EXECUTION OF FLOR CONTEMPLACION (Motion)

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, after more than two months of stormy disturbance over the Flor Contemplacion case, and with the Philippine elections being over, the dust had more or less settled down. All these had already been reported clearly and in detail in the press and there is no need for me to repeat. I hope and I believe that the relationship between Singapore and the Philippines will be restored readily, if not rapidly.

The Feedback Unit has collected feedback on this matter from grassroots leaders and the public. From March until now, grassroots leaders and members of the public have contributed 84 inputs, out of which 75 or 89.2%, endorsed or supported the Government's stand on this matter. There was only one against (1.2%) and the stand of the other 8 (9.5%) was not clear. In late April, the Feedback Unit also conducted a straw poll on 100 regular feedback contributors. Two questions were posed:

(1) Do you support the Government's rebuttal of the Philippine Commission's report? Almost all of them, that is, 98% of the respondents had given an affirmative answer in support of the Government's rebuttal. Only 2% made no comment. These respondents had given three reasons for their support:

(a) They felt that the Government is in the right and has to tell the truth.

(b) They felt that the allegations made by the Philippine Commission were groundless and could not be substantiated. Furthermore, the manner in which this Commission conducted its investigation was not professional.

(c) The respondents had affirmed their confidence in our judiciary system. They believed that our Police had done a thorough and proper investigation into the matter and the report of our pathologists was credible and backed by the American experts.

(2) What is your impression of the Government's handling of the issue? All the 100 respondents also gave an affirmative answer. They felt that the Government had handled the matter properly. They appreciated the difficult position of the Government, in view of the irrational and emotionally-charged situation in the Philippines. They also endorsed and confirmed the Government's cool and level-headed approach in dealing with such unreasonable allegations made by the other side. But among those who supported the Government's stand and handling of the matter, one-third of them felt that, with the benefit of hindsight, the Government could have acceded to President Ramos' request to delay the execution of Flor Contemplacion.

Over the past two months, the 84 grassroots leaders who have given feedback to the Feedback Unit also asked the same question: Why did the Government turn down the request of President Ramos?

Mr Speaker, Sir, over the past three years since May 1992, there have been 13 surveys conducted by the Feedback Unit on issues ranging from NMPs, allocation of Telecom shares, the Michael Fay case, and the Ministers' salaries. None of these surveys conducted in the past received such an overwhelming support of 98%, as in this case. I am very glad with the result of this survey and with the response of the grassroots leaders, members of the public, and the readers who wrote to the newspapers. Among these people, there may be some who are unhappy or critical of certain Government policies. But when it comes to a major issue that concerns the dignity and national interest, they are united. They give strong and full support to the Government.

There were two features in the Feedback Unit's poll which are particularly relevant to the motion before this House today: Firstly, one-third of the respondents, having the benefit of hindsight, came to the view that the Government could have acceded to President Ramos' request to delay the execution of Flor Contemplacion. Secondly, most of the respondents have expressed confidence in our judicial system.

On the first point, the motion gives the Government an opportunity to explain to one-third of the respondents and others who hold the same view, the reason why the Government at that time could not accede to the request of President Ramos. I would like to stress that among these people, many of them acknowledged that, with the benefit of hindsight, that is, only after tension has developed between the two countries, they only come to this view.

Just now when I heard Dr Soin presenting her argument, I have a further understanding of the Chinese saying: " ". After the event, everybody becomes wiser, everybody becomes Zhu Ge Liang ( ). But before the event, nobody could anticipate the development. How many people, including the Filipinos, expected that the murder of a Filipino maid and the son of her employer by another Filipino maid would be politicised and emotionalized to such an extent, four years after the trial and conviction of the accused, and after the petition by her President for clemency was turned down by our Government, and she was eventually hanged? Perhaps from this incident, Singaporeans can learn one lesson, that is, we are a small and vulnerable nation. Therefore, the people and the Government should be united together to cope with a sudden change of situation.

The second part of the motion is about the confidence in our judicial system. This is something we should express our unanimous support. On 10th April, the Straits Times published the report of the Philippine Commission. On the same day, the Singapore Democratic Party issued a statement, which was carried in the Straits Times, on 11th April, stating "Our nation and its system has come under close scrutiny. Indeed, it seems that Singapore has been put on trial. It is thus crucial that Singapore clears up any discrepancy found and question raised about this case."

The next day, the Workers' Party also issued a statement suggesting "Refer the Report of the Philippine Commission to the World Court, or to a tribunal of jurists from Commonwealth countries to investigate the allegations that there might have been a miscarriage of justice in the prosecution of Ms Flor Contemplacion." In other words, the two statements by the two Opposition parties have insinuations or they hold the view that there was some doubt about our judicial system and the way our Police conducted its investigation. Such statements by the two Opposition parties could only add fuel to fire, to further complicate and emotionalise the issue. Such statements, on the one hand, gave the Philippine media and politicians ammunition to attack Singapore and make life difficult for President Ramos and, on the other hand, they misled the public with insinuations which cast doubts and aspersions on our judicial system.

On the other hand, the two Opposition parties have said nothing and have not expressed their stand on the rebuttal of the Philippine Commission by the Singapore Government, or the statements of our forensic pathologists. They have also chosen to be blind to the description of the Philippine Commission that Singapore had "ceased to be a humane society", the Philippine media attack of Singapore being a "Police State" and Mr William Safire's insult to our judicial system in the New York Times.

At that time when the incident was making people very worried, the SDP and the Workers' Party issued such statements. What were their ulterior motives? Therefore, it is important that this House reaffirms the confidence in Singapore's criminal justice system so as to clarify the matter to the public.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate.

