DISMISSAL OF DR CHEE SOON JUAN (Motion)

Debate resumed.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I must declare my interest as an academic staff in the context of this discussion today.

Sir, I wish to speak on the motion as I am aware of the circumstances leading to the dismissal of Dr Chee Soon Juan. I am really disappointed that an academic matter like this is turned into a political issue. It is really unfortunate, Sir, because I did not expect a turn of such an event. This is all the making of the SDP, to turn this whole issue into a political issue.

Furthermore, Sir, Dr Chee and the SDP have sought to question my motives. I will give the facts to rebut their allegations. I do not want to pre-empt what the Minister for Education has to say, but I feel it is my responsibility to tell the House what I personally know and have done. I have nothing to hide. I would like to tell the House openly so that Members will be able to form their conclusion in the case of Dr Chee.

The disclosure, I am sure, will clear the air and enable hon. Members as well as the public to come to their own conclusion, whether Dr Chee's conduct was right or wrong. I think this is very crucial, Sir, and Members need to examine the way that I am going to present the facts.

Sir, I speak more in sorrow than in anger, because he was a staff of mine. I have nurtured him. I have supported him. I have given him the best possible, but he was trying to play politics. That I discovered later. Despite all that, I took no advantage of that. The House may not know it, but it was I who recommended that Dr Chee be appointed as a Teaching Fellow in my Department, the Department of Social Work and Psychology. The University was not keen to appoint him because Dr Chee has poor 'O' and 'A' level results. But I argued for his appointment, because I felt that young people like him who have made it, who have tried hard, be given a chance in our society. That is why I persuaded the selection board to give him an opportunity within the University to work. Otherwise, he would not have an opportunity.

Sir, the issues are whether Dr Chee had misused University research funds amounting to $226 to send his wife's dissertation for her PhD examination, and then dishonestly misled the University in its investigations. I think the crucial issue is that he sent his wife's dissertation for examination. And we need not be side-tracked by all other things. The others are all peripherals. The central issue is this: did he or did he not? And I will prove that he has, in fact, used University funds to send his wife's thesis for examination. And I state that it is his wife's PhD dissertations which were sent.

Dr Chee was first appointed as a Teaching Fellow on 15th August 1990 and then confirmed as a Lecturer in August 1991. I argued for him because I thought that this young man was energetic, was working hard. I persuaded the Vice Chancellor to convert him from a Teaching Fellow to a Lecturer within 14 months, but the University decided not to do so. They said, "Assess him for a longer time." So, sometime after the 14th or 15th month, I persuaded the University to make him a Lecturer. The University got persuaded and he became a Lecturer retrospective from the time he was employed. It is not that I was vindictive. I thought that he had done his job well. I recognised it and gave my recommendations.

I have been Head of the Department since 1986 and as part of my responsibility, I have to submit reports on the work of 37 teaching staff and the use of all funds allocated by the University to the Department. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are given to staff to undertake research, to buy equipment, and these are people with integrity and who would have to be accountable for the funds for which they are given. These are all public funds and therefore they have to be accountable.

Sir, Dr Chee came on 7th December 1992 to inform me about his candidature on the SDP ticket. He came to see me as a friend. I have always treated him as a friend and a colleague. I was open and honest about his participation in politics and I had always treated him as a friend and a professional colleague. I had no malaise against him. He knows it. It was an academic contact, a friendly, informal discussion between me and him. He was seeking advice. Our discussion was cordial and I interacted with him as Head of the Department in the academic context. But later I discovered that he came with a political motive.

As I have already disclosed in the press, I discovered that he was tape recording our conversation without my knowledge. If he was a gentleman, he should tell me, "I would like to record. We will talk openly." Put the tape recorder there. Let's talk. But he did not do it. What kind of gentleman is that? That is the question. It was not in a political context that we held our talk. It was in an academic context. I was there as the Head, as a friend. Many people know me - I speak, interact and give them the best. That was what I did.

I have disclosed to the press that he tape recorded our conversation and I stand by it. When I asked him, he denied it and said that the tape-recorder was for his classes. He said in no uncertain terms, "This is for my class, without doubt, for my class." I then took the tape-recorder from him and showed him that the cassette was still running. With the cassette running, who is so blind as not to see what it is? He still denied it. He swore blue and said, "It is not. I am not recording you." I removed the tape. When I played the tape later, it showed that he had not only recorded that conversation but had also recorded a previous conversation of ours. There were third parties and other people involved. In the tape, there were two conversations. After I listened to it, I said to myself this is a chap whom I cannot trust, because he had not told me about the tape recording. This is not the end. I will tell you more.

How can one do such an unreasonable act, if you ask yourself? A man who treats you openly, deals with you honestly, and you come and do such a thing! It is indeed a betrayal. It is, to my mind, morally and ethically wrong. He calls himself a neuropsychologist, a professional. Yet, he did not know it was not right to secretly tape a private conversation. You know, in the American Psychological Association, when you talk with your clients, you have to tell them, "I am tape-recording you. You are on tape." You have to seek permission. He should know it. It is ethics of the American Psychological Association.

What is worse, Sir, was that he persistently lied and he said that he was not recording when I showed him that the tape-recorder was running. He did not even apologise after being caught. I thought he would do it, but he never did. He behaved as if he had the right to do it. He displayed no human dignity or honour. He was not remorseful for his actions.

Then, in his press statement, he said that I snatched his tape and then alleged that I would terminate his service. A man like me would say such a thing?

Some hon. Members: No.

Dr Vasoo: Terminate his service?

An hon. Member: Play the tape and let's hear.

Dr Vasoo: We will come to that. I was very hurt and deeply disappointed, because after what I had done to help him, he had tried to trap me by secretly taping a private conversation with me, an academic colleague, who is Head of the Department, who had given him honest, friendly advice in response to his specific request. He asked me about politics. He said that he wanted to go into politics. I said, "There are difficulties. There are challenges. There are issues." Obviously, when you are in politics, you are going to face problems and difficulties. It is quite natural. I was frank. I told him what it was. I felt what he had done was a serious breach of personal trust.

Sir, from that moment onwards, I had serious doubts as to his character and integrity. When a man can do this and not be open about it, when he is treated so nicely, when he is treated openly, when he is nurtured, we give him a chance, and he really downs you, you think any sensible person would not take heart to these things? After that event, I had my doubts on the character of Dr Chee. So I decided that this man's actions needed close monitoring and scrutiny.

Incidentally, Sir, in The Straits Times of 6th April 1993, Mr Chiam was reported to have called on me to return the tape to Dr Chee. He said, "By taking it, it is theft, you know." He does not know what he is talking about. He said, "It is his property and Dr Chee is entitled to it." I wish to inform Mr Chiam and hon. Members that both the tape-recorder and the cassette are the property of the Department of Social Work and Psychology. They were purchased with University funds and allocated to Dr Chee for departmental use. Therefore, I did nothing wrong in retaining the tape after Dr Chee had surreptitiously tape recorded not one but two conversations with me and had also lied when he denied he was recording our conversation. I believe Mr Chiam owes me an apology. I saw the tape, I could recognise it. My Department has got vouchers to support the kind of tapes we buy and the tapes he used for recording. So we stand by what we have done and what I have said.

Sir, this taping incident was the turning point in my judgment of this young colleague. However, despite this incident, I kept my professional roles clear. If I had played politics, I would have played politics a long time ago. I know that within the academic world and within the academic context, my teaching comes first, my students come first, and I deal with them at my best. I did not play politics with Dr Chee. I did not expose him in the Marine Parade by-election rallies because I had this good stuff with me, this tape, to show what kind of a person he is. I did not even report to Associate Professor Ernest Chew, the Dean, and the University and even my party leaders, even PM Goh and all those people who were involved in the by-elections. I did not even breathe a word. It will be very useful material for them if I had passed it on to them. They could have used it. They could have asked me to go and talk at the Marine Parade by-election. I went there. I participated in the Marine Parade by-election. I spoke there at the rallies in Aljunied. I said let the people judge Dr Chee. I did not even say anything about him. I did not run him down. I had not done this. I have important evidence and information about his character, what kind of person he is, which should be useful for the party, but I refrained from giving them to the Party. Does it not show that I have kept my roles very clear? The Party should have taken action against me for not divulging them. But it was a clear professional role that I played.

It was only much later after I discovered that he had used funds and was dishonest in the investigations that I reported the taping incident to Professor Ernest Chew, the Dean, and kept the Vice-Chancellor informed. I did not tell them. I was an academic Head. My duty in such an incident was to report, but I said, "Look, let us monitor this young man and see what is he like, what kind of person is he."

When I subsequently reviewed my staff's work and their usage of research funds sometime in early January 1993, I paid special attention to Dr Chee's two research projects. They were in two different files. So you never know a picture unless you collate them and put them together. This was because of my doubts about his integrity in the light of his repeated denials of the taping incident. There must be something in this man that is not right. So I began to search, looking for things. Anybody would have done it. Because once you break the trust, and there is some character problem. Your doubts carry further. You look to assess whether this man does in a way stand tall.

I discovered by collating information from the funds used from two research projects that he had sent parcels by courier service to Pennsylvania State University. I also discovered that he had made transport claims by taxi under his research vote amounting to $798. I shall say more about this later.

Sir, let me first deal with the parcels he sent by courier service. I found that he had on 8th September 1992 sent a parcel in his name using our University research fund amounting to $74.50. At first, it did not register in my mind that this was unusual as I thought that it was his research materials. Normally, all staff in the Department send all sorts of materials to all over the world. It is not easy to keep track of these things. However, I became suspicious when I discovered that he had subsequently mailed two parcels at the same time on the same day, 9th November 1992. That is where I became more suspicious.

Let me tell you why. In reviewing the invoices, my curiosity was further aroused, as one parcel, which was billed and paid under his wife's name, was sent to the Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University. Why did she send it? Why did he? He could not charge the cost of $53.50 to his research account because the parcel was sent in his wife's name, as the consignment note shows. But he did not tell the public that he sent his wife's parcel. He said he sent one parcel. Sir, may I ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute all the Annexes to Members and also to the press? [Copies of documents distributed to hon. Members]. They document all the things. We have nothing to hide.

If you look at Annexes A-1 to A-6 you will find the copies of consignment notes and invoices filed with the Department of Social Work and Psychology. These are all filed with my Department. They are carbon copies. Annexes A-7 to A-10 are copies of the original filed at the Bursar's Office. So I produce them because Mr Chiam says that I have doctored them here and doctored them there, that the receipts are not correct and there are some flaws in them. But they are all public documents which can be produced in Court. The Court can verify them. We have nothing to hide. They are all there.

Sir, the other parcel costing $151.50 was sent in his name and charged under his research vote. It was sent to the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Pennsylvania State University. Who knows what he sends. Although he claims that I know his wife is there, but what materials did he send? Everybody's wife is studying here and there and how do I keep track. But he had no known research connections in the Pennsylvania State University. He mentions Dr Hynd's letter. It is from Georgia. From Pennsylvania, it has now gone to Georgia. We could establish all that. This is a letter dated 12th April. It is much later than what we have been querying for the past few months. I know he has written to George Hynd because George Hynd was his teacher in Georgia. They have worked together in research. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia. So he must have connections there.

The parcel was sent in Skypak-sealed envelope and he forwarded it by courier service. He did not come and see me to say, "Dr Vasoo, let me tell you what is in this parcel." No permission was sought from me. I was not informed of the actual contents. He was accountable for what he had sent. All staff mail all sorts of things out of the funds that have been allocated to them. As Head of the Department, we do not police, we do not follow, we do not go and dig out. That is an improper thing to do.

