EXECUTION OF FLOR CONTEMPLACION (Motion)

2.05 pm

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this House (1) asks the Government to explain its refusal to stay the execution of Flor Contemplacion, despite President Ramos' appeal and the submission of new evidence, when a stay could have prevented the present strain in Singapore-Philippine relations, and (2) reaffirms its confidence in Singapore's criminal justice system, especially the integrity of the judges in upholding the rule of law and the competence of the police in enforcing law and order, which are strong pillars supporting our stability and prosperity.

On 17th March 1995, early in the morning, a Filipina woman named Flor Contemplacion was hanged in Singapore for the 1991 double murder of another Filipina maid and the 4-year-old son of the murdered maid's employer.

The hanging itself might have passed relatively unnoticed as we have had other foreigners who have been hanged in Singapore for committing capital offences. However, the hanging of Flor Contemplacion started a chain of events that has placed a strain in Singapore-Philippine relations and caused other reverberations affecting Singapore's regional and international image. It behoves us to learn from this experience. Many Singaporeans are asking whether a stay, ie, a delay or deferment in the execution of Flor Contemplacion could have prevented this unfortunate state of affairs. A Feedback Unit survey conducted in April revealed that one-third of the respondents felt that with hindsight, the Government could have acceded to the request of Philippine President Fidel Ramos to delay the 17th March execution.

To refresh our memories about this unfortunate case of Flor Contemplacion, let us look at some of the events in a chronological order. The information is from reports in the Straits Times and other media.

On 21st January 1995, it was reported that President Ramos asked President Ong Teng Cheong to grant clemency on humanitarian grounds to Flor Contemplacion. This appeal was turned down on the absence of mitigating factors.

In early March, three demonstrations in four days against the death sentence of Flor Contemplacion were held outside the Singapore Embassy in Manila.

10th March 1995 - Philippine Solicitor-General (Raul Goco) sent a letter to Singapore's Attorney-General (Chan Sek Keong) seeking deferment of execution of Flor Contemplacion. Mr Goco in the letter, a copy of which was released to the media, wrote, and I quote:

"Without meaning to interfere in your judicial processes, I would like to request your assistance in seeking a deferment of the execution."

The letter also said that "this present request is promoted by the desire of my Government, in its ministrant capacity, to put all doubts to rest before the case of Mrs Contemplacion comes to a final conclusion."

The request followed what the Government said was new evidence from another Filipina maid who claimed that she had overheard a conversation between two men which led her to believe that Contemplacion was not the killer.

11th March 1995 - President Ramos made yet another appeal to President Ong, in which he expressed his and the Filipino people's "great sadness" over a Singapore court's decision condemning Flor Contemplacion to death. In his letter, President Ramos cited the "close and friendly relations that bind our two peoples together" and asked President Ong to allow a review of the condemned woman's case.

"Since Mrs Frenilla is willing to come forward with her testimony, and as we are dealing with a human life, I request your Excellency for a stay of execution to allow this new evidence proper consideration," he said.

Mr Ramos had asked for a postponement based on a sworn statement by another maid, Mrs Emilia Frenilla.

13th March 1995 - Another protest outside the Singapore Embassy.

14th March 1995 - Up to 5,000 people rallied peacefully outside the Singapore Embassy in Manila to demand a retrial for Flor Contemplacion.

15th March 1995 - In a statement dated 15th March 1995, the Government said it had taken the appeal by President Ramos seriously and had studied the evidence carefully but turned down the appeal to stay the execution of Flor Contemplacion.

This was because the "new evidence" that was given and was supposed to exonerate her was found to be untrue. The new evidence was a statement by Contemplacion's friend, Mrs Emillia Frenilla, who once worked in Singapore. She claimed, among other things, that Mrs Maga's employer had killed her. Mrs Della Maga was the murdered maid.

President Ong replied to Mr Ramos on 15th March 1995, saying there was no basis to justify a stay of execution. He also provided Mr Ramos with copies of Contemplacion's statements to the police, and her petition for clemency. She had admitted to both murders to the police and in the High Court and the Court of Appeal hearings.

Some 1,500 demonstrators gathered at the Singapore Embassy to protest Singapore's rejection of clemency appeals.