I support the first part of the motion. As regards the second part of the motion, I am certain that Flor Contemplacion was given a fair trial. In fact, I read in the papers that she was tried not once, but twice, and was allowed two appeals. She was also allowed to petition for clemency to the President, but that petition was refused. After Flor Contemplacion had exhausted all her remedies of appeal, the Government then proceeded to fix the execution date before the anti-Singapore hysteria in the Philippines arose. The date fixed for the hanging of Flor Contemplacion was 17th March 1995. It was quite obvious that the Government authorities fixed that date in complete ignorance of what was happening in the Philippines. I quote Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, Acting Minister for Community Development and Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs:

`We thought it was just a very straightforward case of one maid murdering another maid and therefore one maid has got to be punished.' And he said further:

`And we really could not understand why this reaction came from the Filipinos. We did not expect it.'

I am surprised that the Government which professes always to be on the ball did not see the consequences of executing Flor Contemplacion on a date close to the Philippine elections. Did the officials in the Singapore Embassy in Manila give the Government proper feedback that there was an underlying seething problem in the Philippines due to the inability of the government there to provide jobs for its home citizens and that they have to seek lowly, humiliating jobs abroad? I think the Government has proven that it is not that skilful in relating to our neighbours. If it really had insights of our neighbours' character, especially the Filippinos who are so emotional and volatile, it would have set a longer date to hang Flor Contemplacion about 2 1/2 months later. Or at least the Government should have fixed the date for hanging at a later date when the elections in the Philippines have been held and all the election fervour has blown over. After all, the Flor Contemplacion case arose in 1991 and it was a four-year matter. So a delay of another 2 1/2 months would not make any difference to the Government. I say that the Government handled the timing of the execution of Flor Contemplacion very badly.

However, the issue of the Government refusing to accommodate President Fidel Ramos' request to postpone the hanging of Flor Contemplacion is a different matter. The Opposition has to be clear in its mind that this is an international matter. It is not a case of the Opposition in Singapore against the Government on a domestic issue. This is a matter between Singapore and a foreign country, in this instance, the Philippines. The Opposition, being loyal to the country, must side our country. I would, therefore, not condemn the Singapore Government for turning down President Ramos' request to delay the hanging of Flor Contemplacion by two weeks. I would not allow the foreign press to use the Opposition as a club to hit at our Government.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chiam See Tong: All Singaporeans, whether they are supporters of the ruling party or the Opposition, have to be loyal to Singapore and when there is a dispute with a foreign country, they must close ranks with the ruling party and all Singaporeans and stand united. This is the message that Singaporeans must give to all the people of other countries.

Having said that, I must clarify that I am not pro-PAP. I am pro-Singapore.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion before us allows this House and all Singaporeans the opportunity to clarify the issues, and put the case in perspective.

First, Sir, I want to thank Mr Chiam for being pro-Singapore. I think he speaks well for the development of democracy and the growth of a responsible Opposition as represented by Mr Chiam.

No one should ever doubt that Contemplacion received a fair trial. Contemplacion voluntarily admitted to having convicted both murders in her statements made to the Police in the presence of Mrs Aurora Navarro, a Labour Officer in the Philippine Embassy. From the time of her arrest by the Police until her petition for clemency to the President, about four years later, Contemplacion did not deny to anyone that she killed Mrs Della Maga and Nicholas Huang.

In fact, while awaiting trial, she was visited nine times by Philippine Embassy officials and 68 times by a nun, Sister Gerard, from the Convent of the Good Shepherd. She had indeed every opportunity to disclaim responsibility, but she did not.

The case was first heard in the High Court, then the Court of Appeal directed the High Court to hear the case again and to review any new evidence and, finally, the case was heard again in the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court assigned two sets of lawyers to defend Contemplacion in the hearings in both the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Sir, by any yardstick, there was due process of law. Contemplacion was given every opportunity to be heard over a period of time. There is no doubt whatsoever that it was a fair and just trial.

For those who doubt our system of justice, I like to refer them to Professor Harald Otto Schweizer, Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Oklahoma, who came to Singapore in July 1994 to investigate the Michael Fay incident. He then wrote a letter to President Bill Clinton, stating categorically that accusations that Fay was forced to plead guilty were completely unfounded, as Fay had legal advice and a lawyer was present when he pleaded guilty.

Professor Schweizer went on to say, and I quote:

`After a long dose of police reality here in the United States, and after visiting numerous police agencies in Latin America and Europe, I would rather be investigated by the Singapore Police Force than any agency here (in the US).'

He further stated that the top leadership of the Singapore Police Force made a "far better impression" on him than most municipal law enforcement agencies in the US.

So those who support the Philippine Gancayco Commission, which has assigned itself the task of judging our system of justice, would also do well to heed what the former Philippine Foreign Secretary, Mr Roberto Romulo, had to say.

Mr Romulo stated that the Gancayco Commission is "a body that represents the workings of government at its most bizarre, of government gone berserk." Mr Romulo's remarks were endorsed fully by none other than the President of the Philippine Senate, Mr Edgardo Angara.

Mr Romulo further elaborated, and I quote:

`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 judgements, 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. Once they heard what they wanted to hear, they accepted it as incontrovertible fact. Moreover, the success and future of our nation are directly threatened by an over-indulgence in politics. Politics that play to the emotions and whip up a frenzy, politics that call for the perverse exercise of power, and politics that mistake partisan political objectives for those of the nation.'

Singapore's Opposition parties should listen to the wise counsel of Mr Romulo. We, in Singapore, should avoid the politics of frenzy, and avoid subjecting our own national interests to partisan politics. If there is anything we can learn from this episode, it is that we should not be ruled by emotions, but live by the rule of law. This, Sir, in a nutshell, is what it is all about. We should not run around like some Opposition parties, shouting that we have done this or that wrongly.

Mr Chiam said that we should know and predict the reactions in the Philippines. But I can tell Mr Chiam that historians will testify, time and again, that it is always easy to be wise after the event, to say that we should do this, or we should do that, or we should not do this, or we should not do that. Even in our routine day-to-day life, we sometimes agonize, after the event, that we should have bought, or sold, a piece of property or bought or sold the shares in time.

The fact is, in this case, no one knew it would blow up, or be blown up to such a big issue. Even the Philippine diplomats and officials did not expect such reactions. President Ramos himself was surprised by the turn of event upon his return from overseas.

