EXECUTION OF FLOR CONTEMPLACION

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [25th May, 1995],

"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." - [Dr Kanwaljit Soin]

Question again proposed.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, after listening to the speeches yesterday, I am inclined to believe that the issue in this debate is not whether we should have granted a stay of execution for Flor Contemplacion but whether due process of the law was made available to Flor Contemplacion. As a layman I believe that there was adequate provision and time for Flor Contemplacion to seek redress on her case. In fact, I see the second trial as evidence of this. A private psychiatrist had pointed out that Flor Contemplacion could be suffering from diminished responsibility and he must have had evidence to provide this. It was an important piece of observation which must be addressed seriously and thus a second trial.

This possibility of diminished responsibility was subsequently refuted at the trial. Yesterday, we heard Prof. Jayakumar's very detailed account to Members of this House how his Ministry together with the Ministry of Home Affairs carefully checked evidence and appeals to ensure that Flor Contemplacion was not a victim of miscarriage of justice. It was a very thorough exercise. In other words, Flor Contemplacion had been given every opportunity to prove her innocence through the various representations and avenues open to her.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Philippines is special to us because she is our ASEAN partner and because she is special we stayed cool and calm and did what we considered very necessary. For example, we did the right thing by restraining from commenting on reports by their mass media. But we had to respond to reports that were official, like the Gancayco report. We did the right thing again when we protested strongly on the burning of the Singapore flag. Some foreigners asked me why we get so worked up over such a thing. To the people of Philippines, flag burning is not uncommon. To us Singaporeans, the flag is an important national symbol. It has become an institution on which we build unity and strength. While others may allow their flag to be abused by making shirts out of their flags, we do not and should not allow it to be an object of such abuse. So we proudly fly the Singapore flag on very special occasions, especially during National Day celebrations.

Where do we go from here? Yes, Singaporeans were saddened by the reactions of the Philippine government. My constituents were especially saddened by the whole episode. Let me explain. My constituents were involved in three massive exercises to help the flood victims in the Philippines. It was massive because each time they collected at least two plane-loads of clothing from their house-to-house collections. It was a huge community effort. It was painstaking packing the clothes and bundling them according to the age group needs. Then there was logistic problem of transport to overcome.

In the first exercise, I even persuaded our SAF planes to help out to fly the clothes and blankets to the victims via Clark Air Base in the Philippines. At the end of the exercise, the Philippine Ambassador, Mr Francisco Benedicto, invited the helpers to his residence to thank them and treated them to dinner and a special cultural programme especially flown in from the Philippines. I was presented with a "thank you" letter from President Corazon Aquino for my constituents' generosity and gesture of goodwill. Such was the happy relations between the Philippines, Ayer Rajah constituency and Singaporeans.

Therefore, when my constituents saw the reaction of the Filipinos on TV burning our flag and threatening our Singaporeans, some expressed regret that they ever toiled so hard in the past to help them. I cannot blame them for expressing out their feelings, but I explained to them that we should distinguish the two issues. One is for a humanitarian cause and, if we are able, we should continue to do so while the other, the Flor Contemplacion case, is a politically motivated one.

However, relationship is now soured. Mr Romulo, former Foreign Secretary, has summed up the feelings and observations of many of us and there is no point to add further to his comments. Perhaps we should take the cue from Prof. Jayakumar's call and Mr Ramos' call yesterday to mend relations. We should keep the lines of communication between our leaders and the Filipino leaders open. Everybody knows that Flor Contemplacion was exploited as an election issue against President Ramos. Now that the elections are over, we hope good sense will prevail to put the issue behind us and to start a new chapter of relationship in the coming years.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when I came into this Chamber this afternoon, I was disappointed because I did not see the Opposition Members here. We are discussing an important motion concerning our judicial system and the Police and yet the Opposition Members are not here.

Yesterday, apart from Mr Chiam See Tong, the other Opposition Members did not speak because they were not here. Now, I see Mr Ling How Doong is here and I feel more comforted. I hope Mr Ling will speak on behalf of the SDP or all the Opposition Members, telling us their stand on the Flor Contemplacion case. I hope he will do that.

Yesterday, I heard what the Minister for Law and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Prof. Jayakumar, said, and I felt he was very thorough and patient in his explanation. At last, the people of Singapore will understand that in a matter like this, it cannot be dealt with in just a few sentences. We have cudgelled our brains and taken so much trouble and care to stand firm on our position and to handle this very complicated matter in a moderate and restrained manner. I believe the people of Singapore will now have a better understanding of the whole issue.

I believe we have gained a good deal of enlightenment from this episode. First, Singapore and the Philippines are still friendly countries. We are still good friends not only at the official level but also at the people-to-people level. I only believe that a very small minority of people will add fuel to fire over such an issue. At the same time, I feel that from this episode we can see that the Singapore Government has been very consistent in handling both domestic and international matters. Its practice is to be firm, mature, cautious and moderate in handling such matters.