When I had earlier authorised payments, I assumed these to be his research work because he had charged to his research vote. He is a professional, he should know best what he had sent. My office staff and I never open parcels mailed by staff. It would be highly improper to do this. You must trust your staff, they are academics who should have high personal integrity.

Sir, all the Annexes "A" show all the invoices and bills that are available. Mr Chiam says that I have covered up one part of it. I covered up one part of it to specifically indicate to Dr Chee what he had sent to make sure that he knows what it is. Knowing him, his arguments could turn out to be quite different. So you have got to show specific things. But there is nothing to hide. They are all there. They can be challenged. I am not afraid of showing all these documents. I can be challenged in the court to verify all these documents. They are authentic bills which have been filed.

Sir, the question is: why did he send two parcels on the same day to two different Departments at Pennsylvania State University? One to the Department of Psychology (which was sent in his wife's name) and another sent to the Department of Human Development and Family Studies (sent in his name). I suspected that the parcel sent to the Psychology Department must have been for his wife's external examiner. It had to be in his wife's name, otherwise, the external examiner would not know whose thesis it was. Under the American system, they appoint external examiners outside the Department in which you enrol as a PhD student. So at least I have got the picture. Otherwise, it will be difficult to discern.

I then personally reported the matter to the Dean, Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew and kept the Vice-Chancellor informed. I gave them the invoices and consignment notes. They followed the case very closely. Coincidentally, on 15th January 1993 - this is where the bubble burst - Dr Chee's wife, Madam Huang Chih-Mei came to see me for a job in the Department. To clear my doubts and my suspicion, I asked her for details of the date of her PhD oral examination, names of her internal examiners, and her external examiner outside the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Pennsylvania State University in which she was enroled as a PhD student.

She informed me that she defended her PhD oral examination at the end of November 1992 and gave me the names of her respective examiners. This information confirmed my suspicions. When you get these things together you get the real picture. The real picture emerged. As she had to appear for oral defence of her PhD examination before the end of November 1992, the parcels had to be sent quickly by courier service on 9th November 1992. She would be going to defend her PhD. Parcels had to be amnt early. So within two weeks the examiners would have read it and conduct the oral examination. Three of her examiners were from the Human Development and Family Studies Department. They knew her. The fourth was an external examiner from the Psychology Department at Pennsylvania State University who did not know her and would not have recognised the parcel if the sender had been Dr Chee and not herself.

Sir, I subsequently made arrangements with the Dean, Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew to meet me and Dr Chee on 4th March 1993 to discuss Dr Chee's work and his use of research funds. I wanted the Dean to be present so that we can have an impartial person, who is also my superior, to meet with Dr Chee together with me. After the incident, when you do not trust the person anymore, and when you want to deal with such delicate matters, it is not easy. Otherwise, it would be between him and me. And if I do bring in my colleagues, senior colleagues, from the Department, he will say that I will be conniving with them to deal with the matter. So I thought the best thing was to have Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew to sit in, being an impartial witness, to deal with the situation. I no longer trusted him and I wanted a witness in Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew to deal with this situation.

Sir, at the meeting held on 4th March 1993 with Dr Chee, Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew and myself -- I read from the notes of the meeting, if you can refer to Annex B-1 and B-2 -- I quote:

"He admitted that he had on both occasions sent his wife's dissertation. It was drawn to his attention that it was a misuse of the University's fund. He did not dispute that but explained that he thought Mrs Janice Chen was supposed to alert him and give him the bills to make payment. [Mrs Janice Chen is a staff in our office in charge of research accounts. She has worked in our Department for the last 15 years. She is a very careful person.] However when confronted that he could send his wife's dissertation by courier service on his own expenses as he had done so for one parcel which was charged to his wife's account, he could not give a satisfactory explanation. He was informed it was wrong to use the University research fund to send his wife's materials, he added that he had intended to make payment. His answer was not satisfactory." The notes of the meeting are there and Assoc. Prof. Chew, the Dean who arbitrates and deals in this matter, can vouch for it.

Sir, not once during the meeting on 4th March did he claim that he was justified in using research funds in his research accounts for mailing his wife's dissertation. On the contrary, he indicated that he had already intended to pay. What does this mean? He was admitting that he personally had to pay for this and that it was wrong to charge it to the research vote. Otherwise, why was he expecting to be billed? However, when I later checked with Mrs Janice Chen, she stated in writing that Dr Chee had instructed her that the two courier payments in question (sent on 8th September and 9th November 1992) be charged to his research accounts. I refer you to Annex C for Mrs Janice Chen's statement. It is very clear, and she is very clear-minded, she is very specific, she is very meticulous. Normally, staff direct our research account staff to charge where it should be charged. It is not their business to go and decide to charge where they think best. Where research is concerned, the responsibility is on the researcher.

At the end of the meeting on 4th March 1993, Dr Chee was asked to give his explanation in writing. Because of my past experience in dealing with him and knowing him, I thought it was necessary to get him to put it in writing, so that we could then subsequently discuss and take up the matter further.

Sir, he had accused in the papers that that meeting was a political interrogation that we had. We are not running a Gestapo service. The Dean, a decent man that I know, honest Christian, and myself, together grilling him? Grilling him on a political arena? We were just there to talk to him about his work. We discussed about his academic orientation, his academic interest, because he had made statements in The Ridge -- you can read them, they are there -- and he felt that political involvement was more important than academic involvement. That was what he said, to that effect. Surely, in an academic institution, he has got to establish what the priorities are. The Dean then discussed about this and, subsequently, also talked about issues related to the status of the University and why Dr Chee felt necessary to run the University down. During the discussions, the issue came up that Dr Chee thought that he was not as good, but he was taken in by the University, and he (Dr Chee) could not understand why. The Dean then sought for clarification that this view was not good image for the University. The Dean was just expressing an opinion. And he told him, "Why didn't you clarify in the papers, if it was wrongly quoted?" And all the time Dr Chee said that he was misquoted by the papers. So the Dean and myself said, "If it is wrongly quoted, I think it is right that you write in to clarify the situation."

So this is what we asked. We talked about other related work. And then we went on to discuss about the use of his research funds. That was also a very important question that we need to establish an answer to our query.

After the meeting, I immediately rang up Mrs Janice Chen to say, "Watch out, he is coming. Be careful." Because I knew that he would be running there. Sure enough, he turned up in Mrs Chen's office after the call. He said to her that the invoices should be sent to him and not charged to the research vote. But she told him that they had already been charged to his research account, as instructed by him. Later, on the same day, I think in the late afternoon, probably at 4.30 pm, he went to see Janice Chen again. I see it is in the note. You can read Janice Chen's second note of 8th April 1993. I asked her to recollect this because I wanted to build up a case to show the kind of character that we are dealing with. I do not want to do this but I thought it was necessary. So this time he came at 4.30 pm to see Mrs Janice Chen to say that it was all right to have charged the invoices to the research account. He had shifted his position and wanted to find other new arguments.

Sir, Dr Chee gave a written explanation in a letter which was delivered to my office on 9th March 1993. But it was dated 4th March 1993. I could not understand the difference of five days. But he backdated it, no doubt. Mr J J Isaac, the NUS Director of Personnel, received a carbon copy on 10th March. In his letter, Dr Chee shifted his position from the meeting of 4th March when he said that he had intended to pay the bills. Instead, he wrote that the two documents he had sent (he did not want to say it was a research PhD dissertation for examination) belonged to his wife's research which carried data on Singaporean children that was relevant to his research. He did not state that the documents were for purposes of his wife's PhD dissertation for examination. He argued that they were completed dissertation. Any completed dissertation can be done five years ago or maybe a few years ago. They were not completed dissertation. They were dissertation sent for examination. That is the main thing. He asserted that, to the best of his judgement, he felt that he was justified in using the funds in his research accounts for mailing the completed dissertation to the University involved so that the results could be quickly validated, and incorporated into his research. You can see, in Annex E, Mr Isaac received a carbon copy of Dr Chee's letter dated 4th March, with receiver's stamp of 10th March; Dr Vasoo's copy (Annex E1), with my note indicating that it was received on 9th March. They are there before you.

Since his explanation in his letter dated 4th March was very different from what he had said, two days later, on 11th March 1993, we had another meeting. Dr Chee Soon Juan, Mr J J Isaac, Director of Personnel, the Dean, Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew, and myself were present. We went higher. There was a basis for him to present his case. Sir, the Dean, Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew, the Director of Personnel, Mr J J Isaac and Mrs Janice Chen are present in the officials' gallery to hear what I say, and they will be willing to vouch the facts.

Sir, in this meeting on 11 March 1993, Dr Chee for the first time, I repeat, for the first time, confirmed that he had sent his wife's dissertation for PhD examination. He had suppressed the information earlier. He also confirmed the names of the examiners of his wife's PhD dissertation. In this meeting, he abandoned his first position that he had intended to pay and shifted to his written back-dated letter of 4th March that he was justified to send his wife's dissertation using University research fund as her dissertation contained materials relevant to his research. That is his argument now, a new line has developed. This was an untenable excuse. The simple point was that he had sent his wife's dissertation for examination using University funds, and that is the basic thing. We should not be detracted or sidetracked by this. His wife is not a full-time staff member, or our enroled PhD student. She worked part time, and did some research. She was associated six months, for a period of time, and that does not mean that she has got the right to use our University's fund to send the thesis for PhD examination. She is not a staff of the University. Neither is she an enroled PhD student in NUS. Sir, please see Annex F, notes of meeting held on 11th March 1993. It will give you an idea of what had transpired at this meeting.

Sir, to my mind, whether his wife's research was related or not to his research was irrelevant. The basic thing is that he had sent his wife's PhD thesis for examination which is already wrong in the first place. Nevertheless, on 13th March 1993, before the University served notice of termination on Dr Chee, I invited Dr John M. Elliott, Senior Lecturer of our Department, who is a respected local psychologist, to comment on the relevance of Dr Chee's University funded research project to his wife's research area. Dr John Elliott is a child developmentalist. He has also worked and researched in the neuropsychology area and he has, in fact, spent more than 15 years working and researching in this direction. Dr John Elliot replied on 15th March (Annex G) and stated without qualification, and I quote,

'I cannot see that it has any direct relevance.' And after explaining the different areas of work, he concluded, and I quote,

'Mrs Chee's research has no particular basis in neuropsychology. It is in a fundamentally different branch of psychology. Moreover, Ms Huang is dealing with children [they are toddlers two to three years old] younger than the range covered by Dr Chee's research, and she does not examine ethnic differences. Her work has no connection to Dr Chee's projects that I can see.' And Dr John Elliot is in the Public Gallery, Sir.

Sir, similarly, I also requested Assoc. Prof. Ramadhar Singh to give his opinion. He is well known for his research work in social psychology. He has recently been awarded the Fellow of the American Psychological Association, which is a very prestigious award. He also concluded that he could not see a direct relation between the research reported in his wife's abstract and the research projects by Dr Chee.

Sir, in other words, two senior and experienced psychologists of our Department were of the view that Dr Chee's research and his wife's research were not related. And this debunks the argument that his research and his wife's research are all related and, therefore, he was justified to use the money. So that has been debunked. They are local people, they have done local research, they are very senior people, and they have given their opinions.

Sir, the story does not end here. I have also brought to the University's attention that Dr Chee had, in January 1992, made transport claims for taxi trips, amounting to $798. In January, this year, I noticed that besides the three parcels sent by courier service to Pennsylvania State University, his taxi trips included 26 trips between NUS and First Toa Payoh Primary School at $12 per trip; and 24 trips between NUS and Braddell Primary School also at $12 per trip. The rounded sums of $12 for each of the 50 trips made me suspicious. Earlier on, I thought it was a just claim. As you know, many Government servants do make claims and they do submit all sorts of claims, but one has got to read between the claims. Later, when all these issues came up, when you became suspicious, when you were unsure, you went back and have a look at them. This was what I did.