Sir, if the Philippine officials themselves did not know, how do you expect us, as outsiders, to know? Instead of criticising our own Government and officials, I think we should be proud of them. We should commend them for keeping cool in the most difficult of times, commend them for their exemplary restraint, commend them for their measured response, commend them for being unruffled and unprovoked, despite all the brickbats and rubbish thrown at them.

Sir, throughout the ordeal, the Government is clearly a paragon of patience and forbearance. How many governments, I ask you, would send their pathologists to a foreign land to face a hostile crowd?

Rather than criticise our own Government and officials, we should applaud them, defend them and rally around them. Instead, some Opposition parties, except Mr Chiam, cast doubts, signalling that we are divided internally at a critical time in our relationship.

It has been pointed out endlessly that we should consider the feelings of foreigners in such a case, and understand their culture. Yes, we should. But should they also not consider the feelings of Singaporeans? Should they also not attempt to understand our culture? What about the feelings of the parents and grandparents of the murdered Nicholas Huang? Should they also not attempt to understand our system of justice? Should they also not respect our laws?

When we go to a foreign country, we would respect and abide by the laws of the country, ever mindful that we are guests in a foreign land. When foreigners come to Singapore to work, or to reside, is it too much to ask them to do the same and abide by our laws?

We must bear in mind that we have 300,000-plus foreign workers here. If they do not abide by our laws, it will become terribly unmanageable.

A number of Filipinos were also executed in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East for criminal offences recently. But why no howl of protest? There was no hue and cry because all know that such protests would come to nothing. Why then such a storm against Singapore? Is it because they think we can be easily pushed or bullied? Or that we would submit to mass hysteria or succumb to pressure?

This shows all the more that we have to draw the line somewhere. It would be better to draw it now clearly for all to see, than be sorry later.

Should we not have stayed the execution by a number of days or weeks? The question has always been asked. By natural instinct, one is tempted to say why not. It would give Contemplacion a reprieve. It would give President Ramos face and political mileage. It would be a nice thing to do.

But is it proper or wise for us to do so and take the easy way out? I think not. It would backfire on us in the long run. Consider that there are so many foreign condemned prisoners on the death row. Every time a foreign criminal is scheduled to be hanged, there will be an appeal by a foreign President or Prime Minister. Should we just back down and delay indefinitely the execution? If we acquiesce, there will be no end to the matter. What if there is another appeal when the execution is rescheduled later?

The matter is even more touchy and sensitive if and when it involves our immediate and closer neighbours. What should we do then? Should we vary the standards for different nationalities? Does it mean that foreigners enjoy more rights and privileges than our very own Singapore citizens in our own land? Or should we have just one system of justice for all, Singaporeans and foreigners alike?

When you think through, it would be better to stick to one system and make it abundantly clear to one and all that this is our system of justice in our own country. All should respect and abide by it. We have to draw the line. Otherwise, our resources will be severely tested, again and again.

I urge this House, therefore, to support the Government and reaffirm our confidence in Singapore's system of justice.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.00 pm

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to put it in a nutshell, the Flor Contemplacion incident is nothing but a political farce. It is a game created by the mass media and the politicians of the Philippines. After the elections of the Philippines on 8th May, the dust has settled down and this fact has become even more apparent.

Recently, the victim of this political farce, the former Foreign Secretary Romulo, was finally driven beyond the limits of forbearance and came out to openly criticize his government for the extremely ridiculous, even to the extent of being beserk, approach to the matter. From this farce that took place in the Philippines, our people of Singapore can see how party politics, that is, political activities based purely on party interest, can stir up a storm. Together with an irresponsible mass media which went to the extent of distorting the facts and creating false stories to mislead the public, their behaviour will not only cause damage to their own country but will also undermine their relationship with other countries.

No wonder some authoritative international organisations and risk-evaluation agencies immediately adjusted upwards the risk factor of investing in the Philippines, after the incident. I believe it will surely be more difficult for the Philippines to attract foreign investments now than before the incident.

Sir, the former Foreign Secretary of the Philippines, Mr Romulo, pointed out that the efforts made by the Philippines over the past few years have gone to nought within a short period of two months. We learn a painful lesson from this farce, that is, we cannot allow opportunistic politicians to foul up our political scene, and we should never allow the irresponsible mass media to distort the truth and facts and to mislead the public with untrue tales. Eloquent politicians may be able to incite the sentiments of the public, and the mass media also have their own influence. But if the mass media hide under the cover of freedom of the press and make no distinction between right and wrong and do not report the truth, then the country will not progress, the economy will not develop and the livelihood of the people will not improve. As a result, Filipina maids will continue to go into an exodus overseas to look for jobs as domestic maids.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe that in handling this incident, the Singapore Government is right in adopting a very calm, firm and restraint attitude. In this incident, the people of Singapore on the whole have also expressed their rationality and maturity, although I feel that our self-restraint may, to a certain degree, be misinterpreted as a sign of weakness.

Sir, as it is said, only in times of crisis can we see the real sign of patriotism and loyalty. From this storm, we are also able to see the true colours of some Members of the Opposition parties in Singapore. The SDP and the Workers' Party have made statements on this incident. But we note that what they were discussing were not the question of right or wrong, or the facts and evidence in the Flor Contemplacion case. The spearhead of SDP's criticism is directed at the People's Action Party. They alleged that the PAP had passed random remarks at other countries. The Workers' Party's statement gave me the impression that they were hinting that there was miscarriage of justice in our judicial system. The Workers' Party's statement also pointed out that our entire judicial system was on trial.

In the rising emotions in the Philippines, our two local Opposition parties issued such statements. What is their ulterior motive?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as the Chinese saying goes: "Sima Zhao zhi xin, luren jie zhi ye (the villain's design is obvious)". Why did they not go by the facts of the case when making their statement, ie, whether or not Flor Contemplacion was given a fair trial, unjustly convicted and wrongly executed? What about the irrational behaviour of the people in the Philippines, such as the burning of the Singapore national flag and injuring the dignity of Singapore? Why was it that these two political parties were completely silent on such beserk behaviour? Were they helping Singapore or were they anti-Singapore? Do they have the interest of Singapore at heart, or are they merely trying to cash in on the opportunity to earn political capital? I think this is a big question mark in the minds of our people. The SDP and the Workers' Party should clarify.