The third revelation we can draw from this incident is that the people of Singapore are very cool and cautious. They have full confidence in what the Government is doing and they give the Government their full support, albeit quietly. So we can say that our people have confirmed and reaffirmed our judicial system and diplomatic policy. When we saw our national flag being burnt publicly in the Philippines, a number of our people were noticeably upset and they voiced their anger, but the vast majority of Singaporeans have exercised restraint and caution over such a matter. For this, I feel we should give Singaporeans our admiration and praises.

While praising Singaporeans, I cannot help but have doubts over the manner and intention of the Opposition parties at the same time. Why do I say that? On 10th April 1995, the SDP wrote a letter to President Ramos. On 23rd March, they issued a statement. On 11th April, 1995 the Workers' Party also issued a statement. What did they say? Let us first look at the letter signed by Mr Ling. The letter was addressed to the President of the Philippines. In the letter, he said -

Mr Ling How Doong (Bukit Gombak) (In Mandarin): Read it aloud!

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Never mind, everybody can read it afterwards. There is no need to waste time. You wrote the letter, you can read it aloud afterwards!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: ( In Mandarin): In general, Mr Ling alleged that the Singapore Government has not been restrained enough in dealing with the matter. He wanted both Singapore and the Philippines to be mutually restrained in the matter. Reading between the lines, we can see that Mr Ling has some doubt over the judicial system of Singapore.

Mr Ling How Doong: No.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: ( In Mandarin): He said no. Very good! He can tell us about that later.

In their press statement, the SDP held the view that the incident was very emotional, fiery, explosive and was not good for both parties. So both parties should exercise self-restraint. In this whole episode, when has the Singapore Government become emotional or made an explosive reaction? No, it has not!

So Mr Ling How Doong should have, in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition, written to President Ramos telling him to advise the small group of people in the Philippines not to hold demonstration in the streets or to burn the Singapore national flag. He should tell the President that the integrity of the judicial system in Singapore is never in doubt. If he had done that, he would be truly capable of helping Singapore. He would then be speaking as a true Singaporean, to say a few words for Singapore in his capacity as the Leader of the Opposition in Singapore, like Mr Chiam See Tong. If Mr Chiam is still the Secretary-General of the SDP, then what he said in this House yesterday would be significant and representative. I believe all the PAP Members would respect him very much for that.

Having dealt with the SDP, let us look at the Workers' Party. Mr Low Thia Khiang is here now. Let us look at the statement issued by his Party. They said that in the circumstances, the judicial system of Singapore was being "put on trial". Was it a trial? The judicial system of Singapore is not something that was only established in 1995. It has a long history. Over the years, many people have been sentenced to death or to imprisonment under the judicial system in Singapore. If there is any problem with our judicial system, you do not have to wait until the Flor Contemplacion case in 1995. There would have been riots and demonstrations more than 20 years ago. We would not be sitting here comfortably to review all the cases.

The two Opposition parties, in such circumstances, issued such statements and wrote to President Ramos. I would like to ask them what was their intention. Are they of any help to the matter? Mr Ling wrote that if there was anything they could do to help, the SDP would be glad to oblige. But, in fact, the matter has already settled down now. In what way have the SDP statement and the letter to President Ramos helped in the matter? I feel that basically they were merely trying to stir up a storm in a tea cup, trying to find fault and gain political capital. I suspect that they were "desiring to see the world plunged into chaos". Why did they not take the matter as it was? Mr Ling is a senior lawyer, like Mr Chiam. They are both senior practising lawyers. If they have no doubt about the judicial system in Singapore, let them stand up and say so. Why did they not do so? Why did they not write to President Ramos and ask him to advise his people to stop demonstrating or burning our national flag, but to calm down and settle the matter in a more mature and peaceful manner?

So much has been said about the death penalty being imposed on Flor Contemplacion. What about the two victims in the murder case, a Filipina and a Singaporean boy of only 4 years old. If the people of Singapore were also as emotional, then we would have demonstrated and burnt their flag because a Singaporean had been killed. But we have not done so!

On the other hand, the SDP and the Workers' Party have behaved in such a way as to give rise to doubt over their intentions. They have also referred to the handling of this case by our Police. They have cast doubt over the way the investigation was conducted by the Police. There was one Dr Switzer, an expert from America, who had visited many countries in the world, including Mexico, the European countries, etc. When he came to Singapore he made a speech and said that if he had to be tried anywhere in the world, he would choose to be tried in Singapore. A senior expert of great authority has so much confidence in our judiciary and police. That is a very strong reaffirmation.