Also, an all-night vigil was held by many people in a car park across the Singapore Embassy in Manila.

17th March 1995 - The hanging of Flor Contemplacion was carried out early in the morning.

The second appeal by President Ramos was made on 11th March 1995. It was turned down by President Ong on 15th March 1995 and the hanging of Flor Contemplacion took place on 17th March 1995.

Whilst the "new evidence" must have been considered carefully by the Singapore authorities, the time lapse of only four to five days between request and refusal can give the unfortunate impression that due and proper consideration was not given to the new material furnished by the Philippine authorities. This could have been one aggravating factor in the strain in Singapore-Philippine relations. To put it another way, whilst justice was done, it was not seen to be done.

In the light of this chronology of events, why did the Government not grant a stay of execution of Flor Contemplacion? What would have been lost in granting the stay? We did delay the execution of Macau-born Angel Mou to spend Christmas with her family. She was hanged for trafficking in heroin.

The Philippines is an ASEAN neighbour and so why were we seemingly insensitive to the requests of its Head of State? On 21st March 1995, President Ramos in a speech to the Federation of Philippine Broadcasters said he "felt bad" about President Ong Teng Cheong's rejection of two personal appeals from him to defer the execution of Flor Contemplacion. Could we have committed a miscalculation in not allowing a stay in the execution of Flor Contemplacion? Could it have been a hasty decision? Should we have acceded to the request of Mr Ramos in the interest of foreign relations?

Of course, it is easier to speak after the event and with the benefit of hindsight but, as Parliamentarians, it is our duty to ask questions and question Government policies that adversely affect our country and people. These related questions therefore need also to be answered by the Government.

(1) Did our Foreign Ministry and our intelligence officers gauge the extent of the feelings of the Filipino people towards the impending execution of Flor Contemplacion?

(2) How much significance was attributed by our own experts to the pre-execution rallies and newspaper reports in the Philippines? Was the Flor Contemplacion case already a cause celebre in the Philippines before the execution?

(3) Was it possible to have been aware that the Philippine pre-election fever of 8th May 1995 could have used the hanging of Flor Contemplacion as their burning issue? If we had been aware of this, then we could have prudently stayed the execution till after the Philippine elections.

(4) Could we possibly have acceded to the requests of President Ramos to delay the execution and not felt threatened that by doing so, we were in any way abdicating our role as a sovereign nation?

(5) Besides efficiency, non-corruptibility, the ability to direct Singapore's economic growth in a spectacular way and other positive qualities, is it time for our Government to also reveal its latent empathy with non-economic issues like the stay of execution of Flor Contemplacion, without feeling that the Government is becoming soft? By delaying the execution, it would have shown that it is possible to carry out the force of law and yet temper it with compassion, humanitarian grounds and diplomatic savvy.

(6) Why did the prison authorities not give permission for Flor Contemplacion to embrace her children before her death as was reported in the media?

I am sure that other Members of this House have these and other similar concerns to which they would like an answer from the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I now move to the second aspect of my motion.

Criminal Justice System Institutions and Contemplacion's Case

Members of this House will recollect that the Gancayco Commission in the Philippines had concluded in its findings that Contemplacion could not have committed the murders of Della Maga and Nicholas Huang and that Contemplacion was apparently a victim of grave injustice and recommended that the Singapore Government reopen investigations of the killing of Maga. These findings have been rightly rejected by our Government as being based on uncorroborated and, worse, hearsay testimonies and totally ignoring the records of the trial and other information supplied by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Commission had also without any justification described Singapore as a police state which tolerates, if not, allows the use of torture, meaning that Contemplacion's confession, like so many others, was extracted from her by the Investigating Officer by torture so as to found her subsequent conviction on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the large attendant publicity raised nationally and internationally by the Contemplacion case, our judiciary and criminal justice system, together with the other law enforcement and evidence gathering agencies like the Police and the Institute of Science and Forensic Medicine, particularly its pathologists, have unnecessarily been maligned by the Gancayco Commission which was palpably wrong in making its findings. Our Government's rejection of these findings have been vindicated not only by President Ramos when he subsequently described the work of the Gancayco Commission embarrassing to him but also by former Foreign Secretary Roberto Romulo last week when he tellingly said in a farewell speech sponsored by the business community: I quote part of his speech from the Straits Times:

"The Gancayco Commission is an egregious example of a creature of Government that is unable to understand measures and standards, that is quick to come to judgments, conclusions and decisions on the basis of unproven assumptions, that is incapable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood and between the honest and the charlatan ..."