Sir, I wonder whether Members know how much is the taxi fare for a trip from NUS to either First Toa Payoh Primary School or Braddell Primary School. I know some of you do not travel by taxi, but some of you do. Let me tell you what it is. As I had doubts, on 17th February 1993, to check on this, I travelled in a taxi of the Singapore Commuter Company, belonging to a taxi driver friend of mine, one Mr Hor Kin Mun, who is also a Radin Mas grassroots leader. He is a reliable person. I get him because you can get a print-out of the fare. I went from NUS to Toa Payoh in the early morning peak hours. I left NUS at 8.45 am. I made arrangements with him to pick me up. I took a taxi with him to Toa Payoh itself and then to Braddell Primary School which is just opposite. Toa Payoh Primary School is in Lorong 1 and Braddell Primary School is in Lorong 8. Mr Ong Teng Cheong can vouch for it. I can verify that it costs no more than $9.

I also took a taxi trip on the same day from Toa Payoh to Nee Soon. I took the taxi from Singapore Commuter Company because it could still run with the pricing on. I did not go to Nee Soon Central but I went to Nee Soon itself to look for Nee Soon Community Centre. There are too many community centres in Nee Soon South and Nee Soon North and as such I could not get the bearing right. I really went there to check it out. But, unfortunately, because I could not establish which community centre it was, I decided not to give you the pricing of the fare.

Sir, indeed, from my own experience, at non-peak hours, the fare will be less than $8.50. I used to live in Toa Payoh Central some 15 years ago. I know what the fare is as I still take occasional taxi trips from NUS to Toa Payoh for occasional meetings at the Ministry of Community Development. When my car was sent for servicing, I would normally take a taxi. It would go via Toa Payoh Lorong 1 through Philips Singapore Pte Ltd and then to Singapore Labour Foundation (SLF). Toa Payoh Primary School is not too far away. That was how I began to assess what the fare was like.

I, therefore, reported these excessive transport claims to the University and I left it to the University to take whatever action they consider necessary. I do not know why the University has not raised the abuse of transport claims with Dr Chee.

Sir, I have presented the various facts, and I have documented the events that led to this unfortunate circumstance. Sir, I have recounted these facts in some detail so that hon. Members and the public will be left in no doubt as to the misconduct of Dr Chee. As Head of the Department, I had the duty to bring to the University's attention such misconduct of Dr Chee. If I had not done so, I would be covering up an activity which cannot be condoned. I would, in fact, be abetting him. If I had abetted him, action should be taken against me too. The basic question is Dr Chee's improper use of the University research fund. I have nothing personal against Dr Chee. I have treated him well. I have nurtured him and have brought him into the University. But did he behave like a gentleman from the way that I have described and discussed the case? It is up to Members to assess for themselves.

Members of my Department, both staff and students, who know me well, will tell you that I am not a vindictive type of person, or even a combative person. In fact, I had refrained from making any press statement until Dr Chee and the SDP sought to turn this into a political issue and attacked my motives. It is the SDP who has made this simple academic matter into a political issue and, today, they are side-tracking the whole thing into an issue to arouse public sympathy for which it should not be the case. I must say that it is Dr Chee who has brought this problem upon himself. I have done what is right and necessary to maintain the academic integrity of an institution because we do deal with thousands of students, and I think this is crucial. To nurture and to provide the appropriate values to students, we must have academic staff who can stand tall, who have the integrity and the capacity to transfer, transmit and inculcate the right values to these young minds.

Sir, no Head of Department can condone such misconduct by a staff member, like Dr Chee. [Applause].

The Minister for Education (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard the detailed account from Dr Vasoo, I am wondering whether there is any need for me to say any more. But I do have to respond to Mr Chia's motion.

This matter started as a disciplinary matter between an employer, the National University of Singapore (NUS), and its former employee, Dr Chee Soon Juan. But Dr Chee and his political party, the Singapore Democratic Party, have politicised the issue. They have questioned the integrity of the NUS and attributed his dismissal to political motives. Dr Chee has asked the SDP to put pressure on NUS to withdraw the charge of dishonesty against him, and the SDP has done so through various press comments.

As Minister for Education, I cannot allow NUS' integrity to be impugned, or tolerate any political interference with the way NUS deals with staff matters. The NUS must be able to publicly defend any decision that it takes. Otherwise, its standing as an institution of higher learning will be diminished.

Sir, based on the evidence, I am satisfied that NUS has acted correctly in dismissing Dr Chee for dishonest conduct. I am also satisfied that dismissal was the appropriate action, given the clear evidence of Dr Chee's dishonesty and the total gross misconduct which he had shown when he was found out for abusing his research grants.

The NUS has released the letters concerning Dr Chee's termination and subsequent dismissal. Members have also heard from Dr Vasoo a detailed account of events and investigations leading to the termination. Let me briefly touch on the salient points.

Dr Vasoo, as Head of Department, discovered the suspicious items of expenditure during his annual review of staff research projects and their financial accounts in January 1993. When first confronted on 4th March 1993, Dr Chee's immediate and most telling reaction was not to dispute that it was misuse of his research funds but to claim that he had intended to make payment. In other words, he knew that he had to pay and that he had done wrong by charging the sums to his research account.

On the same day, 4th March, immediately after meeting Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew and Dr Vasoo, Dr Chee went to see Mrs Janice Chen, the NUS staff in charge of research accounts. Dr Chee asked Mrs Chen about the invoices for the courier services. He said that the invoices should not be sent to the office but should be sent to him directly, as he knew that invoices received by the office might be settled from his research funds. Mrs Chen told Dr Chee that there should be no mistake in the accounts as it was done according to his instruction. We have all the statements to show it. Later the same day, Dr Chee told Mrs Chen that the charging of the invoices was correct and okay. In other words, it was only after Dr Chee found that he could not conceal his dishonesty that he shifted his position and decided to defend instead of covering up his misdeeds.

Dr Chee subsequently submitted a letter of explanation dated 4th March 1993, the same day he met Dr Vasoo and Assoc. Prof. Ernest Chew. However, Dr Vasoo only received it on 9th March 1993, while Mr J.J. Isaac, the NUS Director of Personnel, received a carbon copy on 10th March 1993. In his letter, Dr Chee claimed that he felt entitled to use his research funds because his wife's thesis was related to his own research. This was a new claim which Dr Chee had not made at the meeting on 4th March. It contradicted his repeated statements at that meeting that he had intended to make payment. The letter also suppressed the material fact that the thesis had been despatched for the purpose of his wife's PhD examination.

Only when Dr Chee was confronted again on 11th March 1993 did he admit that the thesis was for his wife's examination. It was by four examiners in Pennsylvania State University, three within the wife's department and one external examiner in another department of the same university. He sent the three copies of his wife's thesis to her department under his own name and charged the cost of the courier service to his research fund. The fourth copy of the same thesis to be sent to the external examiner had to be despatched in the wife's name. Dr Vasoo has explained why. Hence, he could not charge this parcel to his research fund. Both parcels contained his wife's thesis, although Dr Chee subsequently claimed in his letter to the University dated 22nd March that the parcel in his wife's name contained material not relevant to his own research, and therefore he had to pay for this parcel himself.

Here we have a simple case of a lecturer who cheated the University by misusing funds intended for his own research. When caught, at first he admitted it, but then, instead of apologising and refunding the money, he tried to wriggle his way out by claiming that he was entitled to use his research funds because his wife's PhD thesis was relevant to his own research.

The key issue is whether he was entitled to use his research money to send his wife's thesis for her PhD examination. Even supposing that his wife's thesis was relevant to his research, the answer is clearly "no". He is not entitled to use NUS research funds for related research projects by anyone else, least of all his wife, unless there is a proper arrangement for research collaboration. Dr Chee's wife was not his research collaborator. Her dissertation was sent to the US for the purpose of her PhD examination. The examination was strictly his wife's personal matter. Clearly, it was wrong to use University funds to meet expenses incurred in such a personal matter. If Dr Chee is right, then he can also claim expenses incurred by his wife when she travelled to the US to defend her PhD thesis.

Nevertheless, since Dr Chee claimed that his wife's PhD thesis is relevant to his research work, NUS sought expert opinion on this matter. Dr John M. Elliott, Senior Lecturer, and Assoc. Prof. Ramadhar Singh, both of the NUS Department of Social Work and Psychology, have confirmed in writing that the wife's thesis has no relevance to Dr Chee's research.

Thus, Dr Chee has not only misused NUS research funds but has also tried to mislead NUS in its investigations. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, NUS decided to terminate Dr Chee's Agreement for Service, giving him three months' notice with effect from 18th March 1993. The NUS was, in fact, being lenient with him. It could have dismissed him on the spot. But I will give you examples of how it has dealt with cases like this. This is in accordance with his contract which stipulates that either party can terminate the contract with three months' notice in writing.

The University's system of research funding hinges on the honesty and integrity of the persons doing the research and using the funds. Once a person has been caught misusing research funds, he has shown himself untrustworthy with funds and unfit to be a lecturer. The University must discipline him and uphold its integrity and reputation.

Dr Chee's contract was terminated because of his total misconduct, not just because of his misuse of research funds. Had Dr Chee admitted that he had improperly used the $226 and appeared genuinely contrite, NUS might have viewed the episode differently. Had he admitted his mistake and offered to resign, the NUS might have accepted his resignation instead of terminating his services. But when he tried to cover up his misdeeds by successive untruths and prevarications, it became necessary for NUS to terminate his contract.

On the grounds of Dr Chee's misuse of research funds and his conduct during the investigations, the NUS had already concluded that his dishonesty warranted termination of his contract. There was therefore no necessity to investigate Dr Vasoo's other complaint that Dr Chee had over-claimed for taxi fares.

In his letter of appeal dated 22nd March 1993, Dr Chee wrote, "Dr Vasoo had all the receipts with him when he approved the payments." He implied that Dr Vasoo knew the contents of the parcels when he approved payments. How could Dr Vasoo know what the parcels contained unless Dr Chee had told him? Dr Chee's statement is therefore calculated to mislead.

When invoices from companies are received by the Department, they are endorsed by the Head and transmitted to the Bursar's office for payment. The Head's role is only to ensure that the company submitting the invoice has already undertaken the work; in this instance, the sending of the two parcels. In the circumstances, Dr Vasoo, the Head, passed the invoice for payment in good faith. At no time did Dr Chee seek approval from the Head to send his wife's PhD dissertation for her examination.

Sir, after Dr Chee received the notice of termination and the rejection of his appeal, he has not pursued any of the proper remedies open to him. If he considered that the NUS had breached any of the terms of the Agreement for Service, he could have asked for arbitration as provided for under clause 17 of the Agreement for Service with the University. If he thought NUS' press statement or letters had defamed him, he could sue NUS for defamation, as he had publicly threatened to do. He has done neither. Instead, he has impugned the motives of NUS and sought to work up public feelings against the University. While on leave and receiving remuneration from the NUS, he launched a political attack on the University, declaring himself on hunger strike. He has asked a political party, the SDP, to put pressure on the NUS to withdraw its charge of dishonesty. Such actions by Dr Chee are calculated to bring NUS into disrepute and are wholly unbecoming of a staff member. The NUS cannot ignore such gross misbehaviour which aggravates his original misconduct.

It should be noted that Dr Chee remained a staff member and continued to draw a salary from the NUS during the three months' notice period. In view of his gross misconduct, NUS dismissed him on 10th April 1993 with immediate effect, without notice or compensation, in accordance with clause 4(c)(iii) of his Agreement for Service with NUS.