The SDP stated in their press statement that the Singapore Government had done badly in its diplomacy, and that we had often ridiculed others and hurting their pride. When we talk about the Philippines, Hong Kong, Thailand, USA, Taiwan, Mexico, Australia, UK, India and New Zealand, we passed comments on them. I believe they are referring to points made by our leaders in their speeches, especially Prime Minister Goh and Senior Minister Lee. Take Senior Minister Lee, for example. He had been the Prime Minister of Singapore for many years. In order that the other countries may share in his vast experience in bringing about the development and prosperity of Singapore, he has been travelling far and wide, around the world, at the invitation of various countries. In fact, he will be travelling to Paris today. He has often received requests from political and commercial leaders of other countries and organisations to make keynote speeches in different circumstances. He was able to share his views and experiences with all these audiences throughout the world. This is not something that any ordinary leader can do. He has such an extremely high standard of nobility and ability which has been acclaimed by leaders of other countries and affirmed by them. If, in so many speeches, there have been adverse reactions from the foreign sources, do you think today he will be flying to Paris again to make an official visit and be invited to speak on important occasions? It would not be possible. Do you think Hong Kong would invite him to speak? No. Do you think Australia would invite him to speak? No. Will he be invited to speak at the Senate of the United States of America? The answer would be no again.

Foreign investors are still coming in here. They have not stopped coming. Singapore's economy has still been developing. No damage has been done because of his speeches. The answer is very clear. This shows very clearly that our leaders, like Senior Minister Lee's position, has very high standing in the world. It shows that the views expressed in various areas have very great value of reference. So for such a well esteemed world-class leader, how could he say things at random without consideration for others, as alleged by Chee Soon Juan? If Senior Minister Lee is an arrogant person who interferes with other people's domestic affairs, how can his deeds and words be reaffirmed by leaders of other countries? How would he be invited, again and again, by others to share his experiences and express his views?

Through this incident, I believe that the Opposition parties, especially the SDP, are not only trying to express their party's views over the Contemplacion's case, but actually trying to add fuel to fire to gain political capital. This is what they are trying to do. I can see through there and, therefore, I hope that the two Opposition Members here will be able to use this opportunity to clarify their position. Firstly, what is their stand over our judicial system and police in the trial and investigation of Flor Contemplacion case. If they have any doubt or suspicion over our judicial system, let them give concrete examples to prove their point. Secondly, I would ask them to answer this question. Do they think that Singapore has given Flor Contemplacion a fair trial? In handling this matter, is there any mistake on the part of Singapore? After hearing them, I think the people of Singapore will be able to use their eyes and mind to judge the stand and position of the Opposition parties. Singaporeans will know, through this incident, what is the true intention of the Opposition parties, ie, whether the other Opposition Members will behave like Mr Chiam See Tong to express their support for the Government or the People's Action Party to move ahead in the event of any crisis. You can bend your fingers inwards but not outwards. I hope we will all learn from this lesson.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, originally I did not intend to speak on this motion raised by the two Nominated MPs. From the beginning of this incident and the hysterical and irrational reaction of the Filipino people, I regard the whole episode as nothing but a farce. I do not believe the reports in the Philippine newspapers nor the preposterous stories concerning the Filipina maid. That is why originally I was prepared to just sit back and listen to the Government's explanation. But from the arguments put forward by the PAP Members yesterday, I note with profound regret that this motion raised by the two Nominated MPs has been deliberately used by the PAP to attack the Opposition parties. This is indeed regrettable.

Yesterday, from the arguments raised by the PAP Members, especially the attack on the statement issued by the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party, they said that we were not supporting Singapore and also that we were attacking the judicial system. The Lianhe Zaobao did not publish the statement by the Workers' Party. But on 25th April, in the Forum page, a reader attacked the Workers' Party's statement and said that we were trying to gain some political capital. The clarification by the Chairman of the Workers' Party was carried by the Lianhe Zaobao on 26th April. I do not know whether the PAP Members have the habit of not reading the Chinese newspapers or they have not understood the clarification given in our article, or that they are just trying to forcibly label us as "anti-nation" and "anti-people". Now, they are questioning the validity of the said statement. I can say without any reservation to the PAP Members that the leaders and members of the Workers' Party are patriotic citizens of Singapore. If we have no sense of belonging with Singapore and if we do not wish Singapore to be prosperous and progressive, so that our people would have a better quality of life, then we should not be participating in politics, especially in the political environment of Singapore, to be in the Opposition.