"fact-finding became fault finding that was not supported by fact" and the members (of the Commission) "did not have any framework within which to work, and thus made it up along the way."

"Once they heard what they wanted to hear, they accepted it as incontrovertible fact. The Gancayco Commission arrived at its conclusions and recommendations not with facts but with opinions fuelled by public and personal emotion ..."

The Asian Wall Street Journal, not an uncritical admirer of Singapore, had about a month earlier in an editorial on 13th April independently looked at the findings of the Gancayco Commission and the way the Commission conducted itself and had concluded that the Commission had given Singapore a "bum rap". Only the distant New York Times and its columnist William Safire remain unrepentant.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the judiciary and the Police are pivotal pillars of any society in ensuring the maintenance of law, order and good government. So are the supporting agencies like the Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine. Wantonly repeated and unjustified attacks on these institutions can erode the confidence of our society and the international community in us which as a tiny nation we can ill afford. Our prosperity must ultimately depend to a great extent on the vitality and viability of those two institutions. Therefore it is necessary to guard and perpetuate their integrity.

A Feedback Unit survey was done in April 1995 to assess the reaction of the public to the handling of the Flor Contemplacion case. Referring to the results of this survey, Dr Ow Chin Hock said, "They also have confidence in the judiciary of Singapore and believe the investigations by our Police to have been thorough and proper."

The professional competence and integrity of the Singapore pathologists from the Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine who conducted the autopsy on Maga and which was questioned by the Philippine authorities has already been re-established at home and internationally. The Singapore pathologist's findings were unanimously confirmed by three internationally recognised consultant pathologists, a Distinguished Service Professor of Anthropology from the University of Florida, the Director, Forensic Sciences Unit, New York Police and the Director, Department of Pathology of St. Francis Central Hospital Pittsburg who travelled with the Singapore team to Manila to conduct a joint autopsy on the remains of Contemplacion. These experts announced that the Singapore autopsy was professionally performed and correct in its findings and conclusions, namely, that:

(a) Maga died as a result of asphyxia due to ligature strangulation;

(b) There were no fractures of the skull, shoulder bone or ribs and that there was no evidence of anti-mortem traumatic fractures of the ribs as claimed by the Philippine side.

(c) There was no basis whatsoever for concluding that Maga was killed by a man or a woman skilled in martial arts.

The three experts also praised the work of the Singapore pathologists stating:

`The post-mortem protocol prepared by the Institute of Science and Forensic Medicine was a thoroughly documented, complete and accurate presentation of all the pathological findings relating to Della Maga's murder.'

I would like now to briefly acquaint the House with a few salient facts in connection with the trial of Contemplacion and her remand and detention. Some three and a half years elapsed after Contemplacion's arrest and the final rejection of her appeal by the Court of Appeal in October 1994. During those years she was defended by two sets of lawyers, both at the Court of first instance and on appeal.

At the High Court trial, Contemplacion was originally represented by one set of two lawyers. She remained silent when her defence was called. She was convicted of the double murder. On appeal, she was represented by a set of two new lawyers. On submissions of her Counsel, the Court of Appeal remitted the case to the trial judge to hear evidence that she may not have been guilty of murder by reason of diminished responsibility. She was thereafter represented by the same two new lawyers at the continued trial in the High Court. A private psychiatrist was allowed to interview her and psychiatric evidence was called on her behalf in respect of these interviews despite the fact that she had earlier been assessed by another private psychiatrist who was not called to testify on her behalf. At this continued trial she testified and admitted to the killing and described why she did, what she did. The trial judge, having heard all the evidence, was not persuaded into making a finding on a reduced charge that Contemplacion suffered from diminished responsibility and she was once again convicted of the murders.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions of murder on 19th October 1994. In its judgment the highest court in the land categorically stated that the material facts relating to the killing of the deceased had not been in dispute - I emphasise had not been in dispute - which facts it said had been adequately set out in the grounds of the trial judge and which facts the Court of Appeal adopted.

