the Party had collected considerable sums in donations, totalling $58,363 between 1972 and 1980, more than $58,000. They had also expended $31,494 in election expenses in 1976, $1,400 in a by-election in 1977, and it had spent $14,463 in election expenses in 1980. So considerable sums of money received in donations, sums of money spent in elections and by-elections. Yet throughout this period the Party's bank accounts showed only $29 in 1977, $355 in 1978, and for the years 1979, 1980 and 1981, for each of these three years, $6.97 and a balance of $18.47 in January 1982. It was abundantly clear that this was a deliberate scheme to siphon off donations to the Party, and leave only paltry sums in the bank to prevent the Official Receiver from collecting them.

The Police uncovered evidence of crimes in the case of the three diverted cheques. As a result, Mr Jeyaretnam was charged with fraud and making a false declaration, and tried and convicted by the courts in Singapore.

The Privy Council has, without the benefit of full legal argument, stated that these convictions were wrong. It has given technical legal arguments, but without hearing the Singapore Public Prosecutor's arguments. The Government has been advised by the Attorney-General that the convictions were correct.

The Privy Council stated that he was not guilty on the technical point, that each of the three cheques was a gift and not for value, and that therefore the donor could have changed his or her mind. It seems absurd that where the Official Receiver is appointed, whether he is defrauded of property belonging to the Workers' Party depends on whether a cheque was a gift or for value, because once Mr Jeyaretnam had received a cheque for the Workers' Party by law, he immediately was deemed to have held it for the Official Receiver, and had no power to give it back to the giver or to anybody else. This point comes out clearly in the Attorney-General's advice and let me quote:

'As a consequence of not hearing the Singapore Public Prosecutor, a number of issues crucial to the convictions were not fully argued. For example, when dealing with the issue concerning title to the proceeds of the cheques, the Privy Council seemed to have dismissed the fact that the Workers' Party was already in receivership, as of little or no importance, when Willie Lim altered his cheque at the request of Wong Hong Toy.

Judge Khoo had found as a fact that when that cheque was countermanded, the Workers' Party was already in receivership, and that the terms of the Order was to the effect that all assets belonging to the Party were to be handed over to the Official Receiver. Consequently, neither Jeyaretnam nor Wong Hong Toy had any right to request Willie Lim to alter the cheque - property in it having already passed to the Official Receiver.'

Sir, the Privy Council, therefore, missed the point that Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Wong received the cheques as officers of the Workers' Party and that where the Workers' Party was under receivership, only the Receiver can give approval for the return of any cheque. The Receiver never knew of these goings-on and was kept completely out of the picture by the two officers of the Workers' Party who freely dealt with the asset of the Party, in breach of the trust that the law imposed on them. These then, Sir, are very important points of law which the Public Prosecutor would have raised had the Privy Council heard him.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has repeated some of the arguments put forward by the Prosecutor and it is a pity, Sir, that the Prime Minister himself is not here to answer some of the questions because I will follow up with some questions.

Mr Speaker: Dr Lee, can I ask you to put your question?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: I just want to know whether the Minister has really read the full text of the Privy Council judgment.

Prof. Jayakumar: The answer is yes, more than once.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Does the Minister then agree or does he not agree that the Privy Council examined every single conviction, going behind the judgments of the Singapore courts and declared that the convictions were wrong in law?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, I think the Member has not listened to what I have said in my answer. I am not saying that the Privy Council did not make any comments on the question of convictions but that the comments on convictions are not binding on the Singapore Government, that the Privy Council had no jurisdiction to decide those questions, that they themselves had admitted that this was the law when they had refused application for leave; that the Attorney-General had not been invited to present the prosecution's case and therefore very important questions of law had not been fully argued.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: In which case, Sir, will the Minister say for what reason the Privy Council set aside the Order of the High Court to strike out Mr J B Jeyaretnam from the roll of solicitors?

Prof. Jayakumar: That question probably should be directed to the Privy Council.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Will the Minister agree then, Sir, that the Privy Council had made findings or a declaration that Mr J B Jeyaretnam was wrongly convicted on all four charges and that the Order to strike him off was wrong and should be set aside?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, we will be involved in an endless repetition of what I had very clearly stated in my main answer - that the Privy Council's ruling on disbarment is binding on the parties, ie, the Law Society and Mr Jeyaretnam. It has been implemented. But the comments on the convictions are not binding on the Government.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: The Minister repeats that they were comments. But could he be certain that they were merely comments and not the findings?

Prof. Jayakumar: They had no jurisdiction to decide those questions. This is very clear from the Attorney-General's advice.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Does the Minister then agree that if Mr Jeyaretnam had been able to appeal to the Privy Council for his convictions, the Privy Council would have set aside all the other convictions?

Mr Speaker: The question is out of order. It is a question requiring an answer to a hypothetical proposition. It will not be allowed.

Do you have any more questions, Dr Lee?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: If I might add one more, Sir. Does the Minister agree that in spite of all that he has said, since the Privy Council had already set aside certain parts of the convictions which the local Singapore courts did not agree with, and the Government did not agree with, nevertheless, is it not the proper thing, a decent thing to put right the injustice caused to Mr Jeyaretnam by the law, not allowing him to appeal, and to give him a free pardon?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of giving him a pardon does not arise. This is a matter for Cabinet to decide. I have transmitted the Attorney-General's advice to my colleagues in the Cabinet. But Cabinet has not decided, for the reason that Mr Jeyaretnam has not petitioned for a pardon. And until and unless he does so, there is nothing for the Government to decide.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: In spite of his explanation, does he not agree that the Prime Minister should carry out promises made under solemn conditions.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would only implore the Member to read again, very carefully, what was it that the Prime Minister said in the Committee of Privileges. The Prime Minister always chooses his words very carefully.