Let me get back to the main issue. Originally, we did not expect the matter to be developed into such an extent that our relationships could be strained. But when the Gancayco Commission appointed by the Philippine President raised such an incredible challenge against the credibility of our judicial system and our forensic pathologists, coupled with the fact that prior to the appointment of this Commission, the Philippine President had said that if the Commission found Contemplacion to have been unjustly convicted he would terminate diplomatic relations with Singapore, the Workers' Party realised that this matter could well go out of hand. Singapore would have to face the challenge and we have to tackle it in a manner which would not cause further souring up of relationship between the two countries, or even affect the solidarity of ASEAN. It was in such a context that the Workers' Party issued a statement suggesting arbitration by an independent third party or the international court to show that our system can withstand any test or scrutiny. In the conclusion of our statement, the Workers' Party urged that, in the spirit of ASEAN cooperation, the governments of Singapore and the Philippines present the issues in contention to an independent commission for arbitration. The stand and suggestion put forward in our statement is in conformity with international practice. This is a patriotic and practical approach to the matter by a mature political party. Now the Workers' Party is glad to learn that the Philippines has agreed to refer the matter to a group of independent forensic pathologists from the United States of America for arbitration.

Perhaps some people may ask: "If the Workers' Party is supportive of Singapore, then why have we not openly attacked the Philippines? Why did we not defend our system?" Under the circumstances at that time, would it be useful if we were to openly attack the Philippines, or would it just put fuel to fire, and further stir up the emotions of the Filipinos, thereby making the matter worse? When the Philippine people burnt our national flag, the Mayor of the town was present. They even used our national flag as a floor mat. Under the PAP's standard of patriotism, is the Workers' Party required to burn the Philippine national flag, or to stage a demonstration and throw stones at the Philippine Embassy in Singapore, then can it be said to be patriotic? Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a strongly-worded statement of protest to President Ramos, after the flag-burning incident. This has left a deep impression on me. But when the Philippine President simply ignored the protest, I could not help asking myself what should be our next step to deal with such unreasonable and contemptuous attitude of the Philippines. I do not believe that the Workers' Party should take any action more drastic than that taken by the PAP Government just to show our unhappiness, and thus further aggravating the matter.

As to why we did not stand up to defend Singapore, for the Workers' Party to come forward and defend Singapore, could there be any effect? The Government had already issued a detailed defence and rebuttal. The Workers' Party has never doubted it. Can the Workers' Party issue a more thorough and more detailed rebuttal and defence? Even if we had issued it, will the people in Philippines then cool down? So, we feel that the best way of settling the matter is to present it to an international court or a third independent country to deal with the matter. That was why we made the statement after careful consideration.

Now, let me talk about what lessons the Government should learn from this incident.

Firstly, political sensitivity. Yesterday the Foreign Minister said that there was no indication to show that this seemingly simple matter could be developed into such a serious situation. Of course, our Cabinet Ministers are human beings. They are not gods, not omnipotent and not prophets. It was not possible for them to accurately predict what was going to happen. This is understandable. But the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should understand clearly the political culture, political emotion and political environment in the Philippines, and should also know that the Philippines was going to have its general election for the Senate. In an election, any small matter can be blown up into a big matter. Extra care must be taken in dealing with matters in a foreign country during its election season. More importantly, in diplomatic dealings, sometimes one has to exercise not only rational judgement but also some inspiration and intuition.

Secondly, the balance and priority of political and foreign policies. I think the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had been putting too much emphasis in fostering better relationship with foreign governments and their business people, and neglecting the feelings of other interested parties and their opposition parties or to maintain friendly relationship with them. Of course, I am not encouraging the Singapore Government to interfere in other people's domestic affairs or to instigate their opposition parties or interested parties. By maintaining a link with these non-mainstream political parties and organisations, surely we will be in a better position to understand their trend and movements. Maintaining a friendly relationship with them will also prevent them from making a political issue with Singapore as the subject matter. The PAP Government should remember that other countries are different from Singapore. Their non-mainstream political parties and pressure groups can also exert pressure on their government and force their government to change their policies, or even overthrow the government.

Thirdly, the principle and flexibility of our Government in diplomacy. Of course, we have to maintain our beliefs and our principles. Regretfully, after the Government bowed to the pressure of the American President and reduced two strokes of the cane on Michael Fay, we have set a very bad precedent. Now, whenever the Head of a foreign state openly petitions on behalf of his subject, if the Government does not give a satisfactory reply, it will be looked upon as not "giving face" to him or looking down on his country, as it is not as strong as the United States of America. Therefore, from now onwards, public petition has become very sensitive, and has become a knotty diplomatic problem for the Government.

Yesterday, the Foreign Minister said that Singapore had received a lot of petitions from other countries - some openly and some not so openly. But we should have a uniform standard and principle. However, my view is that there is a vast difference in political significance between petitions that are made public and those that are not made public. They should not be treated equally without without distinction. How do we deal with them satisfactorily and tactfully? I think the Government should know what to do.