Sir, the NUS is fully justified both to terminate Dr Chee's contract for dishonest conduct and subsequently to dismiss him for gross misconduct. NUS must maintain high standards and cannot condone such flagrant misbehaviour from any staff member. The fact that Dr Chee is the Assistant Secretary-General of the SDP is irrelevant.

Now that the facts of the case have been revealed, we should ask the SDP whether it still condones Dr Chee's dishonesty and misconduct. The SDP said in its press statement of 1st April:

'The SDP and its Secretary-General have full confidence in Dr Chee. Dr Chee has taken his decision (meaning the hunger strike) because, as a highly principled and deeply religious person, he passionately believes in the truth and in justice which has been denied him.'

The SDP and Dr Chee have turned a straightforward disciplinary matter between NUS and Dr Chee into a political issue. Is the SDP so anxious to make political capital out of this case that it fails to differentiate between right and wrong? The SDP must make its position clear so that the public can judge the party for what it is. What is the SDP's view of Dr Chee now?

Members have raised a few points which I would like now to explain. The first point raised by both Mr Chiam and Mr Chia Shi Teck is whether I can give examples of previous cases of termination. I can give them two examples. Fortunately, such cases are very rare in the University. So I have only two examples for them.

Case 1. The most recent case. In 1992 an academic staff member who was provided with University quarters entered into a neighbouring University housing unit which was vacant to make IDD calls to the United States. When the University received bills from Telecom in respect of the IDD calls made from the vacant unit, it carried out an investigation and caught the academic staff member. The total cost of the IDD calls made from the vacant unit amounted to about $420. This academic staff member resigned within two weeks of being discovered and made full restitution for the amount of money incurred. That is the proper thing to do. He has a sense of shame in him. So he apologised, he paid up and he resigned. But not Dr Chee.

Case 2. This is many years back. In 1978, that is 15 years ago, an academic staff member had made false claims from the University in respect of purchases made from Cold Storage Supermarket, Yaohan and certain other places. He had also made claims for the purchase of petrol purportedly to be used for a University boat used for collecting laboratory specimens from the sea. It was discovered that the purchases made from the Cold Storage Supermarket and Yaohan and other places were not purchases meant for his laboratory as he had claimed but in fact were food items for his home consumption. It was further discovered that the petrol he had purchased was not used for the University boat but for his car. By the time he was found out, the false claims that he had made and received from the University amounted to about $11,000. On 12th December 1978, the University terminated his appointment with one month's notice. The University has been quite kind. He also made full restitution of the amount that he had falsely claimed.

Sir, we can see from these two instances that the termination of Dr Chee's appointment is nothing unusual. In fact, the University was being kind to him. Now this whole argument has been turned around and Chiam said, "Look, because he has been given notice of termination with compensation, with leniency, therefore the reason must be to avoid charging him in court." That is utter rubbish. If you read the letter of termination, four times he was called "dishonest". If he is an honourable man and an academic, he should go to court and sue for defamation. What is all this excuse that he cannot sue because he has no case. It is utter rubbish. What about the other case? He has now been sacked without notice. Now, he can sue. There is no notice. He is sacked. Sue. He does not dare do it. He says it is going to cost a lot of money, but he has got good advisors - two lawyers on his side. They should give him proper advice.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Firstly, on this question of the tape, I have to determine really whose property it is. If it is the property of the University, then I certainly owe an apology to Dr Vasoo.

We are here to look at the facts and not to be too emotional about the whole matter. There is so much talk about Dr Chee's dishonesty and wrongful use of University funds. But there are no facts, up to this point of time, to show that in fact he was dishonest. What are the rules and regulations in the University governing the use of research fund which he has breached? You point out to me. There are no clear-cut procedures and no detailed rules and regulations in regard to use of the funds. The Minister has said that even if you are a research collaborator who helps him in his research work, and he spends money on it, he is wrong. But where is this rule? Or is it just out of his own mind?

The other two disciplinary cases could be easily distinguished. One is definitely way out. He made purchases from Cold Storage and Yaohan, you should sack him on the spot.

As regards the other case, he took an intentional step. The intention was in fact theft. He purposely went next door to make a call. There was an intentional step taken. It should be distinguished from Dr Chee's case. In his mind, the two works had some connection. This reminds me of the Colosseum in Rome - kill, kill, kill! I would be very grateful if the Minister could point out exactly which regulation he has breached.

This argument can turn both ways. If you say that Dr Chee is dishonest, then it should be under clause 4(c)(iii) straightaway. But you dare not go under clause 4(c)(iii). You go under clause 4(a), and now you say, "We give him a chance." Is that being kind? But it does not match all your allegations of dishonesty. We look at the facts. The fact is that you went under clause 4(a) and we take what you mean. It is in writing. Now you try to explain away a point of fact which you have taken.

As regards this University staff, Mrs Janice Chen, according to what Dr Chee has said, in fact, he gave his wife's dissertation without any cover. It was just plain like that [indicating] and handed to Mrs Janice Chen. I do not know whether she is in the House. If she is, she could confirm whether or not it was just handed to her unpacked, like that [indicating]. So all the headings could be seen that it is the work of Dr Huang Chih-Mei. Dr Vasoo tried to point out that he did not see it, it was under cover, it was improper for him to check. Now we want to know whether or not Dr Chee had tried to conceal it. But from what I have been told, he handed the whole parcel just like that [indicating] to Mrs Janice Chen. Let us hear from her whether or not he tried in any way to conceal it.

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Sir, I sympathise with Mr Chiam. He is in a very difficult position. He is a good lawyer and he tries to make a good case. He sets out all the facts. Alas, he has got to defend himself. I will be very generous to him. Maybe he had not known the full facts beforehand and so he had been misled. He had opened his mouth too soon in public. He saw that there was a case for him to attack the PAP. So he went for it. Now he is in a fix.

Point No. 1, no clear regulations. I can show him that it is clearly stated in the University (I can hand this copy to the press afterwards) the amounts you can spend, equipment, $2,000; consumables, so much. Are you saying that these rules must contain items that you cannot spend this on your wife's dinner; you cannot spend this on your wife's thesis? This is a professional man who is entrusted with big sums of money to spend on research. You must have the integrity to decide whether it is relevant or not relevant. This is point No. 1

The second point was that the parcel was open, so everybody could see. What does that mean? Is Mrs Chen supposed to recognise, "Oh, this is your wife's thesis, you cannot do it." How can she know? Dr Vasoo may be approving hundreds of cases every month. It has got to be personal integrity. There is no other way. His point about termination, therefore, is wrong. You have the facts, $420. That fellow was ashamed of it. He knew he did wrong, he confessed. Dr Chee does not have the shame in him. You look at the notes of the first meeting. He admitted he had to pay. His immediate reaction was most telling. He went to see Mrs Chen. He found he could not cover up. Then he changed track. Now he dragged in his Professor from Georgia University to try and justify his reasons. I think Mr Chiam should take a deep breath, look at the full facts and decide carefully before saying anything else.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, after listening to Dr Vasoo and the Minister, Mr Lee Yock Suan, I am much clearer as to the motive of this young man. I am more convinced that his hunger strike is a publicity-seeking, politically-motivated move. This hunger strike is a psychological ploy to play on the emotions of Singaporeans. In doing this, he wants to draw people's attention away from the wrongs he did in the University. Sir, there are hidden agendas in this hunger strike, among which his wrong-doings in the University and a wider political motive he has in mind.

I have been studying Dr Chee's behaviour during the by-elections. I see him as a young politician in a hurry. He knew how to win the crowd. He knew how to do this. He must win over their emotions. The topics he selected to speak on must therefore be simple bread-and-butter issues, especially on the needs of the poor and how Government policies have made them poorer while at the same time the Government gets richer and those who support it or are associated with the PAP will also be richer. He saw the big crowd at his rally as a measure of his success. They warmed towards him because he is a fresh face in politics, with a university degree and dare to talk and criticise the PAP. I can imagine he felt great and thus develop a sense of self-importance because the SDP was praising him, even over-shadowing Mr Chiam. The media was quoting him and the rally crowds were cheering him. I sense that because he was so captured by the tremendous response, the sudden thrust to achieving greatness, he lost his sense of judgment and reality. He became a victim of his own psychological training.

When he started to tread on the fringe of megalomaniac behaviour, he felt important and delusions of greatness, boosted by his so-called popularity response, made him to challenge authority, his immediate superior, his University, his own Party, his family's attempt to stop him, on embarking on his hunger strike, and even has the audacity to urge the SDP to pressure the University. He had his delusions dented after the by-election results when the Prime Minister won by more than 70% of the votes. I am sure he must be wondering how the big rally crowds turned away and rejected his politics of envy. Therefore, this attempt at hunger strike had also a hidden political motive to try and recapture lost political ground and self-importance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Vasoo -- you look at Dr Vasoo -- is he a vindictive man? Can he be vindictive? Listen to his parliamentary speeches. They are always fairly standard. I am sorry. But they are fairly standard. He is always asking for the Government to do more for the poor, for the old, for the disabled. And when he heard I wanted to start a non-profit community hospital, he was the first to volunteer to help me. He is, by all accounts, a reasonable man.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Vasoo was in a no-win situation. Under the difficult circumstances, he had to make a decision. He must do the right thing. Here was one of his staff who had committed an offence, but this staff member happened to be an Opposition member. To remove him is to court problems, because he will be accused of being politically motivated in sacking him. Yet, not to do so is to perpetuate a wrong.

As for Dr Chee, he wants people to believe that he is being vindicated for political reasons. But Dr Vasoo did the right thing. He sent all his findings of Dr Chee's dishonest behaviour to the University, and the University decided that Dr Chee acted dishonestly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many outside this House argue that Dr Chee should be allowed to continue his work till his contract expires. But is this the right thing -- to allow him to perpetuate his wrongdoings in the University? Sir, this matter is strictly between the University and Dr Chee. The University, by way of the Minister for Education, has come out in the open to explain why Dr Chee's service has to be terminated. If Dr Vasoo was not the head, the whole affair probably will not have been so hot.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if every time a member of the University staff, under a PAP head, is dismissed and is deemed to be politically motivated, then these heads of department cannot function effectively and fairly because of this political blackmail. And worse still, if such dismissed member has to be reinstated because he threatens suicide by jumping from a tall building or threatens to start starving to death, then how is the University, or for that matter any organisation, going to function? We cannot allow emotions to rule in such circumstances. We cannot give in.

Mr Speaker, Sir, even Mr Chiam has been put in a tight spot by Dr Chee's hunger strike. He did not want to debate this in Parliament. There was plenty of time for him to file an adjournment motion. But, I guess, Dr Chee's case was not strong enough for him to make this adjournment motion, but he left it to the Nominated MP, Mr Chia Shi Teck, to bring it up. Therefore, his argument to condemn the Government that Dr Chee's dismissal by the University was politically motivated is weak and cannot be supported.

Instead, Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to move an amendment to Mr Chia Shi Teck's motion. Sir, I beg to move,

At the end, to add --

`and deplores the SDP's action in politicising an internal NUS disciplinary matter, and pressuring NUS to rescind its action against a dishonest staff member'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amended motion will therefore read like this:

`That this House expresses its concern over the allegation by Dr Chee Soon Juan that his dismissal from NUS for alleged misuse of his research funds amounting to a sum of $226.00 was politically motivated, and seeks clarification from the Minister for Education of the actual facts that caused Dr Chee's dismissal and deplores the SDP's action in politicising an internal NUS disciplinary matter, and pressuring NUS to rescind its action against a dishonest staff member.'

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would hate to see a young Dr Chee going into coma and losing some of his good brains. If not for anybody's sake, I would urge him to listen to his mother, whom I read in the papers, is also not in good health.

