POLICE HARASSMENT OF THE WORKERS' PARTY

4.21 pm

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Workers' Party, a registered political party, publishes a newspaper called the Hammer, bi-monthly for which it has the necessary licence from the Ministry of Communications and Information.

In this year's May issue of the Hammer (No.2 of 1990), the Executive Council of the Party published an appeal to the public of Singapore to help its Secretary-General pay the award and damages that may be made against him in the defamation suit brought by the Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew that was then pending against him.

The appeal informed the readers that the Council had opened an account for this purpose with the Standard Chartered Bank giving the number of the account, and that it had also appointed the firm of Messrs Gopalan Nair as trustees of the monies in the account. The public were expressly told to send or make their donations to the account with the bank.

Two copies of the issue of the Hammer, immediately after the publication were deposited with the Ministry of Information, and five copies were deposited with the National Library under the Act. There was therefore nothing secretive about this appeal that was made by the Party to the public of Singapore on behalf of its Secretary-General.

May I add, Sir, that a copy of the Hammer was also sent to the Headquarters of the PAP.

One would have thought that this was a perfectly harmless and legitimate activity by a political party. You will remember, Sir, that not very long ago the PAP itself, at a dinner party which included a number of people from the commercial sector of Singapore, appealed for donations for the party. This was reported in the Straits Times, and the appeal was even defended in this House by the First Deputy Prime Minister (Hansard, Vol. 54, No. 6, cols. 499-502) when he was questioned about it.

Apart from this, we have seen from time to time appeals in the Straits Times and other newspapers for donations for victims of accidents or of catastrophic illnesses. There is also currently an appeal called the Spirit-of-Singapore appeal which has been publicised in the press for some months now.

So, naturally the Executive Council of the Party did not think it was doing anything outside the law when it published its appeal. But to its surprise, some almost three months later, as I have already been reliably informed, the Secretary-General of the Party and Mr Gopalan Nair, the trustee, were sent notices under section 120 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) to attend before one Inspector Lopez in connection with a police investigation into an offence under Cap. 128 of the Laws of Singapore.

Chapter 128, I understand, is the House to House and Street Collections Act, and it makes it an offence for anyone to stand at street corners or at public places to solicit for monies from passers-by, or for anyone to go from house to house, knock at doors and solicit for monies.

The Secretary-General then asked for a copy of the report made to the police upon which the police had started investigations. He was duly supplied with this report. And I have a copy of this report, and the report is made by Inspector Lopez himself, the Investigating Officer, and he said: He received information on 2nd August 1990 that the Workers' Party Executive Council had made an appeal in the Hammer, and that -

(a) the Hammer was sold at two public places on 26th and 27th May 1990, and

(b) that pamphlets were also put into the letter-boxes of the residents in the Tiong Bahru GRC.

He did not say when the pamphlets were put into the letter-boxes.

It is very odd, Sir, that information should only be given to the police on 2nd August when members of the Party had been observed selling the Hammer carrying the appeal on 26th and 27th May 1990. The report does not give the source of the information.

May I ask the Minister whether the police was directed by his Ministry, or by any other Ministry, to investigate the appeal by the Workers' Party? If a member of the public had made a report, a copy of that report should have been furnished. But from what I can see, it would suggest that there was no such report.

Apart from the officials of the Party, the other members of the Council, as I have been told, were also asked by Inspector Lopez to attend. The police also raided the office of Mr Gopalan Nair, and the Workers' Party premises at Silat Road which the Party uses for its meetings. Then, without any notice to the trustee or to the Party, the police seized monies in the account.

Sir, I ask the Minister to take note of what I have said.

The trustee was later informed by the bank that they were advised by the police that the monies were being seized under sections 58 and 68 of the CPC.

Section 58 of the CPC empowers the police to order the production of any document that a police officer investigating a case considers it necessary for his investigation. I have been advised that this section cannot (and I emphasise, Sir, cannot) apply to monies in a bank account. That becomes clear when one reads the proviso.

And section 68, the other section ---

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, on a point of order. I have no problems in answering it. But I think we have to follow certain procedures and order in this House. Should one under the guise of an Adjournment Motion claiming harassment bring to this Parliament questions of law which may be discussed by a Court should there be a prosecution? I think it is highly inadvisable, highly undesirable to do that, because we are prejudging matters which may come up in a Court if there was a prosecution.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Lee, I suggest that you desist from that line of argument.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: I was merely trying to remind the Minister of these various sections. That's all. I am not interpreting them.

Sir, I am advised that the sections do not give the police certain powers, which I will leave to the Court, if he wants to take them to Court.

But as far as I understand, Sir, the police have nevertheless gone to do things that they were not empowered to do. This is an alarming situation, because if the police can do this, then monies in a bank account are no longer safe. No one can be sure that his monies will not be seized by the police without first obtaining an order from the court.