Fourthly, the hostile attitude of the foreign media against Singapore. I notice that, in recent years, the foreign media have a lot of criticisms against Singapore and the Government has also taken a very strong stand on that. Of course, for reports and criticisms which are incorrect or misrepresented, the Government should take strong steps to rebut them and to put the matter right. However, if we do not establish good relationship with the foreign media at the same time and keep on treating each other with strong hostility, then, of course, they will not speak up for Singapore. Sometimes, given the opportunity, they may even add fuel to fire. This will be quite a massive obstacle to Singapore's move towards regionalisation and internationalisation. Generally speaking, in the ever changing political and international scene, Singapore is a small country and we need friends. We need to have not only strong and powerful friends but also those who are not in power but may have influence. We cannot be so down-to-earth and choose to only befriend those who are strong and powerful, and neglect the others.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said what I wish to say. Of course, the PAP members can misconstrue my words, as they always do, to allege that I am anti-nation and anti-people. What I want to tell the PAP is that I am disgusted with their deliberate labelling of people who hold differing views and who criticize the Government.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: May I seek clarification, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: ( In Mandarin): I am very happy. At least Mr Low has said on behalf of the Workers' Party that they are all patriots. But I would like to ask him a few questions.

We ask them to support Singapore, but the People's Action Party will certainly not ask them to burn the national flag or to stage a demonstration. The PAP will never deal with matters in such an emotional manner. We cannot put their thinking as ours, and allege that this was what we wanted them to do.

What we are asking them to do is to tell Singaporeans what is their view and stand on the matter. As he has said, what can you do, can you control the situation? Impossible! Then why should they issue a statement? They might as well save themselves the trouble of issuing the statement. Since they wanted to issue a statement, that goes to show that they believe they can serve a meaningful purpose, to a certain extent. But, in the very first paragraph of the statement, they said that our judicial system was put on trial. What sort of trial do they think our judicial system was put on? He should have said that our judicial system was reaffirmed and confirmed. He said that our diplomacy is no good. We have been independent for more than 30 years. What blunders have we made in the diplomatic scene? Give me an example.

Next, he said that we should give face to others and be considerate to others because we are a small country. Although we are small, we are self-sufficient. Does he want us to suffer humiliation and insult? Can he please explain?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Issuing a statement on some national or international matters to clarify our stand is what a responsible political party should do. Of course, we know our limits but we can make suggestions. In our statement, we have given some suggestions. We urge the Philippines and the Singapore Government to settle the matter in a peaceful manner by referring it to an independent Commission for arbitration. I believe that the Member had not read carefully the statement of the Workers' Party. In the first paragraph of our statement, we urged the Singapore Government to seek the consent of the Philippine government to present the matter to an independent party. I believe the Member had not carefully read our press release. On the matter of "face", of course, Singapore is small but we have everything. We do not need to live in humiliation. We have to face reality. We have to deal with the matter in a proper and diplomatic manner. We do not have to live in humiliation. We can defend our country. But does it mean that we have to act emotionally? For example, on the burning of our national flag, are we going to play up the matter, and put ourselves in a precarious situation where we have to prepare for war? Is it necessary?

What I am emphasising now is how we are going to settle this matter peacefully. Through the diplomatic channel, can we deal with the matter tactfully? When the Singapore Government decided to reduce two strokes of caning on Michael Fay, I feel that it has created a problem: how are we going to deal with the matter in future? I think the Government should have thought carefully about it.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: ( In Mandarin): I would like to clarify. When I referred to the first paragraph, I actually meant the second paragraph.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Just now you mentioned the first paragraph.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: ( In Mandarin): In the beginning of the second paragraph, it says, "The party wishes to stress ... machinery for justice is on trial as a result of the report of the Commission." The Philippine President's Commission has given its report. Is he saying that such a report can prompt the Workers' Party to say that our judicial system is put on trial? Please give examples to show how and why our judicial system is put on trial. Does he think we have any problem with our judicial system? If so, give us examples and show where the problem is. If there is no problem, then should all the decisions made by our Singapore courts, be referred to a third party for review or retrial for them to look into our judicial system? This is what they said in the second paragraph. Can he please explain?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Mr Choo has said that if we have confidence in our judicial system, then there is no need to be checked by others. This is a very typical attitude of the PAP Government - "we are the best, no matter how!" I would say, on the contrary, if we have confidence in our judicial system, we should allow anybody to examine us. There is nothing to hide.

I believe that Mr Choo is also a Teochew. There is a saying in Teochew, which translated literally, means: "When you praise yourself you do not realize that it stinks." It is useless to say how good you are. In our statement, why did we say that our judicial system was put on trial? As I have said in my speech just now, imagine a Commission appointed by the President issued such a ridiculous challenge to our judicial system, and alleged that we made a mess of the matter. If you keep on saying that we are right, we are just, then do you think they will believe us? Can the matter be settled? You say your piece, I say my piece. Then how are we going to settle the matter? So let us have an independent third party to arbitrate and settle the matter. I have the confidence. Just as we agreed that the pathologists' report be referred to an independent third party for final arbitration. The same principle applies! I have confidence in our forensic pathologists, and not that I have no confidence in them!