Sir, before I conclude, may I ask Mr Chiam to show me the letter dated 8th April sent by Dr Chee to Professor George Hynd. I think it is very, very important, because I want to find out the contents of that letter, and I can see there could be relevance to this reply from research Professor George Hynd, University of Georgia.

Mr Speaker: It has been proposed by Dr Tan Cheng Bock, as an amendment, at the end, to add -

`and deplores the SDP's action in politicising an internal NUS disciplinary matter, and pressuring NUS to rescind its action against a dishonest staff member'.

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added."

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is a bit unfortunate that the hon. Member did not hand in this amendment earlier to the Members of the Opposition. But from what I have heard of the speech of Dr Tan Cheng Bock, he has not brought up any evidence at all to show that the SDP, in fact, took steps to pressure the NUS or to politicise the whole matter. I think SDP gave a statement the day after Dr Chee went into a hunger strike. We categorically asked him to call off the hunger strike and to stop it straightaway. How can that be an action of pressuring NUS? Our action is that we support his claim that he was not dishonest. But we deplore this action of hunger strike. We feel that nobody should endanger his health or his life or, in fact, affect the welfare of any members of the family with anything that can affect his health or his life.

So, where is the evidence that the SDP is trying to make political capital out of this and to pressure the NUS? I think this amendment should be summarily dismissed by this House for lack of evidence.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification.

Sir, Mr Chiam asks: where is the evidence that the SDP is bringing pressure upon the University? In fact, my recollection is that the SDP issued a statement, apart from whatever they might have said about the hunger strike, that the NUS' actions were vindictive, it was vindictive action on the PAP Government, and asked the NUS to reinstate Dr Chee.

I would like to ask him now: does the SDP no longer insist on that position or does it still stand by that statement? Because if he stands by that statement, that is the evidence of bringing pressure on the University.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, we believe Dr Chee is innocent. And in the circumstances, unless he is proven guilty--

An hon. Member: We have done that.

Mr Chiam See Tong: But where is the evidence? I mean, it is quite clear the University dismissed him under clause 4(a), unless this House refuses to accept that fact. But it is in writing. So his dismissal is not based on dishonesty. Let us get it very clear. It was a contractual term, either party could give three months' notice. The University has every right to ask Dr Chee, "Can you please leave? We give you three months' notice." Similarly, Dr Chee also has the right to walk out and say, "I am serving my three months' notice and I leave the University." Nobody can stop either party from exercising his contractual right. So up to now there is no evidence, even with the second sacking. If you read carefully what the University says, it is that he is sacked summarily for improper conduct, and the improper conduct is based on the fact that he went on a hunger strike and instigated politically against the University. He asked the SDP to pressure the NUS. So where is the evidence? There is no evidence at all.

Prof. Jayakumar: My question of Mr Chiam was whether after having heard everything, Dr Vasoo's detailed explanation and the detailed statement of the Minister for Education, Mr Chiam still insists that the NUS reinstate Dr Chee, as was insisted upon by the SDP in its statement.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The SDP now withdraws that statement because Dr Chee himself later has mentioned that he does not wish to be reinstated. He just wants to clear his name. The purpose we are here today is to clear his name and not for reinstatement.

Prof. Jayakumar: Does Mr Chiam also withdraw the statement he has made to the press that this action by the NUS is politically motivated and that this shows it is vindictive action on the part of the PAP?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Our view, I think, even the public, if you just take a survey of ---

Prof. Jayakumar rose ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: No. Give me a chance.

Prof. Jayakumar: But answer the question.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Give me a chance. The general view of the public is that there is no good reason to sack Dr Chee, and we maintain that even now, the NUS has not made out a case against Dr Chee for the reasons I have given.

An hon. Member: Yes or no?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Give me a chance, please. We stand by what we say. If you can prove otherwise, then we will withdraw it. But up to now, there is no evidence that he has done anything wrong - first sacking, second sacking.

Prof. Jayakumar: I understand, therefore, what Mr Chiam says is that he stands by the statement.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, of course.

Prof. Jayakumar: In that case, he should not ask of Dr Tan Cheng Bock what evidence is there that the SDP tried to turn this into a political issue.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Speaker, Sir, in fact, if I may refer you to the Straits Times of 2nd April 1993. It is written quite clearly here, and I quote:

'The Singapore Democratic Party last night came out in full support of sacked University lecturer, Chee Soo Juan, to back his claim that his dismissal was politically motivated. And the statement was signed by party chief, Chiam See Tong.'

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Can I just clarify one point? Mr Chiam keeps claiming that this termination was just an ordinary contractual thing. Both parties are not happy, so there is the right to terminate. Let me just read a paragraph from this letter of termination dated 18th March 1993, which was released to the press and published in full:

'Because of your dishonest conduct, the University in accordance with ... hereby gives you three months' notice ....' "Because of your dishonest conduct" - this is what it says. Is there no cause?

Mr Chiam See Tong: It is very difficult to convince the Minister. You can say what you like but the fact is that the dismissal was based on clause 4(a). It is in black and white. I did not make this statement. It is the University which used clause 4(a) and they are bound by it and clause 4(a) is very clear. There is no allegation of dishonesty but it is a straight-out contractual exercise of the University's right. And please do not tell me that the University is kind. The University is an academic institution. They say what they mean. Surely, they will know how to read. [Interruption]. But then you should go under clause 4(c)(iii).

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think he can just go back and read the letter of termination. It is full of grounds for termination. He said that "dishonesty" was mentioned three times and "admitted" was mentioned four times. So all the causes are there. It is just that the University wants to follow its past practice of dealing with such cases, like the case of the staff member who went into a neighbouring house and made the phone calls. So he was allowed to resign. Even the staff who was dishonest with $11,000 was given termination notice.

An hon. Member: Same clause?

Mr Lee Yock Suan: Same clause.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, if the Minister is right, everybody who enters into a contract, or anybody who puts it in writing can explain it away, "Oh, I did not mean that. I mean something else." Then it will make a mockery of all that is written in black and white. So the University is bound by what it has written. That is very clear and simple. I do not think I want to go into this point again.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chia Shi Teck has described this incident as the saga of Dr Chee Soon Juan. I think that it would be better described as a betrayal of Dr S. Vasoo.

Sir, this whole affair started because Dr Chee alleged that his dismissal was politically motivated, that is, by the PAP. It would seem that political manipulation of this whole affair by the SDP is a more correct assessment. In alleging that the dismissal was politically motivated, Mr Chiam gave these reasons. Firstly, because Dr Vasoo, the Head of Department, happened to be a PAP MP. Now that Dr Vasoo has given his whole explanation, I am sure that this House is convinced, if Mr Chiam is not, of the wrongdoings and misconduct of Dr Chee. Mr Chiam has also made a big song and dance about all the letters that Dr Chee had written to the press and how these had affected the case. He also mentioned about the involvement of Mr Matthias Yao and Dr Ong Chit Chung. Sir, let me say that all these have no bearing on the case. Many people write to the press but the Party has never been accused of being politically motivated against this person.

Sir, the letter from the University of Georgia has also given proof to show that this whole affair is politically motivated. However, we should note that the letter was dated 12th April, that is, after the hunger strike was announced and the letter that was written to Prof. George Hynd was dated 8th April. And, as mentioned by Dr Vasoo, Prof. George Hynd was a lecturer of Dr Chee Soon Juan and he was a person known to him before.

Sir, the disclosures made by the Minister for Education and Dr S. Vasoo, as Head of Dr Chee's Department, speak for themselves. Let us quickly recapitulate the sequence of events and some salient points which show that the SDP has politically manipulated this whole betrayal. The charade actually started before the Marine Parade GRC by-election, that is, in September 1992.

When Dr Chee received the news of his termination from NUS, he alleged that the action was politically motivated and he subsequently also informed his party colleagues, that is, he expected his party to respond. What other evidence do we need to show that this is politically motivated? We feel that the SDP is out to make political capital of this. Before all this happened, Dr Chee was very involved in the exchange of letters in the Straits Times and was a rising star in the SDP and heir apparent to Mr Chiam. He was, if you compare it with the PAP hierarchy, equivalent to a Deputy Prime Minister.

Sir, subsequently, he decided to seek redress and to go on a hunger strike from 6.00 am on 5th April 1993. Hunger strikes are no small matters and they are not matters to be taken lightly. As my colleague, Mr Peh, has said earlier in Mandarin, before the hunger strike which was announced to start at 6.00 am, he had a grand feast at 5.30 am, a feast prepared by his wife. If I may take a translation from the Lianhe Zaobao, as I do not read the Chinese papers, this is what it says. It is an article written by Mr Lim Kim Huat.

'His wife, Dr Huang Chih-Mei, personally prepared a breakfast which comprise vegetables, beans, mushrooms, chicken and rice for Dr Chee before his hunger strike. At 6.00 am yesterday, Dr Chee sitting on a sofa in the living room, read the Lianhe Zaobao and the Straits Times and began his hunger strike.'

Sir, hunger strikes are never to be taken lightly. Why? Because the ultimate would be damage to his health and, of course, when taken to the infinite end, it would mean death. When he was asked why he went on a hunger strike, he said that this was the peaceful way to show his protest. Peaceful, for who? For himself. It definitely caused discomfort to his family, to his mother, to his relatives, to his brothers and siblings. It does not give us a good picture of a man committed to a cause, a man who was so affected and so conscientious about what he believed in that he decided to go for a hunger strike.

Sir, he also said that he did not want to cause unnecessary alarm. But look, what have all these done? Day after day, we have newspaper reports about what is happening to him. And one writer to the Straits Times had this to say. He was quite amused in the beginning when he read about the hunger strike. But when he sat down in a coffeeshop, and he heard students talking about it that they can also use this as a tactic, he was worried. He asked the newspapers to stop carrying stories about this. And this morning we heard Mr Chiam challenging Mr Peh to a hunger strike. How much further is this going to carry on?

Sir, in the course of all this, how did the SDP react? They issued a very cunning statement. On one hand, they would seem to be so fair and reasonable. They said that the hunger strike was his own personal decision. It is a very fair statement. It showed concern. It called on Dr Chee to stop his hunger strike.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Dr Beng, are you giving way?

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: No, Sir. They provided a doctor to check on Dr Chee daily and they paid for his bills. He was a doctor who neither belonged to the SDP nor the Workers' Party. But they also said in the press statement:

'Contrary to media reports, the SDP and its Secretary-General have full confidence in Dr Chee and have always supported Dr Chee in the sincerity of his actions.' Next quote:

'The SDP sympathises and respects the deep conviction and belief of Dr Chee in his present course of action.' What is this present course of action? The hunger strike. What does all this tantamount to? Condoning, encouraging, manipulating or abetting? I do not know.

Sir, the SDP has politicised the whole issue and has tried, unfortunately, for them but, fortunately, for Singapore, to make Singaporeans believe that the hunger strike is the right way and the only way to redress this issue. I quote:

'The SDP believes that Singaporeans are now enlightened and will take note of what Dr Chee is doing for the long-term good of Singapore. We were asked to believe that hunger strikes are the way to redress whatever we feel is wrong and that is being done wrong to us. This is for the long-term good of Singapore.'

Dr Chee goes even further. As first Assistant Secretary-General, SDP, as I have said, it is equivalent to a Deputy Prime Minister, to galvanise support for himself and when talking of political realities in Singapore, he asked "whether Singaporeans want to live with this aspect of Singapore's political life?" Here, he was talking about being victimised, etc, and if not, to take concrete action, like himself, to change it. What is this concrete action that he is talking about? Hunger strike.

Sir, on 8th April, in reaction to the SDP's statement, Dr Chee urged the SDP to put pressure on the NUS. Is this the political system we want to adopt? Next time, what will happen? If a Member, or anyone of us, or a Member of the Opposition is not promoted in a department whose Head may, unfortunately, again happen to be Dr Vasoo, he will be accused of being politically motivated. If someone cannot find employment in the University, it is political motivation. If someone cannot find admission to a junior college, it is political motivation. Where will all these lead us?