From the speeches of my colleagues in this House, I notice that they have unanimously endorsed the integrity of our judicial system. That it is fair and just is beyond doubt, especially in the case of Flor Contemplacion. What is the stand of the Opposition parties on this issue? I would like to know what is their stand, especially the Opposition Members who are sitting here, on this point.

Just now, Mr Chiam See Tong has already expressed his stand and he was on the side of Singapore, although he also indicated that he was on the side of reason and not affinity. But does his stand represent that of the SDP? I do not think it is possible! Then, what is the stand of the SDP? I hope to be able to hear from the other two Members of the Singapore Democratic Party in this House on their stand. Unfortunately, they are not here now. However, I understand that this debate will go on until tomorrow and I hope that these two other Members will not miss the precious opportunity to state clearly their stand on the issue. Of course, I also hope that the Workers' Party Member in this House will also let us know clearly the stand of the Workers' Party on this matter.

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this whole issue is clouded with emotion in the Philippines. And in Singapore, as has been said by speakers before, we have tried to take a pragmatic and logical view. Unfortunately, it is very hard to talk in a logical and cool fashion to people who are not listening.

There are three major issues, I think, that are raised by this motion. The first issue is the question of whether Flor Contemplacion actually had a fair trial. Anyone who reads the court records, who reads the information provided by the Government, who reads the reports of the forensic scientists, including American forensic scientists, must come to the conclusion that Flor Contemplacion had every protection that a civilised system of law can provide to an accused person. Only those whose ears are deliberately stopped could come to the fantasy conclusion, like the Gancayco Commission has, that she was a victim of injustice. The Gancayco Commission has displayed a distressing lack of professional competence and integrity. But we cannot help that. I do not think any Singaporean seriously believes that Contemplacion was framed by the Singapore police, was judicially murdered by the Singapore judges, was tortured by the prison authorities. There is no logical reason why the judges, the police, the prison authorities and the Philippine Embassy should conspire to fix Contemplacion. There is no logical basis for a conclusion like that. But people will believe what they want to believe and there is nothing we say in this House that will convince Filipinos who believe the other side.

As far as the issue of the integrity of our judicial system is concerned, I think we need not be unduly concerned. I think any thinking person, even those who are not our friends in the Western press, must conclude that there has been no miscarriage of justice.

The second major issue that is raised by this motion is: was the matter handled properly, in a diplomatic sense? It is very easy to be wise after the events. It is very easy to say, had we done this or had we done that, things would have been better. Like Dr Arthur Beng, I do not think that a stay would have made very much difference because really this is not a matter of Singapore politics or Singapore system. It is a matter of Filipino politics. People in that country needed something to beat President Ramos with and we just happened to be handy. We are small. We do not make noise. We do not call other people names. We often are the targets because we are a soft target for politicians in other countries.

Should there have been a stay? As Dr Ong Chit Chung has said, one's inclination is to say, "What harm could have been done?" I think that perhaps a stay might have been useful, but not to mollify the Filipinos. It is for a different reason, which brings me to the third major issue that is raised by this motion, the question of whether our system can be improved or not. I think we laid ourselves open to criticism, in the sense that we gave the impression that we prize efficiency over justice. It is true that nothing that was brought up in the Philippines would have induced any rational judge or any rational court to reopen the case. But the fact is that when somebody says there is new evidence, and you just dismiss it very quickly out of hand, the impression that people outside get is that really you just want to get the matter over with and justice is not on your mind. And in that sense, I think we laid ourselves open to criticism.

The only aspect of this case that really troubles me is the point that was raised by Dr Soin in her admirable speech at the beginning of this debate, and that is the question of what happens when there is an allegation that new evidence has surfaced in a capital case. We have no procedure for this. The trouble with capital cases is that the tolerance for mistake is zero. "Sorry" is a very weak word to use if you hang somebody wrongly.

New evidence is alleged to have come to the attention of the defence counsel. Who should assess this evidence? I trust the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand in this particular case, the assessment of the new evidence was undertaken by the Attorney-General's Chambers. I have no criticism of the Attorney-General or the Attorney-General's Chambers on their competence or ability to assess evidence. But my disquiet is whether they are in fact the right people to assess new evidence in a capital criminal case. The Attorney-General's Chambers is in charge of prosecutions. They have to build a case beyond reasonable doubt to get a person hanged. Now new evidence comes, and to ask that very same authority that has been trying to build this water-tight case to assess the credibility of the new evidence is like asking a proud chef to assess whether or not his prize winning cake is actually half-baked.

The question of assessment of new evidence is a judicial one. It is not an administrative one. May I suggest that it should not be undertaken by the police, who are the investigating authority, or by the Attorney-General's Chambers who are the prosecuting authority, or by the Cabinet who, I think, have much better things to do than function as a judicial tribunal.

Miscarriages of justice have happened in other countries in cases that would have led to the death penalty in Singapore. I think we have been lucky that we have had no such miscarriages up to now, but we cannot count on luck to take us through forever. As Dr Soin pointed out, we should have some proper system for the assessment of evidence that is said to arise after the event. At the very least, it should be referred to a magistrate, not to the original investigating authority, and not to the prosecuting authority.

As far as this motion is concerned, I do not think it would be profitable for this House to point fingers at people and say how they could have done better or how they could have done worse. There is no use, nor is it any use for us to decry what has happened in the Philippines and to call them names, because that will not change anything. President Ramos is reported in today's papers as saying that Singapore and Philippine ties are on the mend. I think all of us welcome that. I believe he is sincere and of course it would be our hope that relations would get back on an even keel.

As far as this motion is concerned, however, I ask Members of the House to think very carefully about what we can do about our own legal system to ensure that in a capital case mistakes are not made, even if that makes the system less efficient. I think this is one area where we can tolerate a little bit of slowness, a little less efficiency, in the interest of ensuring that we get things 100% right.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, is the debate on this motion going to continue tomorrow or is it going to end today?

