PRIVY COUNCIL'S JUDGMENT IN APPEAL BY MR J B JEYARETNAM (Review of Report of Committee of Privileges)

Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development and Leader of the House whether he will table a motion that this Parliament should review the report of the then Committee of Privileges (Paper Parl. 3 of 1987) and its acceptance by the last Parliament in the light of the decision of the Privy Council in the appeal of the former MP for Anson.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development and Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): The answer is "No". This is because the motion adopted by Parliament on 30th July 1986 has nothing whatsoever to do with the decision of the Privy Council.

The Committee of Privileges was convened to investigate the complaints by the Leader of the House against Mr Jeyaretnam for making unfounded allegations of Executive interference of the Judiciary. The Committee of Privileges, after a full and public hearing, found Mr Jeyaretnam's allegations to be totally baseless and that Mr Jeyaretnam had breached his privileges as an MP.

The Privy Council's decision, on the other hand, dealt with Mr Jeyaretnam's appeal against his disqualification following disciplinary action taken against him by the Law Society. It is totally unconnected with the motion adopted by the Parliament.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Would the Minister agree that Mr Jeyaretnam was hauled up because of the so-called allegation of disquiet?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: There were many allegations made by Mr Jeyaretnam, Mr Speaker, Sir. If Dr Lee Siew-Choh were to read this Report, ie, the First Report of the Committee of Privileges (Parl. 3 of 1987), he would find all of them there and that the Committee spent six full days in public hearings, televised over TV, and Mr Jeyaretnam showed no evidence whatsoever to substantiate his allegations.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: I have seen the TV version and I have also read parts of the Report that he referred to. But would the Minister agree that this "disquiet" is the same word used by the Privy Council and therefore the allegation by Mr Jeyaretnam was not that frivolous after all?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: That is a non sequitur argument, Sir. Just because the word "disquiet" appears in both does not mean that they are related. It is quite clear in this Committee of Privileges' Report that all the allegations that Mr Jeyaretnam had put forward were totally disproved.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Although it was disproved, Sir, nevertheless he had been hauled up because he said something about disquiet concerning the transfer of a District Judge and it is all connected, Sir. It is not unconnected at all.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the Member is just going on and on, repeating the same thing. Is he saying that these allegations are true? If he is, then I think we will look into them again.