Sir, when asked if Dr Chee would heed the party's advice, he said, "I will be the laughing stock, if I stop now." Pride, we see here, comes in the way and not penitence. I would urge him, for his own sake, and if not for his own sake, as Dr Tan Cheng Bock said, for the sake of his ill mother, to stop this and not let pride get in the way.

Sir, the reaction of the PAP shows that this whole affair is politically motivated. Firstly, let us note that no PAP MP, besides Dr Vasoo in his capacity as Head of Department, commented on this whole affair. Mr Chiam, unfortunately, was beaten by Mr Chia Shi Teck in bringing up this motion to the House. This motion was not proposed by any PAP MP. It was the Prime Minister who directed us to support this motion and we did out of respect for him and due to his very persuasive techniques.

Sir, many of us here did not believe that it was correct to discuss this whole issue here. Why? Because we believe that Dr Chee, who is not in this House and not an MP, when we discuss this whole affair, he will not be here to defend himself. We did not feel that it was fair to him. But in the light of the fact that the NMP has moved this motion, we felt that we had no choice but to participate.

Lastly, let me close by referring to my good Friend, Dr Vasoo. You have listened to him. What were the words he used? "Betrayal", "hurt", "disappointment". This is not a man who is vindictive. This is not a man who goes around fixing people. He tried to help this young man. He stuck his head out and almost got it chopped. He even pleaded for Dr Chee, so much so he got the 14th month bonus. Yet, when this young man came to see him for advice as to whether he should go into politics, he carried with him a tape-recorder which did not belong to him, with a tape which did not belong to him, and recorded the conversation.

This reminds me of my own initial days before I decided to become an MP. My wife and I visited Dr Tan Cheng Bock and his wife to have a talk with him on the pros and cons and the problems of being an MP. I did not carry a tape-recorder, I assure you, Dr Tan. But it really brought back memories. You are seeking out a friend, someone you can trust, someone who would tell you the problems of being an MP. And yet you carry along with you a tape-recorder. I think this is almost unforgivable.

Mr Speaker: Are there any more Members who would like to speak on the amendment? Yes, Mr Koo.

Mr Koo Tsai Kee (Tanjong Pagar GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, in politicising the affair, I think Mr Chiam See Tong has also defamed my friend and colleague, Dr Vasoo, when Mr Chiam made a statement to the press saying that Dr Vasoo should return the tape. Mr Chiam said, "That is stealing, you know." He is implying that Dr Vasoo is a thief. As far as I know, the only thing Dr Vasoo has stolen is his time that he could spend with his family and in serving the nation. I want to ask Mr Chiam whether he will personally apologise to Dr Vasoo.

Mr K. Shanmugam (Sembawang GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support Dr Tan's amendment to Mr Chia's motion.

Listening to Mr Chiam, there is a fallacy in his logic. He says Dr Chee's employment was terminated under clause 4(a) and he says that that is a contractual termination. Since there is a contractual termination, therefore, there cannot be any allegation of dishonesty. That is Mr Chiam's reasoning.

What Mr Chiam has to distinguish is between the act of termination and the reasons for the termination. The act of termination could either be contractual or by summary dismissal. The reasons for the termination have been repeated several times in writing. And the reasons are, as we heard from the Minister for Education, the dishonesty. So Mr Chiam can say what he likes about the mode of termination. He could say that Dr Chee should have been summarily dismissed instead of being given a contractual termination. What he cannot dispute is that the University has always said that the reason why it is terminating Dr Chee's contract was for reasons of dishonesty. It is a logical fallacy when you try and combine the two.

We have heard Dr Vasoo stating the facts. Prior to that, I was a bit more moderate in my view of Dr Chee's conduct and the way the SDP has handled it. After listening to it, it seems very difficult to justify any aspect of either SDP's conduct or Dr Chee's conduct. The following appears to be clear:

(1) Dr Chee was given a research grant.

(2) He used part of the research grant to courier his wife's thesis.

(3) At the time he did so, he had not sought the University's permission to use the funds for that purpose.

(4) The University found out about that and asked him for an explanation.

(5) Dr Chee admitted to the usage of the funds but sought to justify his action on grounds that his wife's thesis was relevant for his own research and that therefore he was entitled to have it validated. We now learn from Dr Vasoo that, in fact, he has prevaricated and changed his position on this a number of times.

(6) The University characterised his conduct as dishonest and terminated his employment.

(7) Dr Chee accuses the University of fixing him for his political beliefs and goes on a hunger strike, and now Dr Chee gets sacked.

Those are the facts. Let us consider the crucial ones. First, Dr Chee's usage of the research funds to courier his wife's thesis. There has been an extended discussion on whether his wife's thesis was or was not relevant to his work. I think that sort of analysis misses the wood for the trees. Let us look at it sensibly. We are all men of the world. If you think about it without emotion, without taking sides, objectively, you cannot but agree that it was a very silly thing to do, perhaps even a stupid thing to do. Dr Chee was obviously taking some advantage with the funds that had been allotted to him. It was an incorrect thing to do and I would say patently so. It is in a way like coming into the restricted zone without a disc or leaving your car parked without a parking coupon. These are irresponsible indiscretions which get committed. You commit them, you get pulled up. What should you do? You admit and try and close the matter or do you try and talk your way out? I think it would be best to admit rather than compound the problem.

Let us say that you accept the argument that he was entitled to pay the courier charges because his wife's thesis was relevant. Where do you draw the line if you accept the argument? What about paying a secretary to type the thesis? Or paying for photocopying of the thesis? Or paying an allowance to his wife for completing the thesis?

Mr Chiam has put forward a letter from the University of Georgia dated 12th April, after this affair broke. The letter does not help the case that Mr Chiam makes. Let us give this well, and I would say, carefully drafted letter from Dr Chee's alma mater full weight. Still, how does Mr Chiam justify the paying for the courier charges for sending the parcel by Dr Chee not to his university but to his wife's?

Put it this way. Dr Chee's funds could arguably, at best, be used to send the thesis for his own research purposes to his own supervisors, not for any other purpose. And without putting too fine a point on it, it was an indiscretion. I think most of us, including probably even Mr Chiam, can agree on that.

In Dr Chee's case, having committed that indiscretion, he was asked to explain himself. He could, and in my view, should have simply come clean at that stage. He may have feared the consequences, but there was simply no choice. It would have been better to admit and minimise the damage rather than try and bluster your way out of a messy situation. That is so even if Dr Chee felt that his indiscretion attracted too close an attention because of his political background.

Let us leave aside for a moment Dr Chee's political background. Let us ask ourselves: if what he had done had come to light, how would we expect the University to react? We would expect the University to ask him for an explanation. If he comes clean, then we will expect the University to act proportionate to the nature of the incident.

Let me put it in another way. Assume that it was a PAP MP who did it. Would not Mr Chiam go to town with the news? And could Mr Chiam expect the University to ignore the act? However, the problem in this case was that when confronted with his indiscretion, Dr Chee, quite unfortunately, sought to explain it away. That was very unwise. His explanation quite simply does not stand scrutiny. That is clear if you are to look at it without any bias for, or against, him. Whether you are for or against Dr Chee, at that stage, his conduct becomes unsupportable.

I am not sure that Mr Chiam does his case any good by attempting to draw a distinction between Dr Chee's case and the case of a lecturer who goes over to a neighbouring unit to make a telephone call. That is a distinction without a difference.

The University has chosen to characterise the totality of the conduct as being dishonest. Giving Dr Chee the maximum benefit of doubt and leaving aside his political background, I think anyone would say that his conduct certainly leaves something to be desired. It was neither right nor proper.

The debate on this motion, including Dr Tan's amendment, has to be seen in that context. The question really is: (1) Can Dr Chee's conduct be justified? (2) Should the SDP, which puts itself forward as a responsible Opposition party, support his conduct? For the reasons I have already given, I think it is difficult to support or justify Dr Chee's conduct when he refused to admit his error. Secondly, should the SDP support Dr Chee? That depends simply on the question of whether the SDP can objectively justify Dr Chee's actions. Mr Chiam and his colleagues should consider the facts carefully, and reply in detail to the factual allegations that have been made.

But what do we have? The SDP and Mr Chiam have not until today said why they think Dr Chee is free of blame. Quite simply, on the facts until today, until Mr Chiam spoke earlier, SDP has kept silent. I have seen the press statements that have been issued by the SDP. They are noteworthy only for the fact that they are silent when it comes to Dr Chee's conduct.

Today, Mr Chiam gave a defence of Dr Chee's actions. What are the defences? First, he said that Dr Chee's wife's thesis was relevant to Dr Chee's work. That, with the greatest of respect to Mr Chiam, does not answer the question. It is simply avoiding the issue. Quite simply, Dr Chee was not entitled to use his research funds to pay for his wife's courier charges.

Second, Mr Chiam said the rules and regulations on usage of research funds do not spell out how the research funds are to be used. To support that proposition, he read out a rule which deals with how bills and invoices were to be submitted. That, again with respect to Mr Chiam, must have been tongue in cheek. Mr Chiam, a trained lawyer, must know that that is simply an administrative provision. Mr Chiam's argument is that the rule requires Dr Chee to send in his invoices for all expenses incurred by him. Dr Chee did so. Therefore, in Mr Chiam's view, Dr Chee did everything properly. Surely that is absurd.

Taking Mr Chiam's example, can you go out to dinner and charge it to your research account? It takes neither a lawyer nor a PhD to realise that one's research funds can only be used for purposes of one's own research. Financing any aspect of your wife's thesis falls outside the rule.

The SDP will have to deal clearly with that and state with conviction their stand. When they state their stand, they must deal with what Dr Vasoo has stated. The unfortunate part of this exercise is that I consider one of the most honourable and distinguished Members of this House, who has spoken on behalf of very poor people most of the time, has been defamed grossly. The SDP should face this issue with moral courage without avoidance of the issues. Instead of doing that, the SDP has simply used Dr Chee as a political football. It does not bode well for the SDP's role as a responsible Opposition. Before espousing Dr Chee's cause, Mr Chiam and the SDP should satisfy themselves that despite all that Dr Vasoo has said, Dr Chee is free of blame and has indeed been victimised. If they are so satisfied of that and can give convincing reasons for their stand, then I would be the first to say that the SDP has a duty to raise the issue, both in this House, and outside, with all its vigour.

Turning to Dr Chee and the hunger strike, it is a childish thing to do. If he feels that he is not wrong, he should explain himself. If he feels that the termination of his employment is politically motivated, then he has to fight his battle politically. In the next election, he can and should take the issue to the voters. A hunger strike is acceptable only when you have no other means of fighting a political fight. Where you have proper means, like contesting elections, with a possibility of winning, as Mr Chiam will testify, then you should work within the system. Not to do so will lead people to question the motive for your actions.

Further, if he feels that the University is wrong in calling him dishonest, then he should consider suing. The University has made various statements which are clearly defamatory. I would assume that the University has obtained legal advice before making those statements. It is perfectly clear that the University is prepared to stand by its statements, if sued. Dr Chee appears to have given cost of a legal suit as one reason for not suing. Mr Chiam has had some experience on the law of defamation. He has successfully obtained damages for defamation in the past. His experience should satisfy cynics that the system can be worked. Given that, I cannot see why, if his case has any merit, Dr Chee should not be advised by Mr Chiam to sue. One asks: Do Mr Chiam and the SDP stand by Dr Chee? If they do, then why should cost be a factor? If the SDP does not ask Dr Chee to go to the court to sue the University for defamation, then one has to seriously question the SDP's own motive. One can only conclude that the SDP prefers to make political capital of the issue rather than have Dr Chee's conduct tested in court.