Mr Deputy Speaker: I am not aware.

4.20 pm

The Minister for Law and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Sir, I wish to thank Members of the House for the various points that they have made. This is an important matter and the movers of the motion as well as the speakers who have taken the floor have raised points which, I believe, are in the minds of quite a number of Singaporeans. So it is good that we have this opportunity to debate them. I also wish to commend Mr Chiam See Tong for having taken a principled position even though he is a Member of an Opposition party, ie, a principled position of standing up for Singapore which I would like to see in other Members of the Opposition on such an issue.

The points that have been raised by Members have only confirmed one point - that this whole episode about Flor Contemplacion is quite a complicated issue. It involves many dimensions. There are many phases to this whole problem. There was the investigative phase where you have criticisms of the police investigation, whether we arrested the right person, whether the autopsy reports by the pathologists were properly done, and so on. There was the judicial phase. Did she have a fair trial? Were the courts right in dismissing the defence of diminished responsibility? Was she given access to counsel at all times, and so on? Then there was the Executive or Cabinet phase, ie, the phase where petition for clemency and the appeal for stay of execution have to be considered. There was the diplomatic phase after the execution and the problems we have in bilateral relations. Did we handle it properly?

For today, I intend to concentrate more on the Executive and the diplomatic phases because, although there were important points raised on the investigative and the judicial phases, my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, will deal with this when he takes the floor.

Let us recall, very briefly, the basis for the clemency petition and later the appeal for the stay of execution. When we talk of the clemency petition, there was Flor Contemplacion's own clemency petition of January 1995. In that petition, she never stated that she did not do the crime. Then there was President Ramos' own letter to President Ong in January 1995, where he asked that clemency be considered "on humanitarian grounds". He said that "I address this request on behalf of the parents, spouse and children of Mrs Contemplacion". It is important that we recall what was the basis for the petition. It was on humanitarian grounds.

Under the legal procedures in Singapore, after all the final appeals are exhausted, it is mandatory for the Attorney-General and the Trial Judge to give their opinions as to whether the law should take its course. These are considered by Cabinet and Cabinet advises the President. The Attorney-General's view was that there was nothing in this case that recommends a clemency and the law should be allowed to take its course. The Trial Judge, in his report, also stated that he saw no reason why the sentence should not be carried out. President Ong, on the advice of Cabinet, replied to President Ramos on 23rd February that clemency was not granted on the advice of Cabinet.

Then we have the appeal for stay of execution. Here too, we need to remind ourselves what was the basis for the appeal. President Ramos' letter was dated 11th March and was delivered to the MFA duty office on 12th March. But I would like to point out, particularly in response to Dr Kanwaljit Soin, who said that in three or four days everything was done with, that the fact is that several days before that, officials from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Attorney-General's Chambers, the Police and the Foreign Affairs Ministry had already begun to examine and study the matter because the details of the so-called fresh evidence had been publicised in a Malacanang Palace statement on 9th March. That Palace statement had detailed this so-called fresh evidence claim and had also stated that President Ramos would be making an appeal. So we had already started studying the matter.

What were the grounds for this appeal for stay of execution? President Ramos said that new evidence had come to light and I quote:

`new evidence bearing directly on this case has just come to light from another Filipino citizen, Mrs Emilia Frenilla. Mrs Frenilla used to work in Singapore, personally knows Mrs Contemplacion. Since Mrs Frenilla is willing to come forward with a testimony, and as we are dealing here with a human life, I request Your Excellency for a stay of execution to allow this new evidence proper consideration. This appeal is addressed to Your Excellency with full respect for the laws of Singapore on humanitarian grounds and on behalf of the parents, spouse and children of Mrs Contemplacion.'

Of course, as the House knows, the request was not granted and she was executed on 17th March 1995.

I have listened to the views that have been expressed so far and also studied the terms of the motion. Basically, if I could sum up, I think the criticisms which have been made are two-fold. Firstly, the Government showed unseemly haste to execute her, giving the impression that proper consideration did not appear to be given to the request for stay of execution. Secondly, in any case, so the criticism goes, we should have anticipated all the consequences that unfolded. We should have anticipated the diplomatic fall-out and we should have given face to President Ramos. As Dr Kanwaljit Soin said, "what is the harm? What is the cost? She could have been given a few weeks' delay."

Let me deal with the first issue: that the Government was unseemly hasty to execute her and proper consideration did not seem to be given to the fresh evidence. The impression the critics have is that we treated this in a rather cavalier, nonchalant and bureaucratic fashion. What are the facts? Firstly, the moment we knew of the claims of fresh evidence, and this was even before the formal letter was received, both the Minister for Home Affairs and I personally discussed the issue. We decided that we would ask the Attorney-General's Chambers officials, CID, and officials from both Ministries to study the new evidence. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon and Dr Kanwaljit Soin have made the point whether the law should be changed, but that is a separate issue which the Minister for Home Affairs would deal with. But we have to deal with this issue according to the law and procedure which exist at the moment. That is exactly what we did.

We decided that if the Attorney-General and the officials needed more time to study the matter, we would recommend to Cabinet a stay of execution. If they felt that there was any plausible basis for these claims of fresh evidence, a plausible basis which requires much further investigation, we would also recommend a stay. However, we felt that if it was very clear that there was no basis whatsoever and it was totally untenable, then we would not recommend a stay of execution. Both of us also personally spoke to the Attorney-General because this was an important matter. As it turned out, the Attorney-General and all the other officials who were studying this issue did not require that much more time, for reasons which will be spelt out in detail by the Minister for Home Affairs, and which were already spelt out in our press statement. The claims of new evidence were totally unfounded. We both decided that we would recommend to the Cabinet that there were no grounds for stay of execution.