Sir, Mr Choo said just now that he wanted to know my stand on this matter. In my view, Flor Contemplacion had been given a fair trial under our judicial system. I have no doubt whatsoever that our judicial system is good. So he should not distort our intention.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Low has patiently explained the view of his Party. I am quite happy about it. Finally, he says that he has no doubt about our judicial system. Since there is no doubt, then why should we get a third party to examine whether our system is all right or not? We got two American experts to go to the Philippines but their finding has also been rejected by the Philippines. When can we put a stop to all these? Each time you have an expert to say something, they will say that it is wrong and ridiculous. So there will be no end to all that. I feel that Mr Low should tell us, as a representative of the Workers' Party and a member of the Opposition, whether he has any doubt over our judicial system. If there is no doubt, then why should he suggest that our judicial system be examined by a third party? Is that a healthy way of doing things? Is it a sound way of doing things? Can he tell us where else in the world has the judicial system of a country been subjected to examination by a third party?

The next point is that he used a Teochew saying that the PAP is always praising itself, and the praises are worthless. From the beginning to the end, none of us has ever claimed that our judicial system is the best in the world. So I hope he should be careful in what he says. He cannot put words into our mouth.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know whether Mr Choo has failed to understand what I have said, or he is deliberately distorting my words. First of all, subjecting this matter to an independent party for arbitration is because the Commission had raised a lot of criticisms against our judicial system.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: ( In Mandarin): But if you agree, then that means you have no doubt in our judicial system.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Whether I agree or not is not the point. Others have already raised doubts.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Do you agree or not?

Mr Speaker: Order. Will Members please address their remarks to the Chair?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): The point is that other people have already raised doubts. How are we going to prove and confirm that we are not in the wrong? I am not saying that the PAP members are unstinkingly praising themselves. I am saying that, under such circumstances, even if you keep on painstakingly explaining the matter, just like what I have been trying to do, it is no use. People will still criticise us. So we say, "Well, all right, if the Singapore judicial system is good, let us present ourselves before a third party and prove our case! Let us respect its final arbitration." If we have no confidence in ourselves, then we would not dare to do this. This is what I was trying to say just now and this is also the main point in the Workers' Party's statement. Mr Choo has said that such a statement is not effective. It is useless. Now, the Singapore Government has agreed with the Philippine government to have an independent group of pathologists to settle the pathologists' report. Is Mr Choo saying that this is also useless? If he thinks so, then he should tell the PAP Government that this is useless, and we should look for other methods to settle the matter.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: ( In Mandarin): When we agreed in the first instance to invite three well-known forensic experts from the US to the Philippines, the result was in keeping with our findings. Three international authorities in the forensic science had come to the same findings as ours, but the other party refused to accept.

As far as I am personally concerned, even if we go to a third party for another opinion, the end result will be the same because I believe, and I have confidence, in our system. From the beginning to the end, I have been consistent and I firmly believe that our judicial system is right and sound. There is no need for another party to judge our system. That is completely wrong. If he does not agree, then he can ask our two lawyer friends here in this House who will explain to him.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that Mr Choo is confused. The first time when Singapore employed three pathologists, they were employed by Singapore, but not agreed by the Philippine government. The most important thing is that we must get the Philippine side to mutually agree, to have the matter referred to a third party and accept the assessment of a third party. Only then can they extricate themselves from the awkward position. If you employ your own pathologists and they confirm your findings, then of course there is nothing wrong with our system. I personally believe there is nothing wrong. But then, how is the Philippine side going to extricate themselves? So, diplomatically and politically, we have to find a way for them to extricate themselves. That is, if both sides agree, get an independent third party to assess, accept its view and settle the matter. This is the main point of my argument. It is not a question of whether we have confidence in our judicial system or not.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang rose ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Choo, I have allowed you to seek clarification, but you seem to be raising more new points.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law and the Minister for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, we can learn useful lessons from this episode. These include the need for a strong defence; for us to lessen dependence on one source of foreign labour; for strong government; for the electorate to see through political posturing; for a responsible media, and for Singaporeans to understand regional sensitivities. I am sure, Sir, in due course, more will be said of these precious lessons.

For now, I want to focus on just one lesson - which is that the Opposition we have in Singapore is not responsible and falls short of proper conduct, even in the context of adversarial politics.