I may add that Contemplacion did not retract her confession throughout the trial, appeal or in her petition for presidential clemency.

In remand and in prison after her conviction, she had also been visited by Philippine Embassy officials, her various Counsel, psychiatrists and also by a religious sister some 68 times. She did not give anyone of them an indication of her innocence. Even the letters that Flor Contemplacion received from her daughter in prison mention the mother's steadfast insistence that she was guilty of the murder. According to press reports, Ms Elizabeth Buensacesco, First Secretary and Consul General of the Philippines Embassy was reported to have said in the Manila Chronicle that she saw Contemplacion soon after her arrest and during the time when she was being interrogated and before she had signed any document. According to Ms Buensacesco, Contemplacion after receiving advice from her to deny everything she said to the Police was nevertheless adamant that she committed the crime. The point I wish to make, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that it is normal police procedure not to allow visitors to see a potential accused immediately after arrest whilst active investigations and questioning are in progress so that investigations are not hampered or adversely affected. It is therefore to the credit of the Police that Ms Buensacesco was given access to Contemplacion although the stage of the investigations was a sensitive one.

I also wish to draw the attention of the House to the findings of the World Economic Forum which conducts a very authoritative annual assessment of world governments and life in their countries. In its 1994 report, having assessed the quality of justice in 12 Asian countries, amongst which was the Philippines, Singapore was placed No. 1. Correction of Miscarriage of Justice

Mr Speaker, Sir, I now turn to a connected matter. Although our system of justice has been adjudged to be the best, I would like to make a call to this House and the Minister for Law at some time in the near future to fine-tune it. I therefore wish to focus the attention of the House to one disquieting fact, and that is, that there is no procedure after the final determination of an appeal in a criminal case for an accused, and especially an accused who is sentenced to death, to have his case reopened before the courts to correct a possible miscarriage of justice, that is, where a convicted accused's lawyers believe that they have relevant and credible fresh evidence capable of belief which was not previously available and which evidence may overturn the conviction and so avoid the miscarriage of justice.

In 1994, in two cases, which I am quoting to state a principle but not in any way suggesting that there was merit in their application, Lim Choon Chye v Public Prosecutor and Abdullah bin Rahman v Public Prosecutor where fresh evidence was sought to be introduced by application in the Court of Appeal after the conclusion of the appeals, the Court of Appeal held that it was functus officio in so far as the appeals were concerned and that there was no express provision in the law which allowed it jurisdiction to hear fresh evidence, thereby reopening the case after the appeal had been heard and finally disposed of. In Lim Choon Chye's case, the Court of Appeal further said that, in any case, the unsuccessful appellant is not without recourse or remedy because the petition of clemency lies to the President of the Republic.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst the President can obviously pardon a convicted person who is subsequently shown to be innocent, I believe, as I think most of the legal fraternity does, that a general recourse to a Petition of Clemency in circumstances where an accused claims innocence to the charges convicted on is perhaps an inadequate and inappropriate recourse to fall back on. Further, the purported fresh evidence sought to be introduced necessarily involves investigation, assessment and probably new findings. The proper forum for the reception and assessment of fresh evidence and making a finding as to guilt or innocence cannot be the existing body, that is, the Cabinet which is charged with the task of advising the President on clemency under section 8 of the Republic of Singapore Independence Act.

Therefore, a new law is necessary for considering and investigating allegations of miscarriages of justice and correcting them when appeal rights have been exhausted. As to whether some existing body or new body should have the responsibility for reopening a case and investigating it is a matter I leave to the Minister for Law.

In the United Kingdom, the current law is that if a convicted person has exhausted his avenues of appeal and wishes to reopen his case in the courts, the Home Secretary must be persuaded to refer it to the Court of Appeal. However, a Criminal Appeal Bill is currently seeing its possible passage through Parliament with the proposal to create a Criminal Cases Review Commission to replace the Home Office to investigate and review the case concerning the alleged miscarriage of justice. Upon completion of its investigation, if the Commission believes that the case should be reconsidered by the Court of Appeal, it would refer the case to the Court of Appeal without making any recommendations.

