SINGAPORE HIGH COMMISSIONER TO LONDON (Offer of indemnity to proprietors and publishers of The Times of London)

Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on whose authority the Singapore High Commissioner to London offered an indemnity to the proprietors and publishers of The Times newspaper in London to publish a matter relating to a citizen of Singapore.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, I wonder if I may have your permission to take both Question 8 and Question 9 together as they relate to the same subject matter and perhaps both the Members can thereafter ask any supplementary question.

Mr Speaker: You have my permission.

Prof. Jayakumar: Thank you. First, if I may deal with the question asked by Mr Chiam See Tong. The answer is, Sir, that an amount of o7,000 was paid for the advertisement in The Guardian, o12,364 and 80 pence was paid to the Financial Times, while $3,969 was paid to The Straits Times.

The Member may be interested to know that The Guardian has a daily circulation of 418,000 copies while the Financial Times has a circulation of 280,000.

If I may turn to the question by the NCMP. The Minister for Foreign Affairs authorized the offer of indemnity to The Times by the High Commissioner in respect of any legal action arising from the publication of the High Commissioner's reply. He did so after consulting the Minister for Law and the Attorney-General.

The letter by the High Commissioner was to reply to serious allegations against the Government about "the misuse of the law" in an article by Mr Bernard Levin published in The Times on 19th June 1989. The Times not only insisted on considerably editing the reply but also refused to publish two key paragraphs in the High Commissioner's letter on grounds of possible defamation. The paragraphs were, and I quote:

"If Mr Jeyaretnam is a person of "scrupulous integrity - professionally, personally and politically", how is it that after July 1975, when the Workers' Party was ordered to pay costs after losing its slander action against a former PAP MP, its bank accounts never contained more than $500, even though between 1976 and 1980 the Party had collected $24,008 in donations and expended $45,196 in election and other expenses? Mr Jeyaretnam could not explain why this was not a deliberate scheme to defraud the creditors.

"Mr Levin cites two court cases which Mr Jeyaretnam had "duly lost" and "of course lost", implying that these actions should rightly have succeeded in law. Mr Jeyaretnam acted as his own counsel in both these cases. Did Mr Levin know that in these two cases:

1. In his slander action, he had failed to set out the actual words he complained of, a basic legal requirement in Singapore, as it is in England?

2. In the election petition on behalf of the Workers' Party, he had failed to serve the petition on the Returning Officer as required by law?"

"The Malayan Law Journal reported both cases."

The inclusion of these two paragraphs was important as they would have effectively rebutted Mr Levin's allegations against the Singapore Government and the judiciary in Singapore.

When such serious allegations are published, it is important that the facts be made known to the readers. Furthermore, the Government was advised by the Attorney-General that there was nothing in the High Commissioner's reply which was defamatory. So as not to give The Times any excuse to refuse to publish the full letter, and I repeat, the full letter, the High Commissioner was authorized to offer the indemnity.

Mr Chiam See Tong: After the publication of the two advertisements in The Guardian and the Financial Times, did the Government attempt to put further advertisements in these two papers?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, after the publication of the advertisements in The Guardian and the Financial Times, a further advertisement was taken out in the Daily Telegragh.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think the Minister has to answer the question. Did the Government attempt to put further advertisements in The Guardian and the Financial Times?

Prof. Jayakumar: I thought we said so publicly, Sir, that we wanted to publish further advertisements in The Guardian and the Financial Times, but they decided that they would not publish those advertisements.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Would the Minister say where provisions have been made for such expenditure in the 1989/90 budget?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been advised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that it is within their budgetary allocation. And if it is not budgeted for, I am sure the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will seek supplementary provision from this House.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: If that should be the intention, Sir, should not the Government have first sought permission from Parliament before instituting such an expenditure?

Prof. Jayakumar; Mr Speaker, Sir, we have many missions and ambassadors abroad. One of their tasks is to ensure that the reputation and integrity of Singapore and its institutions are not maligned, distorted and discredited without grounds. It is their duty, whenever such attempts are made, to correct and rebut the false allegations and we expect them to do so on their own as quickly as possible without having to come to this House, summon a special meeting of this House and to get permission from this House. It is a normal accepted function of any diplomatic mission of Singapore.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Would the Minister agree that any offer of indemnity is quite different from ordinary costs and that in the circumstances permission has to be obtained from Parliament first?

Prof. Jayakumar: I do not see any requirement in any law or Standing Orders of Parliament that permission of this House must be obtained for what is an obvious course of action for any overseas mission to take when a foreign newspaper refuses to publish a full reply on various pretexts and where the offer and indemnity exposes the newspaper and shows to be hollow their excuse.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Would the Minister explain why the Government has refused to waive the diplomatic immunity for the High Commission in London for his letter to The Times?

Prof. Jayakumar: It is really not relevant, Sir, but we have publicly stated that The Times of London has refused to publish the full reply and they refused to publish the two key paragraphs. We have stated publicly that if and when The Times of London publishes the two paragraphs the High Commissioner will waive the immunity. That position stands even as of now.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Would the Minister agree that the refusal makes nonsense of its claim that it wanted to offer the indemnity to put verifiable facts before the British public?

Prof. Jayakumar: Not at all, Sir. We have asked The Times of London to publish the facts. Mr Jeyaretnam can sue and the High Commissioner will waive his immunity. I do not see what is the point raised by the Member. We are willing and ready in London to establish the facts before the British readers of The Times of London. But The Times of London has to carry those two paragraphs.