What is more alarming is that, in this case, the trustee was not even informed before the seizure to enable him to apply to the court to stop the police from seizing the monies. I ask the Minister: Does he not think that this is a most alarming situation which will seriously undermine confidence among members of the public in the banks?

The bank in question, Standard Chartered, for its own part, never took the trouble to inform the holder of the account before it handed over the monies. What reliance, I ask, can be placed by members of the public in banks if the banks are going to hand over all their monies at a wink from the police without even informing the account holders? I hope the Minister realises the seriousness of the action by the police. And I ask the Minister to inform the House how he justifies the seizure by the police.

Apart from this positively illegal act of the police, police officers raided the house of a member of the Workers' Party who is not a member of the Executive Council, at the hour of 11.30 pm when the family and all had retired for the night. The member told the police that the hour was not convenient. But he was threatened that if he refused to open the door, the police would break it down. Although they were told that the film and plate, which they were looking for were not in the house, they nevertheless insisted on ransacking the house to confirm for themselves that the film and plate were not in the house.

From there, they proceeded to the house of a Council member, reaching the house at 1.00 am where the police again carried out a search but found nothing incriminating. Sir, let me ask: is it really necessary for the police to execute search warrants in the middle of the night? Or is this particular treatment reserved for members of an Opposition party, in this case the Workers' Party? Is there no respect for the convenience of the public?

In any event, Sir, it is not as though the Workers' Party has been accused of a monstrous crime, and that if the search was not carried out at that particular hour, the thing that the police was looking for would be spirited away or disposed of. What justification was there for such a night raid?

Not content with raiding the homes of the members of the Workers' Party, quite unnecessarily at unearthly hours, be it noted, the police had also harassed the people who have nothing to do with the Workers' Party. The printers of the Hammer were not spared. How are they responsible for an appeal by the Executive Council of the Party? Not only were the present printers interrogated but even the printer who had printed the Hammer in the past was also interrogated.

Members of the Party who were summoned to appear before the Inspector were kept in the Inspector's office for as long as four to five hours. Why? One member whose house was raided at 11.30 pm became sick (he said he vomited) during his second interrogation, but he was nevertheless not allowed to leave. He has complained that he was intimidated at both interrogations.

Persons who sent in monies to the account in the bank, after seeing the appeal in the Hammer, were also called up to attend before the officer. Some of them have been so upset that they called up the Secretary-General of the Party to ask if it was a crime to have donated any money to the Workers' Party. I ask the Minister to say whether the Government considers it a crime for any member of the public to give money to the Workers' Party.

Why all this frenzied illegal activity by the police? Is it not simply to dissuade and prevent members of the public from giving any assistance to the Workers' Party, whether in the form of business service or in the form of any donations? Is the Government attempting to frighten the printers from printing the Hammer for the Workers' Party? Is that the object? Is the Government trying to frighten people from giving any monies to the Workers' Party?

It has also been suggested by some members of the public that the Government is hoping to disqualify Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam as an election candidate for a further term. Is that the object?

I have said, at the beginning, that appeals, similar to the Workers' Party's appeal, have been carried in the press. I ask the Minister to say now whether the PAP had in August 1989 applied for a licence under the House to House and Street Collections Act before it made its appeal at the dinner I referred to, and which was publicised in the press. I ask the Minister to say now: Was a permit granted under the House to House and Street Collections Act for the Spirit-of-Singapore appeal? I ask the Minister to say now: Was a permit granted for an appeal that appeared in the Straits Times on 10th July 1990? If no permits had been granted at all in all these cases, would the Minister say whether they have been investigated by the police for offences under the House to House and Street Collections Act? If not, why is the Workers' Party being singled out?

I ask the Minister to be good enough to give this House clear and direct answers to all the questions I have asked, particularly whether the seizure of the monies in the bank was authorised under any law, and if so, which law?

One last word, Sir, police officers are public servants whose salaries come from the taxes paid by the people of Singapore. They are not, and I emphasise, not servants of any political party that happens to form the government of the day. If police officers who uphold the law for the common good act fairly and carry out activities lawfully, and not do things they are not empowered by law, then they would be respected and accepted as trustworthy and reliable friends, guide and protectors of the people. But if on the contrary, police officers should act unlawfully, toady to the ruling political party, and harass people and organisations, especially opposition parties that carry out legitimate and lawful activities, then they would lose all respect of the people. They become no longer guardians of the law, friends, guide and protectors of the people, but the oppressors of the people.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I was listening to Dr Lee Siew-Choh, it became clear that the Adjournment Motion was being used for no other purpose than to raise and prejudge certain matters which may or may not come up in a court of law. And I think it is highly undesirable and, in fact, highly inadvisable to have used processes of this Parliament and opportunities it gives to do such a thing.