There is little purpose in turning this debate into a session for trading emotion-charged accusations which only have accidental relevance to the facts. If they are convinced of Dr Chee's innocence, the best way to test that innocence is to have a Judge decide it. Mr Chiam has spent time explaining why the University could not be sued for breach of contract. He said that there was no cause of action. Mr Chiam knows or should know that, in addition to contract, there is a cause of action in defamation. If someone says that Mr Chiam is dishonest, he will sue. Will he not? It is the same for Dr Chee. Even if he does not want to sue, there is really no need for Dr Chee to paint himself into a corner. He can even now give up his hunger strike and consider his options objectively. That is what he should do and that is what he should be advised to do. A hunger strike achieves nothing. At this stage, there is no loss of face involved in admitting one's mistake and moving on.

To attempt to politicise the issue without a careful look at the facts is simply quite wrong and does not bode well for a self-styled responsible Opposition. The SDP has also raised the ante of the debate by suggesting that Singaporeans of conviction cannot come into politics. And that if they do so, they will be fixed by the PAP. The PAP Front bench should categorically deny that and reaffirm its commitment to encourage Singaporeans to participate in the political process. That is a fundamental point which goes to the very heart of our system.

I do not accept the SDP's actions in attempting to politicise this issue without a factual basis. It should not be condoned. I support the amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added", put, and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The question now before the House is the Original Question, as amended, which is -

"That this House expresses its concern over the allegation by Dr Chee Soon Juan that his dismissal from NUS for alleged misuse of his research funds amounting to a sum of $226.00 was politically motivated, and seeks clarification from the Minister for Education of the actual facts that caused Dr Chee's dismissal and deplores the SDP's action in politicising an internal NUS disciplinary matter, and pressuring NUS to rescind its action against a dishonest staff member."

The Minister of State for National Development (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): Like Mr Lee Yock Suan, I have great sympathy for Mr Chiam See Tong. I think he is in a very tight position. What we are asking Members of this House and members of the public is not to be taken in by all these technical legal jargons, but ask yourself: did or did not Dr Chee Soon Juan use research funds to send his wife's thesis to the University in USA? If he did, that is not allowed under the rules and there is no point to try and wriggle out. The way Mr Chiam tried to wriggle out by saying that this is not part of the rules and regulations reminds me of a sequence in the film A Few Good Men. Was this rule in the US Marine's rule book? In the end the prosecutor turned round and said, "GI, do you know how to get to the mess hall?" The GI said, "Yes, I get there everyday." Is this in the rule book? It is not in the rule book, but he still gets to the mess hall.

The point I am trying to make is how you behave depends on your sense of integrity. Not every situation needs to be covered by the rule book. It is obviously wrong to send his wife's thesis to the US and charge it to the research funds. It is obviously wrong to use public funds in that fashion. That is why I think in this debate it is not about Dr Chee and his dishonest actions. The main issue I see in this debate is the issue of integrity. What is the SDP's stand on the standard of Government and the standard of public administration?

Having heard the facts laid out by Dr Vasoo and Mr Lee Yock Suan, I think Mr Chiam and the SDP owe it to the public. The PAP has maintained a very high standard of integrity, corruption-free administration. Here you have a case of somebody using public funds for his own purpose. If you condone such actions, what are you signalling to the rest of Singaporeans? When I wanted to participate in this debate, I asked myself: are there similar cases? So I checked with my departments and statutory boards. Like Mr Lee Yock Suan, I am happy to report that there are very few cases of misconduct and this reflects the very high standard of integrity and honesty in the civil service. But there are a few black sheep. Let me just recount the facts of two cases and the penalties involved.

Case A. This happened three years ago in HDB. Case A made a false claim to apply for a staff renovation loan of $24,000 by submitting an invoice with inflated figures when the actual cost of his renovation was only $10,000. What financial benefit did he gain? Not much. He still has to pay for the loan, only at a lower interest rate. What is involved is integrity. Case A was charged in court, convicted and dismissed from service.

Case B. This is a recent case in URA. The CPIB charged Case B in court for making false transport claims amounting to $85.25. Case B pleaded guilty, was fined $400 plus one week's jail. The URA dismissed him from service with effect from 17th February 1993, the day after he was released from jail.

Sir, we achieve our reputation as a corruption-free administration because we set high standards of honesty and integrity. Where public money is involved, we cannot accept lower standards. So when Mr Chiam argues about why the University dismissed Dr Chee under clause 4(a), giving three months' notice instead of gross misconduct, I think he is ducking the issue. The main point is that the PAP Government sets the tone of administration - one of high standards of integrity and corruption-free. Any misdeeds will be tackled. We leave it to individual departments and individual statutory boards, working within this tone of the Government, to design its own rules. In the University, I must say, like Mr Lee Yock Suan, they take a more lenient and more charitable view of Dr Chee's case and avoided the ignominy by giving him three months' notice of termination. If compared to the cases in URA and HDB, we would have charged him in court and sacked him.

So I am saying that the penalty of dismissal is not unusual in Dr Chee's case. The PAP Government sets a very high standard of integrity and honesty in public service and public administration. So let me pose this question to Members of this House and to the public: What does this episode of Dr Chee's dismissal say about Mr Chiam and the SDP's stand on the standard of Government and administration? This is the critical point. In my view, this is the main political issue involved. In this episode, the NUS is not on trial. The PAP is not on trial. What this episode will highlight to everybody in Singapore is the standard of integrity that the SDP sets for itself. I hope Mr Chiam will take this opportunity, having heard the facts of the case, to review his position and let the public know where does his Party stand on the standard of administration. To help him focus his mind, let me illustrate two situations which may well arise and which may well confront him in the future.

The first case. Let us say the Auditor-General discovers a case of false claims and dishonesty in one of the SDP Town Councils. Let me remind Members that the Town Council is a statutory organisation and is responsible for public money. The Auditor-General recommends that the Town Council, as the employer, prosecutes the errant employee who is an SDP member. Would Mr Chiam claim that the Auditor-General's recommendation is politically motivated? I think the residents in the SDP Town Councils have a right to know what standard Mr Chiam and the SDP intend to maintain in their Town Councils.

Second situation. Let us say Dr Chee Soon Juan pops up as the General Manager in one of the SDP Town Councils. I think the residents have a right to know whether he was employed on the basis of his merits in competition with other applicants for the job. Or is his appointment politically motivated? I urge Mr Chiam also to state his Party's position on this. Does the SDP treat its Town Council appointments as jobs for the boys? Does his Party believe in meritocracy and integrity in the employment of staff in its Town Councils? Is it an open system? Or is the system run by them politically motivated?

Let me continue. Suppose the Auditor-General audits the system of personnel appointment in the Opposition Town Councils. He is taken aback. How come all the top jobs in the SDP Town Councils are held by SDP office-bearers and members? He asked Mr Chiam for an explanation. Would Mr Chiam also claim that the Auditor-General's findings are politically motivated?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the political issue at stake today in this debate is the standard of Government and the integrity of administration. The SDP is in charge of three Town Councils. They are handling public money. I urge Mr Chiam, having heard the facts of Dr Chee's case, to review his position and state publicly for all to hear what is his and his Party's position on the standard of public administration. Is he prepared to abide by the high standard of integrity and honesty that is expected by all Singaporeans? Or is his standard in fact lower, much lower? The public has a right to know. The residents in the SDP Town Councils have a right to know. Dr Chee has been proven today not to subscribe to such high standards. I urge Mr Chiam to think through the facts and to review his position.

Sir, the motion today asks for the Minister to state the facts. They have heard the facts. The facts show that the case is not politically motivated. It is a straightforward case-dismissal between employer and employee on dishonest conduct.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I seek a clarification?

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, you seek clarification in a debate unless it is something which you do not understand in his speech.

Mr Chia Shi Teck rose ---.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chia, we still have one more person who wants to speak. Prof. Jayakumar.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, after the Minister for Education had given his statement, Mr Chiam said, "Let us look at the facts and let us not be emotional." After the facts had been stated, and he also said that no facts had been adduced to show that Dr Chee was dishonest, I think, therefore, it is incumbent on me to restate some of the important points.

Fact No. 1 is that when Dr Chee was first confronted on 4th March by Dr Vasoo and the Dean, he gave a clear admission (and these are in the notes which are approved by the Dean in the Annexes) that he was waiting for the bills to come to him to make payment. In other words, a clear admission that he should have paid for these bills, and that he should not have charged the University research funds. At no time, as I can see in the notes, did he say anything about the relevance of his wife's research.

Therefore, I cannot understand, Sir, as Mr Shanmugam could not understand, why he did not go up to Dr Vasoo, or if he thought that Dr Vasoo was biased, go up to the Dean, and say, "Dr Vasoo (or the Dean), look, I have made a mistake. I fouled it up. The matter was wrongly charged. Sorry. Here's my cheque of $226 to reimburse the University." I have no doubt that the matter would not have reached this stage if he had done that which, I think, any honourable member of the academic staff should have done.

But, no, not Dr Chee, who, according to Mr Chiam, is a very principled man. He did not do that. From the facts we have heard in this House, Dr Chee decided to make a complete turn-around and we then have a rather incredible tale of suppression of facts, misleading information, and deviousness in a most foolish attempt to wriggle out. And I was counting the number of such attempts to wriggle out of deception and misleading statements.

Number one: As I said, on 4th March, he maintained that he was waiting for the bills -- an admission that he had to pay. In fact, according to Mrs Janice Chen's note, he had personally instructed her to charge the expenditure to his research account.

Number two: He then changed his story when he found out the amounts had already been charged to the research account, when Mrs Janice Chen, according to the note, reminded him that she had done so on his instructions.

Number three: Instead of coming clean, it looks like he decided to cook up a story -- that it was justifiable to use University funds because his wife's research was related to his own, something which, according to the documents, he never said in his meeting with Dr Vasoo.

Number four: He backdated his written explanation to 4th March. I was listening to Mr Chiam, and I heard Mr Chiam say that on 4th March he gave a written explanation on the same day. Same day means 4th March. But according to the documents distributed by Dr Vasoo, that is not so. Dr Vasoo received the backdated letter on 9th March and the Registrar's Office, Director of Personnel, according to the chop, received it on 10th March, five days later. Sir, that a University academic can backdate a letter and stoop to such dishonest moves is unbelievable. Such acts of deviousness and dishonesty, in my view, constitute graver misconduct than the improper use of the $226.

But that is not all. Number five: Even in his backdated written explanation, he suppressed the material fact. And the material fact was he did not tell the University that the parcels were sent to Penn State for the purpose of his wife's PhD examination. Not one word about this! Mr Chiam says rather jokingly that, of course, it must be understood. You send a dissertation, it must be for examination. You ask any academic in the University. It does not necessarily follow. The point is that Dr Chee suppressed this. Because in his written explanation backdated to 4th March, this is what he said:

"I feel I am justified in using the funds in my research accounts for mailing the completed dissertation to the University involved so that the results could be quickly reviewed and validated and subsequently incorporated in my own research."

In other words, he never said that his wife's dissertation was sent for purposes of her PhD examination. It was for his purpose. It was only after he was confronted, according to Dr Vasoo, on 11th March, by the Director of Personnel, Dr Vasoo and the Dean, that he admitted it was for his wife's PhD examination.

Number six: His claim that his wife's area of research was relevant to his own also was not true, because we have the opinions of Dr Elliot and Assoc. Prof. Ramadhar Singh.

In other words, according to my count, six different acts of suppression and deviousness, and this does not include the tape recording and the transport claims mentioned by Dr Vasoo.

