PRIVY COUNCIL'S JUDGMENT IN APPEAL BY MR J B JEYARETNAM (Government's position)

Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence whether he will recommend to the President to appoint a Committee from outside the public service to advise whether the position taken by the Government on the judgment of the Privy Council in the appeal by the former MP for Anson is morally and ethically right for a government to take.

The Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar) (for the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence): Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposal of the Member is absurd. The Government has taken no "position" on the judgment of the Privy Council. It did not have to because it was not a party in that case.

Mr Jeyaretnam was charged and convicted of three offences under section 421 of the Penal Code. As a result of those convictions, Mr Jeyaretnam was struck off the roll of Advocates and Solicitors in disciplinary proceedings which were instituted by the Law Society of Singapore. He then appealed to the Privy Council against the debarment. The Privy Council allowed the appeal on debarment. In its judgment, the Privy Council also gave its comments on the criminal convictions.

In view of the Privy Council's comments on the convictions, the Minister for Law asked the Attorney-General to advise on the legal implications, if any, for the Government. Members know by now that the Attorney-General advised that the comments on the convictions did not bind the Government and the convictions still stood as they were correct in law. There is therefore nothing further for the Government to decide or to do since Mr Jeyaretnam has not made any application for a pardon.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Would the Minister be able to tell us what reason it was that the Privy Council allowed the appeal of Mr Jeyaretnam?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, that will be redundant. We have gone into the judgment of the Privy Council. We have also gone into the Attorney-General's advice on the judgment. It will be repetitious to do so.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Does he agree, Sir, that the Privy Council had allowed the appeal because the Privy Council thought that Mr Jeyaretnam was wrongly convicted?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refresh the Member's memory on what the Attorney-General stated in his advice and I quote. He said that he is "unable to agree that the convictions were wrong." He has "reviewed the record of the criminal proceedings." He is "satisfied there has been no miscarriage of Justice." Furthermore, he said that the comments of the Privy Council do not, "in any way remove the element of blameworthiness in the conduct of Mr Jeyaretnam."

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may take the opportunity to ask the Member to also read a very learned, well-researched and scholarly article written by Mr Shanmugam which analyses the Privy Council's judgment and which shows that the Privy Council was wrong in law on a very important and fundamental point of law concerning banking law. For the Member's benefit, I will distribute this critique later in the course of the day.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I think the Minister has not really answered the question. I think the thrust of the question is whether or not the stand taken by the Government is morally and ethically right. I think that is what the question is all about. It is not a legal answer.

Prof. Jayakumar: I take it that both he and the Member therefore concede that the judgment ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: No, no. We are not concerned with the conviction. We want you to answer the question. That is all.

Prof. Jayakumar: This judgment, Sir, is a judgment in a case which binds the parties before it, namely, the Law Society of Singapore and Mr Jeyaretnam. I, as Minister for Law, asked the Attorney-General whether there are any legal implications for the Government. He has advised that the Privy Council's comments do not bind the Government. Therefore, there is nothing really for the Government to take a position.

If the Member or the Workers Party or the Secretary-General of the Workers Party feels there is something grievously wrong, unethical or morally wrong on the part of the Government, in not taking a position when it is not obliged to take a position, then the morality of it or the ethics of it can be made an issue by the Workers Party or by the Member in the next General Election if he wishes to.

But since the Member has raised the question of morality and ethics, can I ask him or the Member for Potong Pasir to comment whether they think it is ethically right or morally right for Mr Wong Hong Toy and Mr Jeyaretnam to have asked Mr Willie Lim, after the Official Receiver was appointed, to alter a crossed cheque to a cash cheque and asked him to uncross it? Was it right for them to have told Mr Willie Lim that this had to be done to prevent the Official Receiver from obtaining it? Was it right, ethically right, morally right, that by their action neither the Official Receiver nor the Workers Party's creditors received the cheque or its proceeds? We are talking about ethics and morality. Can either of the two Members comment whether it is ethically or morally right?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, the standard answer usually the Minister gives to such a situation is that he can always move a motion in Parliament and we can have a full debate on whether or not Willie Lim was morally right in altering the cheque. But the question at hand before you is whether or not the Government thinks that it is morally and ethically right. The answer is yes or no. That is all. If the Government says that it is perfectly right in going on, ie, taking the stand as it has taken, then just say so. We want an answer from you. You go round the bush. As the Prime Minister says, round the mulberry bush two, three times, you have not answered the question. Just say so, and I will be happy.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the position is very clear.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes or no?

Prof. Jayakumar: If the decision binds the Government, the Government will be bound. The Attorney-General has advised us that legally the decision does not bind us. That is all there is to it.

Mr Speaker: Dr Lee.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Why does the Minister not just answer yes or no? We know the legal position.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, it is Dr Lee's turn.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: The Government says that it is not legally bound. But does it agree that today, in Singapore, the Privy Council is the highest court that looks after judiciary matters?

Prof. Jayakumar: The answer is yes.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: If it is, therefore, is it wrong of any officer or any Minister to give views contrary to the judgment? We are speaking of the judgment. We are not talking about the details of the case itself.

Prof. Jayakumar: It was not a case of the Attorney-General giving a contrary view. The Attorney-General advised us and his advice is very clear. The judgment affected two parties, the Law Society and Mr Jeyaretnam. The Privy Council itself admitted that it had no jurisdiction to decide on the convictions. The convictions still stood. That is all there is to it, Mr Speaker.