For my part, may I make the following observation and suggestion: I believe that whilst there is no presumption against the police reinvestigating their own cases, an independent Criminal Cases Review Commission or Authority is also desirable in Singapore along similar lines as proposed in the United Kingdom, especially in view of the death penalty imposable on a number of offences. The Commission, if it thinks fit, after investigations, refers the case to the Court of Appeal for its decision forwarding to it all admissible evidence and without making any recommendation. The Commission or Authority would also act as a filter against frivolous attempts to reopen a case.

In the case of Flor Contemplacion, I have no doubt whatsoever that justice was meted out and there was due process of law. However, a mechanism or avenue to correct miscarriage of justice, Mr Speaker, Sir, is essential to prevent miscarriages of justice which can never be ruled out by the discovery of some unexpected fact that comes to light. The sanctity of innocent life must be preserved. A mechanism for the correction of miscarriage of justice after the appeal procedures are exhausted will streamline the system of criminal justice and further contribute to the confidence and respect Singaporeans have for the law and the administration of justice. Justice is not a fact but a quality. Justice may be depicted symbolically as blind but I do not think any of us want to turn a blind eye to injustice.

Question proposed.

Mr John De Payva (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, let met state, from the outset, that I am seconding the motion not because I believe in the garbage churned out by the Manila press over the Flor Contemplacion case. I am doing so in the hope that we, Members in this House - whatever our political persuasion - can have an opportunity to express our views on a matter of national concern.

Relations between Singapore and the Philippines have been soured up because we executed a convicted double murderer despite an appeal by President Ramos for a stay of execution. In the days before the execution, various groups in the Philippines expressed their deep concern over the fact that Singapore was about to hang a Filipina maid for the murder of another Filipina maid, Della Maga, and a four-year old boy under her charge, Nicholas Huang. Trade unions in the Philippines urged NTUC to intervene as well. Our labour movement stayed clear of the case, not because we were not humane but because we believed that it was a matter that should be dealt with between two governments, as it involved the judicial process. However, more importantly, it was also not a labour dispute.

The Philippines and Singapore are both members of ASEAN. As such, I would imagine that the channels of communications should always be open. President Ramos was (and I hope still is) on good terms with our President of Singapore, our Prime Minister and our Senior Minister. Given such open lines of communications, how could relations between the two sides have deteriorated so rapidly - to the extent that President Ramos even threatened to cut off diplomatic ties with Singapore if a commission he set up found that there had been a miscarriage of justice? Did the Philippines make use of the open channels, or was Singapore used as a convenient punching bag for domestic considerations?

I regret that the Commission turned out to be more interested in theatre than truth. Here are some bizarre claims accepted by the Commission. Flor Contemplacion was forced by prison personnel to lie inside a coffin lined with dry ice; she was tortured by prison staff by electricity conducted to her body through a basin of water; she was drugged each time she was due to appear before a court; she was raped and shouted at; and it was the father of Nicholas Huang who killed Della Maga, and not Flor.

It is not just the people in Singapore who find it hard to believe the way the Commission had conducted itself. The former Philippine Foreign Secretary, Mr Roberto Romulo, had this to say of the Gancayco Commission and I quote:

`... it is a body that represents the workings of a government at its most bizarre, a government gone berserk ... The Gancayco Commission arrived at its conclusions and recommendations not with facts but with opinions fuelled by public and personal emotion.'

I am sure I speak for workers when I say that we feel deeply outraged when our flag was burnt in the cities of the Philippines and used as a doormat at a police post. But what made matters worse was when the Philippine government castigated our Embassy in Manila for protesting over the flag burning! What would have happened if we had reacted in the same frenzied manner as the Filipinos?