But precisely because this was a matter of life and death and because President Ramos had appealed, as Minister for Law, I took two additional steps. On 13th March 1995, first thing in the morning, I rang up the Attorney-General. I asked him to confirm whether he had addressed the issue personally. He said yes. I then told him that our recommendation was being finalised to Cabinet and asked him whether he had any qualms at all about not granting a stay of execution. I told him that if he had any qualms, he should let me know, and that I did not want him and the Chambers to feel pressured on account of the time factor. If he needed more time, he should let me know and I could still halt the process. He told me that he had no qualms. He was satisfied that the so-called new evidence was completely spurious and without any basis. He told me that he might have had some second thoughts if at any stage during the many years of trial, Flor Contemplacion had even once said she did not do it. But she did not. And in fact she maintained that she did it and even described in detail how the crime had been carried out.

On the afternoon of the same day, Monday, 13th March, I also asked to see Mr Errol Foenander, Head of Crime Section at Attorney-General's Chambers. He is an experienced legal officer with some 29 years of service and he was the officer in the AG's Chambers who had gone into the details of the matter with the investigators and the other officials.

You will recall that the House was then in session in the Committee of Supply. I was expecting the two Ministries under my charge to come up for debate. So I asked him to come and see me in one of the rooms in Parliament House. I went over with him in detail various aspects of Frenilla's affidavit, and he explained each point fully. I asked him if he had met with the Police investigator in charge of the case. He said yes. I asked him whether he had any doubts about the Police investigation. He had none. I told him I already had a word with the Attorney-General. But since Foenander had studied the matter carefully, I wanted to know if he had any reservations about the case. He had none. He explained to me why Frenilla's claims were totally unfounded. For example, and this is only one example, Frenilla had claimed in an affidavit that Flor's employer had fabricated the story that Flor had done the crime. But the fact was that the employer had no idea or knowledge of the existence of such a person called Flor Contemplacion. It was the Police investigations that led to Flor Contemplacion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, why am I recounting all these? It is to show that far from arbitrarily brushing aside the new evidence, far from it being put on some bureaucratic auto-pilot, the matter had been given careful and urgent attention, not just by officials, not just by the Attorney-General, but also by the Ministers who had to advise the Cabinet who in turn advised the President. As I said, the Minister for Home Affairs will explain why this new evidence could not withstand scrutiny.

Some of the Members here may accept what I have said about the process - that we took diligence in attending to it. But they may still hold the other criticism against us that, in any case, we should have granted a stay. What is the harm, what is the cost, as mentioned by some Members. Their view can be stated this way. We should have given face to an appeal from an ASEAN member. Nothing would have been lost. We should have known the elections were coming up on 8th May. We should have known that there would be a fall-out in bilateral relations. And if we had given a stay, all this strain in relations would not have taken place, which is the thrust of the first part of the motion, "when a stay could have prevented the present strain in Singapore-Philippine relations." But actually there are several questions here. Firstly, did we know? Did we anticipate what is going to happen? In other words, did we know, could we have known, the full extent of the consequences and therefore, nevertheless, proceeded with it? Secondly, how is it that we did not anticipate or know? Was it a major blunder on the part of my Ministry? So let us go over the information which was available to us at the point of time when the decision was given. I think that is important - at the point of time the decision had to be taken.

The first point I would like to make is that the Philippine appeal for clemency or stay of execution did not suggest that it was due to a problem in the domestic front and did not suggest that it would affect bilateral relations. That is why I made it a point of recapitulating what was the basis for the stay and what was the basis for the clemency petition. We had no reason to conclude that they were appealing other than on compassionate grounds or other than on fresh evidence on the stay or petition.

The next point I would like to make is the President of Singapore visited the Philippines. And that visit ended on 19th February, just three weeks and four days before the execution. I accompanied the President and I wish to tell the House there were no demonstrations, there were no protests, there were no placards at any place where we stayed or en route to our destination either in Manila, Baguio or Cebu. The issue did not come up in talks with either President Ramos or anyone else. President Ramos did hand a note to President Ong, although it did not feature in the talks. During that visit I had separate bilateral talks with Foreign Secretary Roberto Romulo. He had one issue to raise. I had one issue to raise on my side. But both issues did not concern Flor Contemplacion.

That gives you an indication of how important or significant an issue this was at that time - three weeks and four days. So we did not receive, Mr Deputy Speaker, any signal during this visit that there was going to be serious trouble for President Ramos domestically or for bilateral relations if the law took its course.

Mr John De Payva asked whether we kept our lines of communication open. Yes. For example, on 3rd March, Foreign Secretary passed through Singapore just two weeks before the execution. He asked me to return his call. I called him on the telephone. He was on his way back to Manila. He said when he was back in Manila, the media was bound to interview him and he wanted to discuss with me the case and what he might say. I agreed, after discussion with him, that he could say that the decision on clemency had been taken at the highest level in Singapore and the law had to take its course. He did not give any intimation that the Philippine government was seriously perturbed about its impact on bilateral relations. Upon his arrival in Manila, he told the press and I quote:

`Minister Jayakumar expressed to me his regrets. But the Cabinet reviewed the case and after giving it the highest consideration, there were no mitigating circumstances. So the judgment is now final and executory.'

He added, and I quote:

`The Philippines must comply with the regulations and the laws.'

This is from the Philippine Journal, 4th March 1995.

Now I like to make a point which was made by Dr Ong Chit Chung and Mr John De Payva. By all accounts, the Philippine leadership had also not anticipated the intense protests that ensued. Many in the Philippines, it would seem, were also surprised by the reactions in their country. No one foresaw this huge burst of emotion, probably not even those who had stirred it up. As the Asian Wall Street Journal, 31st March 1995, stated, and I quote:

`It is obvious that neither government anticipated events spinning out of control.'

Mr John De Payva referred to a Far Eastern Economic Review article. I believe he was referring to the 30th March 1995 article, page 12, and I quote:

`The Philippines may have been in an uproar over Singapore's execution of Flor Contemplacion, but President Fidel Ramos didn't know it.'

This is also what this article says:

`A close aide complains that during the president's trip to Europe, his staff is giving him "sanitized" reports on the widespread indignation over Singapore's hanging of the Filipina domestic helper. "They were telling us that everything's okay in Manila, and that the backlash would be manageable."'