But, Sir, this appears to be in character with Dr Chee. Dr Chee has shifted his ground each time the University caught him out on a false position. But it is consistent with him. In exactly the same way, in his exchange of letters with Matthias Yao in The Straits Times, the Forum page, over the last few months, he altered his claims each time his arguments were refuted.

Let me take the example of Dr Chee's letter. First, on HDB home ownership. Dr Chee initially claimed that HDB flat owners do not really own their flats. Why? Because they are on 99-year leases, not freehold. Matthias Yao then pointed out that many private condominiums and commercial developments, including Mandarin Gardens and Raffles City, are on 99-year leases. Dr Chee then shifted, abandoned this leasehold argument, and made a new claim: the real problem with HDB flats was that they were subject to too many rules and restrictions. Matthias Yao came back and said many of these rules were to protect the flat owners themselves, and private flats were also subject to such rules. Instead of acknowledging this fact, Dr Chee then shifted his argument to accusing the PAP of indulging in the politics of make-believe.

Then, in his letters on independent schools, Dr Chee claimed that these were only for the rich, because poor Singaporeans could not afford the high fees. Matthias Yao pointed out that the Government had undertaken to provide enough scholarships and bursaries for every child who qualified for admission to independent schools but needed the help, and asked Dr Chee to name any pupil who had to forgo a place in an independent school for lack of a scholarship or bursary. Dr Chee did not do so. Instead, he shifted to attacking the feeder school system. Matthias Yao came back, pointed out that feeder schools existed long before independent schools, and not all independent schools have feeder schools. He again asked Dr Chee to name anyone who had been denied a place. This time Dr Chee admitted that no one had been turned away, but claimed that this was because poor Singaporeans had been deterred from applying to independent schools in the first place. In other words, each time Dr Chee is cornered, he abandons his current position and launches a different attack. And the six different itemisation of suppression of facts, shifting of ground, deviousness is totally in character with Dr Chee that we know.

Sir, what are the issues here? The issue is not about $226, surely. The issue is about integrity and honesty. As the Minister for Education pointed out, integrity and honesty are important qualities in an academic institution, both for academic staff and for students, because lecturers set an example for students. We expect high standards of integrity not only in the university, but in all parts of the public service, and I would say, indeed, throughout Singapore society.

For example, I think everyone knows that SAF officers who are caught shoplifting are cashiered, no matter how trivial the amount is. They are stripped of their officers' status, reduced to the rank of private, and discharged with ignominy. The SAF has cashiered officers who have been caught pilfering no more than a few dollars of merchandise. But this is absolutely necessary, though it may be unpleasant.

The specific issues are: First, was what Dr Chee did, and his subsequent conduct when being investigated by the University, right or wrong? Second, was the University right or wrong to terminate Dr Chee's contract? Was the University too harsh? Third, was Dr Chee right or wrong to try to seek redress by turning this into a political issue? Fourth, was the SDP right or wrong to espouse Dr Chee's cause in the way they did and put political pressure on NUS?

First issue, whether Dr Chee and his subsequent conduct was right or wrong. First, was Dr Chee right to use research funds to send his wife's PhD thesis by courier for purposes of her examination? The University's view was this was wrong. When first confronted on 4th March, he conceded this point, but his only defence was: I expected the bills to be sent to me. As I said, he shifted his position later and claimed that he was justified because his wife's research was related to his own. But as NUS has pointed out, even if Mrs Chee's research had been related to Dr Chee's own work, it would still have been improper to use his own funds to pay for her postage. Dr Chee's claim that he was right to use the funds for his wife is really an amazing proposition. If he is right, then the logic of his argument must be that University's funds can be used for meals of his wife, for air travel to United States for purposes of her PhD examination, and a whole host of other conclusions.

Secondly, when Dr Chee was investigated, was it proper for him to mislead the University as he did, backdating his letter, suppressing the facts, and so on? Obviously not. I would say all these acts of suppression and deviousness were graver misconduct than the misuse of $226. It called for further disciplinary action on the part of the University against Dr Chee.

Next issue, was the University right or wrong to terminate Dr Chee's contract? Were they too harsh? I know that some people feel that Dr Chee may have been in the wrong, but the University might have acted too harshly against him. I think the University has in fact been very lenient to Dr Chee. It could have dismissed him outright at the very outset. The issue is not $226, but the dishonesty. You have heard the Minister for Education refer to other parallel cases.

Sir, I have taught in the NUS for some 16 years and I was Dean of the Law Faculty for two consecutive terms. I have never during my time come across a case of a staff member resorting to so many acts of deception and deviousness simply to avoid having to pay $226 and to admit that he had done wrong.

Surely Dr Chee cannot expect to be let off leniently merely because he happens to have contested a by-election against the Prime Minister and is the Assistant Secretary-General of the SDP. If the NUS lets him off, will that not be a signal for people less than honest to join the SDP? Is it not a signal that institutions like the NUS will have to practise double standards?

Next issue, Sir, was Dr Chee right or wrong in not seeking proper redress and turning this into a political issue? Dr Chee's "hunger strike" achieves nothing. Even if he fasts to death, how does that help him to clear his name? Nor can putting political pressure on the University after he establishes his honour.

I agree with others that the only proper way for Dr Chee to vindicate himself is to sue the University if he considers that the University's allegations of dishonesty are totally unfounded and defamatory. The University's strong words against Dr Chee in respect of an academic staff member of his standing should have caused anyone in a similar position to have been thoroughly outraged at such description of his character and such a person would have immediately filed suit for defamation. He did not do so. But he launched a political attack on NUS.

The question everyone is asking is why did he not go to the Courts to sue NUS for defamation. He gave no explanation and Mr Chiam, today, has not given an explanation. Mr Chiam has sought to give an explanation as to why Dr Chee cannot sue the University for the three months' notice but he has not given an explanation why Dr Chee does not want to sue the University for defamation. One can only conclude that the reason must be that Dr Chee knows the NUS is fully entitled and fully justified to use those strong words. What other conclusions can one arrive at?

The final issue is: was the SDP right or wrong to espouse Dr Chee's case and to put political pressure on NUS? And the actions of the SDP, Sir, are wholly deplorable. I stood up to ask whether he still stands by his statement and, obviously, he does. They have turned a staff issue between NUS and one of its lecturers into a political issue. Dr Chee should have been advised by both Mr Ling and Mr Chiam, who are lawyers, that he has the proper remedy to sue for defamation. Mr Shanmugam pointed out that Mr Chiam has experience. He successfully brought defamation action and had gone on vacation on damages obtained in his suits against one or more PAP Members. But he forgot to mention that Mr Ling also has experience. Mr Ling was dismissed by the Police Force but he took legal action to challenge that dismissal and he succeeded. So both of them have personal experience in the exhaustion of remedies and the proper legal way to go about remedying a felt grievance.

Sir, if Dr Chee had been a PAP MP, not only would the PAP not have interfered with the NUS decision but Mr Goh Chok Tong would have made sure that the CEC would have immediately stripped him from any post held in the PAP CEC.

Sir, in Singapore, politicians who commit wrongs do not and cannot enjoy any special immunity from retribution. It is just not possible in our system. Indeed, PAP MPs are required to uphold higher standards of rectitude than others, and expect to be given less leeway than others should they commit some misdeeds. The Government may exercise leniency with other offenders, if the offences are not serious and there are extenuating circumstances, but it will find it very hard to be lenient to its own MPs without the party and the Government being severely criticised.

The SDP touts itself as the alternative government of Singapore. As a result of this episode, a big question mark hangs over it concerning its position. After this episode, the question Singaporeans must ask is whether the SDP maintains the high standards of honesty and integrity which Singaporeans have come to expect from their Government, or whether the SDP compromises principles and bends rules to protect its own members, even before gaining power.

Finally, the question is, after all the facts have been unravelled today, will the SDP continue to harbour and support Dr Chee Soon Juan?

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Chia Shi Teck: Mr Speaker, Sir, in moving the motion, I asked for the truth and I said I wanted to know the truth, and the general public also wanted to know the truth. The truth has come out and I am thoroughly convinced that the action taken by NUS was not politically motivated. And the Hon. Prime Minister's assurance then at the Marine Parade GRC by-election that he would not be dismissed just because he is an Opposition candidate holds. So here we have the Minister, Dr Vasoo and all the others speaking out the facts and the facts have proved that Dr Chee did make a mistake.

Mr Chiam took objection to my tone. My tone was one for the big picture and, that is, the truth of the matter, and the truth has come out. The smaller one is that the action taken by Dr Chee, I thought, was inappropriate and, as Mr Shanmugam said, childish. So it is for his own good and his family's own good that he should kick off the hunger strike. If he still feels not convinced with all the facts, there is still other course of action.

Question put, "That this House expresses its concern over the allegation by Dr Chee Soon Juan that his dismissal from NUS for alleged misuse of his research funds amounting to the sum of $226.00 was politically motivated and seeks clarification from the Minister for Education of the actual facts that caused Dr Chee's dismissal and deplores the SDP's action in politicising an internal NUS disciplinary matter, and pressuring NUS to rescind its action against a dishonest staff member."

Mr Speaker: You can now make your claim, Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I would like to call a division on this motion.

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members who support Mr Chiam's call for a division will please rise in their places?

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Sir, in order for a division to be taken, it must have five Members of Parliament supporting the call for a division. Since Mr Chiam calls for a division, I suppose he will support it. I do not know whether his two other SDP colleagues would do the same thing.

Mr Speaker: Will hon. Members who want to support the call for a division rise?

Mr Chiam See Tong, Mr Ling How Doong, Mr Cheo Chai Chen and Mr Low Thia Khiang rose.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Since there are only four of them, I will support them for a division.

Mr Speaker: All right. As there are five Members in support of a division, we will now take a division. The Clerk will ring the Division Bell.

The House divided: Ayes, 58; Noes, 4; Abstention, 1. Ayes Abdullah Tarmugi Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Chay Wai Chuen Chen, Bernard Chen Koon Lap, Kenneth Chen Seow Phun, John Chia Shi Teck Ch'ng Jit Koon Chong, Charles Choo Wee Khiang Goh Chee Wee Goh Chok Tong Goh Choon Kang Harun bin A Ghani Ho Kah Leong Ho Peng Kee Ho Tat Kin Jayakumar, S Ker Sin Tze Koo Tsai Kee Lau Ping Sum Lau Teik Soon Lee Boon Yang Lee Hsien Loong Lee Yiok Seng Lee Yock Suan Lew Syn Pau Lim Boon Heng Lim Chun Leng, Michael Lim Hng Kiang Loh Meng See Low Seow Chay Mah Bow Tan Ayes (cont.) Mohamad Maidin B P M Ong Chit Chung Othman bin Haron Eusofe Peh Chin Hua Shanmugam, K Sidek bin Saniff Sinnakaruppan, R Sung, Peter Tan Cheng Bock Tay Eng Soon Teo Chong Tee Toh Keng Kiat Tong Kok Yeo Umar Abdul Hamid Vasoo, S Wang Kai Yuen Wong, Aline K Wong Kan Seng Woon, Walter Yao Chih, Matthias Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Yatiman Yusof Yeo Cheow Tong Yeo Toon Chia Zulkifli bin Mohammed Noes Chiam See Tong Cheo Chai Chen Ling How Doong Low Thia Khiang Abstention Tan Soo Khoon Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House expresses its concern over the allegation by Dr Chee Soon Juan that his dismissal from NUS for alleged misuse of his research funds amounting to the sum of $226.00 was politically motivated and seeks clarification from the Minister for Education of the actual facts that caused Dr Chee's dismissal and deplores the SDP's action in politicising an internal NUS disciplinary matter, and pressuring NUS to rescind its action against a dishonest staff member.