Sir, now if I may draw the attention of the House to a report in the Straits Times dated 23rd May 1995. It is about a Philippine court sentencing a Singaporean to life imprisonment for posing as a job recruiter and duping six Filipinos into giving him money for jobs in Taiwan. What if we had chosen to march up to the Philippine Embassy to protest against the sentence? What if we had demanded to know whether the Singaporean was being given life sentence as a tit-for-tat for executing Flor Contemplacion? What if we had burnt the Philippine flag? Would the Philippines have shrugged it off and say, "Well, since we have exercised our democratic right to burn the Singapore flag, we should not object to Singaporeans exercising the same democratic right to do what they wish with our flag." I leave it to Members of this House to reflect on how the Philippine government, the Manila media and the Filipino people would react, if we had mounted demonstrations against the Philippine judiciary system.

Now, let me return to the motion. Amidst the anti-Singapore hysteria, fanned by the Manila media, an effort was made to reconcile the different findings of the autopsy - one conducted soon after Della Maga was killed, and the other four years later. It proved inconclusive. Whilst this was to be expected, I nevertheless abhor the offensive remarks made against the integrity of our pathologists and the American forensic experts who accompanied our team to Manila.

Now, another autopsy would be conducted - this time in the United States, and by a team mutually chosen by the Philippines and Singapore. We should not prejudge the outcome.

President Ramos has said that if an independent body were to support Singapore's autopsy findings, then the Philippines should accept that its sense of outrage had been misplaced. And Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong has pledged to reopen the case if the findings were against us. So be it.

As far as I am concerned, Flor Contemplacion had been given a fair hearing - not once, but twice. If there had been a shred of evidence to cast doubt on the prosecution case, how come there had been silence for four years - until just before she was due to be executed?

Calls for a stay of execution (even for clemency) are not uncommon. I am sure that, where there are compelling reasons, the Cabinet would accede to a request for a stay of execution. Perhaps, the Government could enlighten the House on the circumstances that led to the downgrading of diplomatic relations between two ASEAN members - not long after President Ong Teng Cheong paid a state visit to the Philippines.

What had gone wrong? From media reports, it would appear that President Ramos sent two letters of appeal to President Ong. Perhaps, the Government should disclose in full the contents of these two letters, and our response. Again, going by media reports, President Ramos said there was a Filipina woman who had "evidence" that Flor Contemplacion was not the killer. This woman used to work in Singapore as a maid.

Then there was another Filipina who also claimed to have "evidence" of Flor's "innocence". This Filipina had spent time in Changi Prison where she claimed she came to know Flor.

If indeed these women believed they had "evidence" that could save Flor's life, why did they remain silent for four long years? Why did they raise the "evidence" only at this later stage? Who prompted them to come to Singapore? Who had paid their air-fares?

But the moment the women suddenly turned up in Singapore, we should have sensed that something was afoot. What did we do? We promptly dispatched the two women back to Manila and issued a statement, couched in bureaucratic language, dismissing their claims. We then proceeded to carry out the execution with clockwork precision, seemingly uncaring of the feelings of our close neighbours.

Would it have hurt us if we had delayed the execution? The least we could have done was to have taken a bit of time to look at the "new evidence", and not dismiss it out of hand. Should we not have allowed the women to stay a bit longer, so that we could convene an inquiry, and determine the truth?

Were we suitably informed of the impending elections in the Philippines? Were we appraised of the possibility that Flor Contemplacion's hanging could be made into a political issue, jeopardising the interests of Singapore and the safety of Singaporeans in the Philippines?

I am not suggesting that we should in any way compromise our judicial process, but a delay could not have severely affected it.

Was our Government taken aback by the developments that followed Flor's execution? But then, according to the Far Eastern Economic Review, 30th March issue, President Ramos himself was shocked when he returned from Europe to find demonstrators blaming his administration for failing to save Flor. If he was indeed shocked, could he have used the right tone in his messages to President Ong?

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me turn to the second limb of my motion. It is crucial that the Parliament of Singapore reaffirm our confidence in our criminal justice system, which had come under unwarranted attack by the Philippines over the Flor Contemplacion affair.

Our criminal justice system is patterned after that of Britain, although we had made changes to suit our conditions. For example, we have done away with the jury system. But our courts observe scrupulously the rules on admissibility of evidence.

In the case of Flor Contemplacion, she was convicted of double murder after the court heard evidence of how the police tracked her down, following the murder of Della Maga and Nicholas Huang. In a police statement, admitted by the court, Flor described how she killed Della and Nicholas. In her trial, she declined to give evidence.