The article goes on to say:

`Ramos was shocked when he arrived home to find demonstrators blaming his administration for failing to save Contemplacion.'

If, according to these reports, the Philippine leaders were taken by surprise, the question is how could we have known much better than them? And I think it is fair to say that the facts were that some of the media there and some of the Opposition politicians had skilfully and quickly capitalised on this into an anti-government and anti-Ramos campaign, linking it at the same time with a broader emotional issue of their government's handling of millions of overseas Filipino workers.

Looking back, had we known that we would provoke such an uproar, would we have still refused to delay the execution, as several Members have said? With hindsight, it is of course very easy to say that we should have known, we ought to have done this, and so on. To give a candid answer, yes, we could have conceivably granted a stay till after the Philippine elections on 8th May. But to those who say there is no harm, no cost, let me say it would not have been without cost, and it would have been a very difficult decision. Why? On the one hand, firstly, we have no intention to get involved in their internal domestic politics. Secondly, we have very good bilateral relations and it was not our intention to jeopardise it. It was our intention to build on it. Thirdly, we have considerable investments in the Philippines.

On the other hand, we had to take into account certain other important factors. Firstly, we had to note that the agitation and the demonstrations in the Philippines were really not over the stay, not over whether we had given face, but over the grant of clemency. Those who were building up the excitement and agitation were really not interested in whether we were giving a stay. But they wanted a complete pardon for Flor Contemplacion because they were convinced that she was innocent. And we had to consider carefully the fact that if we granted a stay, it could be raising false hopes unjustifiably.

Next, we had also to consider what would be the implications in view of the various security threats, bomb threats and threats to the life of various people in our Manila Mission. I do not want to go into the details but I should inform the House, and the House should know, that in the days before the Cabinet decision was taken, our Embassy was receiving several threats. Some of course can be dismissed as frivolous and hoax but not all.

I will just take an entry from one of the logs in our logbook. Monday, 13th March, there were four threats. At 11.45 am, a man called to say that a bomb would explode that day. At 11.50 am, a man claiming to be a member of a terrorist group, and I am leaving out the name of the so-called terrorist group, telephoned the Embassy's receptionist and said that all Filipino employees should get out of the Embassy by the time of the execution so that no Filipino employees of the Embassy would be hurt. At 11.53 am, a man claiming to be a member of the same terrorist group said that they were going to destroy the Ambassador's car. At 2.30 pm, a man called and said, "In 30 minutes' time, please leave the Embassy."

Now, Members should reflect: supposing we granted a stay in these circumstances? Would anyone really believe that we did it out of compassion and not because we had been cowed and intimidated? This question is worth reflecting.

Another consideration, an important one, is whether we would be setting a most undesirable precedent for future similar cases. Let me explain. Firstly, if we agree to appeals for stay of execution or clemency for foreign offenders, when there are no grounds to do so on the merits of the case, or on the evidence of the case, is it not surely an invitation, in every other case, for a foreign national and his lawyers to pressurise his home government to intervene on his behalf? It must be. And the Singapore Government would be hard put not to yield if it had already established a precedent.

In this regard, Members may not know this, but I should inform Members that we regularly receive petitions for clemency from various governments. Some are publicised and hit the headlines like in this case and in the case of the Dutch drug trafficker, Van Damme. But many do not hit the headlines because those governments prefer to do it in a quiet approach, in other words, quiet diplomacy.

The way that we handle petitions from different governments is important. We must be even-handed and fair and treat all petitions with respect and seriousness on the merits of the case. What we do for one we will have to do for another. We value our relations with ASEAN colleagues highly. But there cannot be one standard for ASEAN appeals and another standard for non-ASEAN appeals. Also, it is not tenable for us to accede to appeals which have been highly publicised and turn down appeals which are of the same merit but were turned down because they have not become media issues and contentious issues. To do so, in fact, you are penalising governments which have opted for the quiet diplomatic approach.

Next, if we make special concessions for foreign nationals, for reasons other than on the merits of the case, Members should consider what happens to our own Singapore nationals who are also sentenced to death, ie, our nationals who also have no basis on merits, on evidence, to warrant clemency or stay of execution. They do not have a foreign government to pressurise the Singapore Government. They do not have an irresponsible tabloid press to write up lurid, sensational, bizarre allegations. Is the solution then to also give them a stay of execution when there are really no grounds on merits to do so? Surely, that cannot be done. That is why I say that, even looking back, yes, we could have conceivably given a stay, but it would have been a close judgement call.

Mr Deputy Speaker, let me say a few words about the diplomatic phase. Our objective during this diplomatic phase was really to manage the events in a way that did not lead to further deterioration in relations with the Philippine government. And this phase was marked by the following features. First, exercise of restraint. Second, cooperating with President Ramos and his government. Third, keeping lines of communication open.

First, exercise of restraint. Members have already spoken and noted that we had exercised as much restraint despite many provocative articles. John De Payva asked, "Why didn't we reply to this article about Senior Minister?" In fact, the full article, if you read it, said Senior Minister was informed and his assistance obtained and he got Jayakumar and then the maid Flor Contemplacion was fixed. For those of us who had been reading every day the faxes of the many newspapers that were coming in, there were many, many wild and bizarre stories, and we decided to make a distinction between a tabloid press, media hype and make sure that we do not over-react to these absurd stories. They were so absurd and bizarre that no reasonable person would have given them much credence. But when reaction was called for, Members would agree that we gave a robust rebuttal. When the Gancayco Commission came out with the absurd allegations, we had to respond and respond we did in clear-cut terms. When the integrity of our pathologists and our United States consultants was attacked, we also had to come out rebutting the absurd allegations.

Next, we cooperated with President Ramos and his government. I will give you some examples. When the Gancayco Commission was established, I was in touch with the Foreign Secretary and I assured him full cooperation. We sent bundles of documents about the court proceedings, all the relevant exhibits, photographs, autopsy reports. We even offered to send the police investigator in charge of the case. If the Gancayco Commission wanted to interview him, he would be at their disposal. We had nothing to hide.