Let me explain. When the police get information or report that an offence might have been committed they have to investigate. What is an investigation? What does it entail? It entails questioning of people, taking of statements, obtaining documents, exhibits, and whatever in connection with that matter for the police to arrive at some conclusion as to whether or not there is cause for putting up papers to the Public Prosecutor. And the Public Prosecutor has to decide whether there are grounds to prosecute, whether an offence has been committed. In other words, when the police have an ongoing investigation, there may be a prosecution or there may not be. There may be a court trial. It depends on the police investigation. It depends on the Public Prosecutor's decision.

Is it desirable? Is it advisable to discuss details here which may form the subject matter of a court case should there be a prosecution? By all means, raise matters which one considers to be abuse of police powers or harassment, which is the wording of the motion. But under the guise of an Adjournment Motion, I do not think one should bring into this House issues of guilt or innocence, in this case, of the Workers' Party or any of its officials. It is not for this House to decide. It is totally improper to ask this House to consider these matters.

Let me just indicate evidence of such abuse. He has said that he did not think it was an offence under the House to House and Street Collections Act. He refers to the seizure of bank accounts. He says there is no power under section 58 and section 68. I have not looked at these sections. But whether the police have power or not is a matter to be argued before a court of law. And I am sure the Workers' Party has lawyers in its committee, or amongst its members, to raise these issues properly in court if the matters come up to court. Dr Lee Siew-Choh says they are harmless and legitimate activities. If they are so, then there is nothing to worry about. He says the police action is illegal. There are remedies for this. If the Member considers that these legal issues are at stake, are they to be raised here? Whether or not seizure of the money was properly done in accordance with the law? The police have had a long experience in implementing laws and provisions of the Penal Code or the Criminal Procedure Code relating to seizure of bank accounts. I find it inconceivable that in this case they would have transgressed the law.

So these are questions of law which were raised, ie, the guilt or innocence of the Workers' Party. It is not for me to decide, not for Members here to decide. It is for the courts to decide should the matter come up to the courts. And it has not even reached that stage. So it is highly premature.

Now, harassment. What harassment? When the police have a report, they have to investigate. They have to question people who they believe may have information or knowledge about the alleged offence. There are well established procedures, whether it is for seizure of documents, search of the premises and so on. And there are provisions in the law governing what is permissible and what is not permissible.

In fact, Sir, when I received a copy of the notice of Dr Lee Siew-Choh, I had to ask the police and the Ministry officials what could it be about. Then I was told that the only possible thing could be that there is this ongoing investigation. So I said, "What could be the things which the police have done that have prompted this Adjournment Motion?"

The Member has referred to certain matters. Somebody vomited. The facts are: this person who vomited turned up for questioning. After he vomited, he said he had not had breakfast. What did the police do? They stopped the questioning and told him to take time off for a meal. Is that harassment?

Another person told the police when asked to come for questioning that he had recently been ill. So the police said, "In that case, you do not have to come down to our place. We are prepared to come to your house to interview you." But he chose instead to come down on his own to the police premises to answer questions. Is that police harassment?

The Secretary-General of the Workers' Party and others who were asked for questioning told the police that the dates given for the interview were inconvenient and therefore they would not come. The police gave them alternative dates. Is that harassment?

The Secretary-General, Mr Jeyaretnam, and others also insisted on having certain documents before they agreed to attend questioning. And the police gave them those documents. How is that harassment? Searching the house at 11.30 pm, midnight? I do not know. These are operational matters which we must leave it to the police. I would just assume that that is to ensure that the person is in the house and premises when the search takes place. How is this harassment? Have doors been broken down? Have people been assaulted? Furniture damaged?

So you see, Sir, although the Adjournment Motion baldly speaks of harassment, the substance of what Dr Lee Siew-Choh raised were essentially legal issues which ought to be taken up in another forum, another place, another time, if there is a court trial and the few instances of harassment are not really harassment.

He gave examples of other fund raising and so on. I do not have details of how those funds were collected. I certainly cannot recall the PAP or any other political party which has had to pay legal cost and damages going around house to house or streets pestering people to give them money. But if the police have a report that any individual or group has in fact violated the provisions of the House to House and Street Collections Act, or violated the provisions of any other law, I have no doubt the police will investigate. There is nothing to stop people from giving donations to the Workers' Party or any other political party. The only observation I will make is that I would expect that those involved in this process will comply with the provisions of the law. So, Sir, I do not think there is anything else that I need to say about this.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: May I have some clarification from the Minister, Sir?

Mr Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. According to the Standing Order, you have exhausted your time, Dr Lee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes to Five o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. table - SOME COUNTRIES WITH USAGE SENSITIVE CHARGING (Cols. 659 - 660)