From whatever angle we look at this case, it is obvious that Flor had a fair trial. She was represented by counsel in both trials. So it was wrong of the Philippines to question the integrity of our courts.

But, in their anxiety to "prove" Flor's "innocence", some elements in the Philippines had gone too far. They even sought to blame the Senior Minister for ordering the execution of the maid, and cast aspersion on the father of Nicholas Huang. Why have we kept quiet in the face of such provocations?

It is not my intention to stir up feelings against Filipinos, especially those who have chosen to work in Singapore. But the Flor Contemplacion case should remind us not to depend too much on foreign labour.

Let us not forget that soon after Flor's execution, President Ramos banned Filipinas from taking up jobs as maids in Singapore. The Philippines even sent military aircraft to pick up Filipina maids who wished to go home.

In a subsequent statement, President Ramos noted that Filipinas have been flying to Singapore as tourists, but ending up doing work as maids here. He appeared to be philosophical about this turn of events.

We do need foreign labour. But is it not better for employers to automate in a big way, so that they could do with fewer workers? This would mean a cutback on foreign workers. As far as home help is concerned, should we not be investing in more childcare centres and home-cleaning services?

Over time, I am sure the economies of our neighbouring countries will improve. Then workers from these countries will find it less attractive to take up jobs in Singapore. So we have to brace ourselves for the day when it would be increasingly difficult to get foreign labour.

Now that the elections are over in the Philippines, I feel that it is a matter of time before relations between our two countries will be back to normal. Meanwhile, we should give ourselves a pat on our back for the way we, as Singaporeans, with a few exceptions, of course, stood up as one united people in the face of a crisis not of our making.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.50 pm to 3.20 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, the execution of Flor Contemplacion is today a subject for debate in this House. This event has received widespread coverage in the media in Singapore, and of course much more extensively overseas, and most surely in the Philippines.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first let me say that many Singaporeans are surprised that this House is debating this motion. As has been stated by Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, Acting Minister for Community Development, Singaporeans in general believe that there has been no miscarriage of justice and have supported the Government in its management of these events. If there is any criticism, it is that the Singapore Government has been too patient and accommodating. A personal view is that the Government has been patiently and objectively rebutting each criticism and allegation as the Government wants to preserve the spirit of ASEAN, and believes in maintaining good relationships between nations. This, in my opinion, is a correct and prudent approach at a time when emotions are riding high.

Sir, the first part of the motion refers to the issue of the "stay of execution". Would a stay of execution have prevented the "present strain in Singapore-Philippine relations"?

Sir, as we watch the saga of events unfurl in the Philippines, I seriously doubt whether it would have made any difference. Even before the execution, demonstrations against Singapore started. The proclamation that Ms Contemplacion is a "national heroine" and the outburst of fury and anger resulting in the burning of our National Flag, show the very emotional reaction of a nation. Remember, the President's wife also received the cortege at the airport. The attempt to infuse objectivity into the case through the involvement of forensic pathologists from Singapore, the United States and the Philippines has also failed thus far. The findings of the Commission of Inquiry in the Philippines are alarming. The conclusion is that Ms Contemplacion has suffered injustice in Singapore. Other absurd findings have already been mentioned by the speaker before me. The belief of the movers of the motion that a "stay of execution" could prevent the "present strain" in the Singapore-Philippine relations is pure conjecture and, in my view, naive.

The most important question to ask ourselves is whether there was any legal argument to warrant a stay of execution. If there was, then it would be justified to grant the stay of execution. The legal system must not be tampered with for purely political reason such as is put forth in this motion. Herein lies the time-held tradition of separation of powers between the Executive arm of State and the Judiciary. I will not take up the valuable time of this House by presenting the facts of this case as I am sure that the Ministers in charge of the case will give all the details. It leaves me only to say that there was no valid legal reason for a stay of execution.