President Ramos proposed that when their National Bureau of Investigation's autopsy, after the exhumation, differed from our autopsy report and that there should be a third party panel, we agreed. Later on, they wanted our pathologists to go and view the remains in Manila. Our preference had been to go to a neutral venue so that emotions would not be there. But we were asked, "Please come.". We agreed. We wanted to bring our consultants with our pathologists, but they said that they should not be British or Commonwealth. We agreed. When our consultants were going there, they asked our consultants not to speak at the joint press conference. We agreed. Then they wanted the FBI to be the authority to submit the names of the panel. So we have tried to understand the predicament of the government in that particular situation and our interest was to cooperate and distinguish our objective of cooperating with the Philippine government from the other circus that was being orchestrated by opposition politicians and the media.

As I said, during this diplomatic phase, while we kept the channels of communication open and while the sound and fury of the media and opposition thundered on, many did not know it. But we kept open the lines of communication between the leaders. For example, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and President Ramos spoke on the telephone at least on four occasions and had corresponded at least six times. Foreign Secretary Roberto Romulo and I kept in regular touch with each other. We spoke on the telephone at least on 14 occasions. We corresponded, faxes to his office or to his home, and he was faxing things to my home or my office, at least about 20 times. We met in Bandung, not so long ago, and had three meetings. In other words, the Foreign Ministers were in almost daily communication during this delicate period. And, in fact, strange as it may seem, both Foreign Ministers were able to negotiate through the phone and fax and conclude a written agreement called Agreed Points on the steps to establish a third party panel. We concluded this agreement and we signed it on 29th April 1995, one day before Foreign Secretary Romulo stepped down.

I have not met the new Foreign Secretary Domingo Saizon personally, but we have already established contact because we have spoken to each other on the telephone. In other words, while we were having this delicate and trying period, the leaders tried to keep their cool. We were aware of the broader considerations in maintaining bilateral relations on an even keel. And both Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers played their role in trying to keep contact with each other so that we would not read the signals wrongly about government-to-government intentions.

Just to brief the House quickly on the current developments in the diplomatic phase. In the Agreed Points between the two Foreign Ministers, we have agreed that since the first stage of examining the remains in Manila was inconclusive and there were still contradictory findings, both our Prime Minister and President Ramos had agreed to resolve this difference in the contradictory findings. And to resolve it conclusively, there shall be a third party panel. Both leaders agreed also to abide by the findings of the third party panel. The two Foreign Ministers worked out the Agreed Points that there will be a third party panel of three. In order to establish the three, we originally approached FBI but FBI recommended the American Board of Pathologists who had in turn recommended seven names. In fact, I have already written to Foreign Secretary Domingo Saizon to say that Singapore is ready to proceed with the process of selecting three out of the seven. Hopefully, this will be done soon and the third party panel will get down to work. Under the Agreed Points, the remains of Della Maga will be sent to a neutral place, United States, and the final conclusive determination will be made by the third party panel.

To summarise, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I hope at the end of the debate and after you have heard my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, Members will be satisfied that all due attention, including the due full process of the law, was given to Flor Contemplacion. And I wish to stress that there was no indication at that time that the case would be so intensely involved in the internal politics of the Philippines and would blow up the way it did.

Sir, the job of the Government is to make decisions based on national interest. Maintaining law and order, apprehending offenders, prosecuting offenders, are part of our national interest. Maintaining friendly relations with foreign countries is also in the national interest. In the case of Flor Contemplacion, we have to balance, on the one hand, keeping relations between Singapore and the Philippines on an even keel and, on the other hand, upholding the integrity and transparency of our legal and judicial process.

Whether or not things would have turned out differently if our decision had been different, ie, allow a stay even though we felt there were no merits, I am afraid, is a matter of speculation. But it is unlikely that this will be the last such incident. I say it is unlikely because we have nearly seven million tourists every year. We have more than 300,000 work permit holders, including more than 80,000 domestic workers. Fortunately, the majority are law abiding. But, inevitably, some are not. Some commit offences. Due process of the law must follow. We cannot waive prosecution and grant clemency only because the accused is a foreigner. That will mean double standards, one for foreigners and one for Singaporeans.

When we enforce our laws, from time to time such problems will surface and indeed may be more serious than what we have encountered in this episode, and Singaporeans must be prepared for this.

Sir, at the government-to-government level, relations between Singapore and the Philippines remain cordial. We value our relations with the Philippines. We hold nothing against the Philippine government or the Philippine people. As I said, the leaders of the two governments and the Foreign Ministers are in close contact. In fact, Singapore and the Philippine delegations continue to work closely in ASEAN. But both sides must also strive to restore people-to-people relations, and restore it to what it was before the Flor Contemplacion case. And this is what President Ramos has also said and is reported in today's papers. We need to cool down emotions and restore mutual confidence. And businessmen, investors and tourists must feel completely assured that they are indeed welcome by the hosts and neither the persons nor the businesses will be threatened or, worse, endangered. Then only the flow of trade, investments and tourism will return to normal. This may take some time.

In order to get this process of people-to-people relationship on the way, both governments should now proceed to appoint a third party panel of experts which both sides have agreed will resolve the contradiction in findings between the Philippine NBI experts and Singapore pathologists. This will determine whether Flor Contemplacion was a victim of grave injustice, as the Gancayco Commission claimed, or whether she was properly convicted and sentenced for the murder of Della Maga, as our courts have found. Thereafter, as the two governments have agreed, if the neutral panel finds the Philippine NBI is correct, Singapore will reopen the Flor Contemplacion case. And if the panel finds that the Singapore pathologists are correct, then the Philippines will abide by this finding.

Sir, we must not leave any lingering doubts over the death of Della Maga and the execution of Flor Contemplacion to poison relations, especially people-to-people relations between Singapore and the Philippines. This issue must be conclusively settled one way or the other. Only thus can we put the matter to rest permanently and achieve a full reconciliation between the people of Singapore and the people of the Philippines.