Sir, these have been trying times for Singapore and Singaporeans. We watched on television the burning of our national flags by cheering and jeering Filipinos; we read of Singaporeans not being welcomed in the Philippines; we heard of wild accusations about our criminal justice system. Some Singaporeans were agitated, worked up. But as a people, we kept our cool. We remained calm and restrained. Singaporeans knew that the Government was working hard behind the scenes, handling the ever-changing daily scenarios, to manage the crisis. They were supportive. I was happy to learn that Singaporeans supported the Government's handling of the case. Nearly all rallied behind Singapore. But, Sir, unfortunately, a few did not.

The SDP and Workers' Party sought to gain political mileage from the situation. At a time when our criminal justice system and its key institutions - the courts, police and prison - were under daily attack, the Opposition chose to make political hay. They fudged the crucial issue, which is the integrity of our criminal justice system, and issued statements that lent credibility to these attacks. Instead of defending our institutions, as the Government and Singaporeans did, they poured oil onto the fire. They had acted irresponsibly, compromising national interest for partisan political gain.

Sir, the SDP issued two press statements - the first one on 23rd March 1995, published in the local media on 24th March, and the second on 11th April 1995. The Workers' Party issued one press statement dated 11th April 1995. Sir, the SDP and Workers' Party owe Singaporeans an explanation for these statements. Far from being helpful, these statements have harmed Singapore's cause. Let me tell you why.

First, let us take the SDP's first statement (issued by Dr Chee Soon Juan as Secretary General on 23rd March 1995). Sir, by that time, anti-Singapore feelings in Manila were at a peak. There were hysterical demonstrations; tabloids were screaming anti-Singapore sentiments; the press had called for a break in ties. Did the SDP and Dr Chee have anything critical to say about any of these events? No! Instead, they criticised Singapore. In the statement, Dr Chee had said in paragraph 2, and I quote:

`The two very different sets of reactions in the two countries to the same set of circumstances attest to the fact that perception more than knowledge of facts is the cause of the dispute. As such, more diplomatic light than political heat should be generated. Perhaps, a commission should be set up by both countries to facilitate an exchange of views and facts. The SDP stands ready to assist in any way it can to help resolve this problem.'

I would like to ask Mr Ling How Doong (SDP Chairman) and Mr Cheo, who is not here, whether they agree with that statement. Whether or not Flor Contemplacion murdered Della Maga and Nicholas Huang is a question of fact - not perception. The Singapore courts found that she did. The Philippine media and mob claimed that she was innocent. Which version does the SDP believe? The SDP statement did not say who was generating political heat. Does the SDP mean that it was the Singapore Government? Are Mr Ling and Dr Chee not aware that it was political pressure from opportunistic interest groups and an irresponsible press in the Philippines that had caused this "political heat"?

As we heard yesterday from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Government, throughout the episode, adopted a calm, restrained and diplomatic approach. Does Mr Ling not agree with this approach? What alternative policy does the SDP propose that the Singapore Government follow? Sir, far from helping to "help resolve this problem" (as the SDP put it), it was adding fuel to the fire. Mr Ling's silence, in the face of repeated criticism in this House, both yesterday and today, is really telling and baffling.

The SDP issued two statements and its Secretary-General wrote countless letters to the press. Mr Ling himself wrote a letter to President Ramos. The Workers' Party issued one statement. If they really stand by these statements and letters, then they should join in today's debate and defend their stand.

SDP's first statement further criticised the Government for, in its words, "chiding, belittling and poking fun" at other countries. In particular, the statement accused the Government of making insensitive criticisms about the Philippines in the past which "may have exacerbated the already precarious situation".

Sir, my colleague, Mr Koo Tsai Kee, in his letter to the Straits Times, has already pointed out the absurdity and malice of this criticism. No Philippine newspaper or television station had made any such allegation, but the SDP saw fit to do so. The Philippine press then picked up the statement in the Philippine Star, 20th April 1995, and used it as additional ammunition to criticise Singapore.

Sir, when the Senior Minister (SM) or the Prime Minister (PM) make these remarks overseas at organised forums, press conferences or interviews, their views are solicited by their listeners. SM and PM are very often asked for their views on many matters. In the case of SM, he speaks as a respected Asian elder statesman who is the architect of Singapore's widely acknowledged success. For PM, he is the Prime Minister of a thriving Singapore whose Government has successfully built on the already successful Singapore SM had handed to him. When they speak, they do so candidly. Their hosts expect them to do so - this is why they are asked for their views often, and invited back repeatedly.

Sir, when SM, PM or other Ministers make these remarks in Singapore, the purpose is not to run down other countries, certainly not to chide, belittle or poke fun at others, but to give concrete examples of dangers that Singapore should avoid as a society - where single motherhood is a normal alternative lifestyle or where administration of justice has gone soft. These are likely consequences of suggestions put forward among others by Opposition parties. The Opposition parties, especially the SDP, regularly exhort the Government to follow the example of other countries, to become more democratic, to have more welfare. The Government has to rebut them when they are wrong, and explain to Singaporeans what lessons to draw from the experience of other countries.

