OFFICE OF CHIEF JUSTICE

Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Prime Minister whether there is any reason why the office of the Chief Justice has been left vacant after the last Chief Justice reached his retirement age on the 28 September 1982.

The Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar)(for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member's question is misconceived. He has assumed that the office of the Chief Justice has been left vacant since 28th September 1982. This is wrong.

Chief Justice Mr Wee Chong Jin has served continuously as Chief Justice since 5th January 1963. Article 94(3) of the Constitution enables Judges of the Supreme Court to continue in office after reaching the retirement age of 65. Several Judges have done so; and the Chief Justice is one of them. The President re-appointed him Chief Justice on 28th September 1982 when he reached the age of 65.

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, in his appeal to the Privy Council on the question of his disbarment, questioned the validity of this re-appointment. However, Sir, this point was never pursued in argument before the Privy Council, nor did the Privy Council address it in its judgment. The Attorney-General has advised the Cabinet that it has no merit whatsoever.

Nevertheless, Sir, since the matter was raised but not ruled upon by the Privy Council, the Government is amending Article 94 of the Constitution to put the matter beyond any doubt. This is one of the purposes of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, which received its First Reading on Monday, 16th January.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister again is not here to answer this question.

Mr Speaker: Could you ask your question, Dr Lee?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: But since the Minister says there is an element of doubt in the Constitution, would he agree that Article 94(3) does not say that he could have appointed a Judge as the Chief Justice. It only says "to sit as a Judge". That does not mean that he is the Judge or the Chief Justice.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, we can of course go into a lengthy argument. And it is precisely what it is, a legal argument. We have no doubts but Mr Jeyaretnam raised it in his appeal to the Privy Council. The fact that it was not pursued in argument in the Privy Council and the fact that the Privy Council did not deal with it in its Judgment reflects, in my view, that the Privy Council did not consider there was any merit in his argument. The Queen's Counsel who represented the Law Society subsequently informed the Solicitor-General that in his view had it been heard in an argument in the Privy Council he was very confident that he would have been able to persuade the Privy Council that this argument is irrational. I have already informed the House that the Attorney-General has also advised that there is no merit in this argument. I have studied and taught Constitutional Law, and the Member can take it from me that there is no merit whatsoever in the argument.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sir, is there any reason why anybody should take his word for everything?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, there is no reason. But my advice to him, without any disrespect that he is not a lawyer, and to avoid having a legal argument with a non-lawyer, I think it is best that I refer to him the various learned opinions of others.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: By virtue of the proposed amendment to the Constitution that is now before the House, does he not admit that in fact Mr Wee Chong Jin has been functioning only as the Chief Justice contrary to the Constitution and therefore illegally?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment is for the reason that I have stated - that it is for the avoidance of any doubts. A doubt was raised. It was not ruled upon. We think that the amendment really is not necessary but to put the matter beyond any question, we are tabling the amendment. We have no doubts in our mind whatsoever that the Chief Justice's appointment since September 1982 is perfectly lawful and perfectly in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: I do not wish to argue with him on points of law. But does it not appear that the Government in making the amendment that it has really admitted that he has made a mistake.

Mr Speaker: That question has been answered.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: It has not really been answered.

Mr Speaker: It has been. Any more questions?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Yes. Since there is a possibility that there were mistakes made, although he denies it, can he say that there were times when there were improper use of powers of the Chief Justice?

Mr Speaker: Dr Lee, there is a Bill before the House. I suggest you save your comments for the Second Reading. Do you have any other supplementary questions not related to the Bill?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: In which case, Sir, I will wait until the Bill is to be debated.

Mr Speaker: Very good.

1.25 pm