To summarise very quickly, let us recollect the facts. Throughout the two years of court hearings, until about eight days before the execution, there was no issue raised. When did the new witnesses appear? One week, and subsequently just hours before the execution, two new witnesses appeared. Nevertheless, the police investigated these allegations and found them to be obviously false. Do we want our police to be less efficient and work more slowly so that we can delay the execution? I am sure this can be arranged. But that is just not our style of working.

The second part of the motion asks this House to "reaffirm" its confidence in Singapore's criminal justice system. Here, Mr Speaker, I would like to clarify my interpretation of this motion. We need to reaffirm not because there is any doubt in our mind, that is, in the majority of us in this House, that our criminal justice system is a sound and fair one. We have no doubts regarding the integrity of our judges. We have no doubts regarding the competence of our police. However, because of the scathing attack on our system by the various media, we need to reaffirm our system as a signal to these people that this House has indeed no doubts regarding our criminal justice system. The most scathing attack has been an article by William Safire and carried by the New York Times. The attack by Mr William Safire extends beyond our criminal justice system to the Singaporean society, our values and our political leaders. Some quotations from the article:

(1) Referring to the treatment of Filipino maids in Singapore - it states: "treated as little better than slaves by their Singaporean masters". It is indeed paradoxical that an American is talking to us about slavery. Where did slavery start and end?

(2) Referring to the criminal justice system, it states: "she was jailed, confessed - perhaps under torture - and her country's embassy did little on her behalf. Just another maid, who cared?" He could not even get the order right. She "confessed" first, then she was "jailed". She was not jailed before she confessed. That is important, because ours is a system which is well entrenched. The torture that they were talking about - electrocorticogram - was ordered by her own doctors to show her innocence and these are electrodes placed around the brain which are very similar to the electrocardiogram that we do for our cardiac tracings. These are tracings of the brain waves. They cause no pain. They cause no electric shocks. Maybe the author ought to go and try this himself and know that one does not get electric shocks from having ECGs done. That the Embassy did nothing? The Embassy staff was there when the police confessions were made and she was visited nine times at least by the Philippine Embassy staff.

(3) Referring to our political system, it states: "the dictator's front man, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, realised this had caused a rift between two members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations." This is the ultimate insult to our system and to our leaders that our Prime Minister is called a front man, as in the American mafia.

Mr Safire has also made reference to the Michael Fay case. There he also showed total disregard for his own countrymen. Referring to the caning of Michael Fay for vandalism, he accused the local US business community of "sucking up to the dictator". Mr Speaker, I hope you will excuse me for this unparliamentary language. The dictator, of course, is our Senior Minister.

In the Philippines, the fact-finding commission appointed by the Government concluded that Ms Contemplacion has suffered injustice in Singapore. What is the truth? The truth is that she was accorded all rights available to any person charged in Singapore. Two lawyers were assigned by the Supreme Court Registrar to defend her initially for her trial in January 1993. When notice of appeal was given, another two lawyers were appointed to defend her. No legal rights were denied to her. Our Government also made available to the Commission of Inquiry in the Philippines all documents relevant to the case. This did not seem to have helped them in their deliberations. And yet the SDP, in the press statement of 23rd March 1995, suggested that a Commission should be set up by both countries to facilitate an exchange of views. Perhaps, Members of the SDP would like to explain what they meant by this. In addition, the SDP also called on our Government "to exercise greater political and diplomatic tact when it comes to making comments about our neighbours in the international community." This press statement was issued on 23rd March this year at a time when emotion was riding high. Here you will really question why the SDP issued this statement at that time and asked for a commission to be set up by both countries to facilitate an exchange of views and facts. It also stated that the "SDP stands ready to assist in any way it can to help to resolve this position".

Sir, when we appoint a Commission of Inquiry, it is taken in all seriousness. Persons with experience, integrity and objectivity are appointed. The findings are often treated very seriously by our Government. Here we have a case in which the credibility of the Commission of Inquiry, even in the Philippines, is being questioned.

Sir, to conclude, Singaporeans can stand tall and proud. An execution is not something anyone will celebrate about. In this case of Flor Contemplacion, the due process of our criminal justice system has been adhered to. There has been no miscarriage of justice. We have a criminal justice system that we can all be proud of.

Let us remind ourselves that two persons were murdered - another Filipino maid and a very innocent Singapore child.