MR ELYAMANI KHAMIS (Withdrawal of charge)

Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Minister for Finance if he will give the reasons for not proceeding to charge Mr Elyamani Khamis after having arrested him and released him on a bail of $30 million.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) was satisfied on the face of the complaint lodged by the solicitor for Christiania Bank, that the matter warranted a full scale investigation against Khamis for a possible offence under section 404(3) of the Companies Act, ie. obtaining credit by deceitful means. The CAD has to act swiftly by arresting Khamis and put him on high bail pending investigation to ensure that he would not leave Singapore.

On 8th March 1991, the CAD called up Khamis for questioning. Khamis was accompanied by his two lawyers. The same evening, after CAD officers had recorded a statement from Khamis, they arrested him and released him on bail of $30 million. Bail of $30 million was considered necessary because the credit facilities obtained by Khamis amounted to almost $100 million. Khamis' solicitors agreed to post bail at $30 million and raised no objection to any of its terms and conditions.

CAD carried out a thorough investigation of the allegations over a period of several months. The investigations were conducted both in Singapore and Norway and covered Khamis' dealings with three banks in Singapore.

After evaluating the evidence obtained, CAD concluded that it was insufficient to support charges of fraud against Khamis within the Singapore jurisdiction. Whatever the acts of fraud alleged against Khamis in regard to the issue of letters of credit to the Singapore banks, these charges can only be established in Norway and are therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, is it not true that, besides the $30 million bail, his international passport was also impounded?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Yes, Mr Speaker, Sir. Because the purpose of putting him on bail was the same as the purpose of removing his passport, to ensure that he stays in Singapore for the investigations.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I beg to differ. Putting a bail and impounding of passport are two different matters altogether. But, nevertheless, I would ask the Minister whether or not the Government has behaved in a high-handed manner, has been rather trigger-happy in this particular case, when there is no concrete evidence it has seen fit to arrest a person, especially a foreigner, impound his passport, put him on a hefty bail of $30 million, and was about to charge him on a very serious offence.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member should listen to my answer carefully. I have said that the Government was satisfied that the matter warranted a full scale investigation against Khamis for a possible offence under section 404(3) of the Companies Act, in other words, obtaining credit by deceitful means. After evaluating the evidence obtained, CAD concluded that it was insufficient to support charges of fraud against Khamis within the Singapore jurisdiction. This was an outcome which could only have been established after thorough investigation. Supposing we had not acted and Mr Khamis had left Singapore, and it subsequently transpired that there was something to be answered for within Singapore, I think the Opposition Member would now be asking me a different question.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I believe this matter arose because there were in fact complaints from abroad and not initiated in Singapore, and therefore I think it is incumbent on the Government to see whether there is enough evidence first before you can arrest a person. It would appear that the Government just ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, could you ask your supplementary question? You are making a speech.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am coming to my question.

Mr Speaker: Ask the question, please.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. I want to ask the Minister whether the Government should not first get enough evidence before it arrests a person, puts him on such a big bail and impounds his passport, which is a very serious thing. If you do not have enough evidence, you just arrest him first. I do not think it is right.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, Mr Khamis' solicitors did not object to the bail. Secondly, the Government does not direct the CAD whether it should be lenient or generous. It is for them to exercise their professional judgement to decide on what is necessary, whether charges need to be pressed, and whether there are sufficient bases, firstly, to start an investigation and, secondly, having done the investigation, whether to continue with the charges.