MR FRANCIS SEOW AND MR PHEY YEW KOK (Expenditure on surveillance)

Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will inform the House how much of the taxpayers' monies have been spent on (i) maintaining surveillance on the movements of Mr Francis T Seow in the United States and (ii) attempts to find Mr Phey Yew Kok.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the amount spent on observing Seow's movements are well within the budget allocation for such investigations requested by the Public Prosecutor. The amount is modest compared to the gravity of the crimes being committed, namely, deceiving the court, suborning the process of justice, and fabricating false evidence. These are far graver offences than the income tax charges. The cost of the investigations has been repaid many times over by the value of the deterrence on others like Francis Seow, who believed that, once out of jurisdiction, when in the States, they are at liberty to suborn the course of justice by concocting false medical certificates by unregistered so-called Human Rights physicians and by feigning illness. Indeed, if Francis Seow were still the Solicitor-General today, I am sure he would have commended the Senior State Counsel, Mr Lawrence Ang, for the initiative and resourcefulness that he showed.

In Phey Yew Kok's case, we do not know his whereabouts. But in Francis Seow's case we knew his whereabouts. He did not return to Singapore in time for his trial, claiming that he had a heart condition which prevented him from travelling by air. His Queen's Counsel tendered two medical certificates from a Human Rights physician, Dr Jonathan Fine, claiming he is a New York doctor. The Public Prosecutor had such grave doubts as to the veracity of these medical certificates that he asked for observations to be kept on Seow's movements. The purpose of these observations was not to obtain evidence on the tax charges. There was no need for that because the Prosecution already had the evidence and they were ready for trial. The purpose was to investigate far graver offences such as perpetrating a fraud on our courts.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh (Non-Constituency Member): Was there early evidence of far graver offences when they started this surveillance?

Prof. Jayakumar: I thought it would have been evident from my answer that the moment Mr Francis Seow did not turn up for the trial, produced his bogus medical certificates, (the trial was on the 5th) on the 6th the Attorney-General immediately asked for his observations on the ground that he had grave doubts and suspected immediately that Mr Francis Seow was evading the course of justice and perpetrating a fraud on the courts.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sir, the Minister's answer has merely confirmed what I have been given to understand, namely, that initially (I said "initially") Mr Francis Seow was put under surveillance because of the tax offences. There was no inkling ---

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

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Although he said the sum expended on the surveillance on Mr Francis Seow was well within the budget, how much was the sum expended and how does he justify that sum against something which is still unclear?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Lee knows and we know that all this is a smokescreen to hide and cover up the fact that Mr Francis Seow pulled off a big con job on the Prosecution and on the courts. He is repeating what Mr Francis Seow said in his press statement, "Well, so much money has been spent, on recovering his tax charges and a fine of $6,000." As I have stated in my answer, this has got nothing to do with the tax charges. He failed to turn up for trial on the 5th. On the 6th the Attorney-General asked for observations to be kept and the surveillance started on the 8th. It has got nothing to do with the tax charges.

The exact amount is irrelevant. What is relevant is that our investigations are thorough and all crooks, criminals and evaders of justice know that no efforts will be spared to bring them to book. So Mr Francis Seow, as a former Solicitor-General, should have known. But if he did not know, he now knows the meaning of the phrase "the long arm of the law."

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, he says it is irrelevant and he had this thorough investigation. How does he compare the investigation against Francis Seow to the investigation against Phey Yew Kok?

Prof. Jayakumar: I thought I said in my answer just now, Sir, that in the case of Mr Francis Seow we knew his movements. In the case of Mr Phey Yew Kok we do not know his movements. How do we compare? The facts speak for themselves. When Phey Yew Kok failed to appear in court on 7th January 1980, CPIB took the following actions. First, CPIB officers were sent to look for him at his residence, place of work and places which he used to frequent. A 24-hour observation was kept at his house and office. A warrant was obtained for his arrest. Interpol was alerted to look out for him. An appeal was made in the local press for information of his whereabouts. Immigration and Heads of Missions abroad were also asked to keep a look-out for him. When we thought that he was in Bangkok, CPIB officers went there to get the assistance of the Thai authorities to locate Phey Yew Kok and bring him back. And this action was taken even though there was no extradition treaty with Thailand. The Thai Authorities even raided premises where it was thought that he might have stayed. All that needs to be done was done. Phey Yew Kok's whereabouts now are not known. He is still on the Interpol's list for arrest on sight. There is still a warrant of arrest for him and there is no period of limitation on his offence.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: What about Taiwan?

Prof. Jayakumar: If the Member has some special inside information that he may be in Taiwan, I shall be most pleased to have it and I will pass it on to the authorities.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: The Minister has still not answered the question about what was the sum spent.

Prof. Jayakumar: As I have said, it is irrelevant.