Sir, in making these statements, facts and figures are given in an objective, non-emotional way. If indeed these statements are meant to belittle, chide or poke fun at others, they would be quickly dismissed. However, the opposite is true. The statements are taken seriously. They are appreciated and some are acted upon. Because PM and SM are frank, honest and well-intentioned, the statements may cause discomfort, but not resentment.

Sir, let me now go on to SDP's second statement published on 11th April 1995 which is even more intriguing. It attached a letter that Mr Ling How Doong, Chairman of the SDP, had written to President Ramos. Why did Mr Ling write to President Ramos? In Mr Ling How Doong's letter to President Ramos, he said:

`We have been following the development of events regarding the hanging of Flor Contemplacion with great concern. We understand the fact-finding commission that you appointed has found that the late Ms Contemplacion has suffered injustice in Singapore.'

This letter was sent after the Gancayco Commission had submitted its report to President Ramos, and its fantastic findings had been widely publicised in the Philippine and Singapore press. Yet, the SDP's letter to President Ramos expressed not the slightest doubt, reservation or criticism of the Gancayco Commission or its report. Sir, this omission surely speaks for itself.

Let me ask Mr Ling whether he truly believes that Flor Contemplacion suffered injustice in Singapore. Does he accept the Gancayco Report as a true and credible account of what took place during the whole Flor Contemplacion trial, imprisonment and execution? Without first debunking the report's false allegations, as the Government had done, the SDP suggested that a third party be sought to sort out the dispute, so that discrepancies can be cleared up. Sir, would not such a proposal lend credibility and verisimilitude to the Commission's wild accusations? I ask Mr Ling to tell us his honest opinion.

Mr Ling also told President Ramos:

`We have also informed Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong that the SDP is willing to assist in any way it can to resolve this matter.' In other words, the SDP was offering its good offices to mediate between the parties and reconcile the two aggrieved parties, the Singapore Government and the Philippine government. The SDP would, of course, take a neutral stand between the integrity of Singapore's criminal justice system and those who were vociferously attacking it.

Sir, the statement also said that the entire affair had put Singapore's reputation as an international city at stake. Really? How can a single incident like this, in which our justice system has been fully vindicated, unravel all the achievements that Singapore has been publicly acclaimed for? The SDP says Singapore has been put on trial. By whom? Even the Asian Wall Street Journal and the Far Eastern Economic Review, neither of which are well-known admirers of the Singapore Government, published editorials and opinion pieces expressing full confidence that Contemplacion had received due process and justice in Singapore courts. The Asian Wall Street Journal called the work of the Gancayco Commission a "farce", a "judicial circus", a "setback even for those who truly doubt Mrs Contemplacion's guilt."

Sir, I do not believe that Mr Ling How Doong was really responsible for this letter, even though he signed it. The SDP's first press statement had been issued by Chee Soon Juan. Chee Soon Juan replied to Koo Tsai Kee's letter in the Straits Times, attacking the SDP's stand, not Mr Ling. It was also Chee Soon Juan who sent Mr Ling's letter to the Prime Minister, repeating the SDP's offer to help. Like I mentioned just now, if Mr Ling really had strong views on this issue, how is it that he has not taken the trouble to speak up in this debate? I therefore ask Mr Ling to tell the House whether the SDP's statements represent his true position, or whether they are really the work of the Secretary-General, Chee Soon Juan.

Sir, anti-Singaporean sentiments were running high in the Philippines. Surely, as Mr Chiam See Tong so properly and correctly pointed out yesterday, this was a time for Singaporeans to close ranks, support the country and uphold its criminal justice system. This was an international issue and had nothing to do with party politics. But not the SDP. The SDP did exactly the opposite. It indulged in unprincipled, opportunistic posturing and grand-standing. It issued statements attacking the Singapore Government and took an "even-handed" position between facts and fantasy. It poured oil over fire, and still calls itself a loyal Opposition. Well, this is how the SDP stands up for Singapore!

Sir, I am sure many agree with me when I say that Mr Chiam's speech yesterday was indeed heartfelt. I am sure every Member in this House understood and sympathised with Mr Chiam's sentiments. Having built up the SDP himself, almost single-handedly, Mr Chiam brought Chee Soon Juan into the SDP, only for Chee to express his gratitude by turfing out Mr Chiam and succeeding him as Secretary-General. And now Mr Chiam has to watch on the sidelines, as the new Secretary-General distorts the purpose for which Mr Chiam had created the SDP, and turns the party, not against the PAP, but against Singapore.

Sir, let us now look briefly at what the Workers' Party has done. Mr Low Thia Khiang would like to convince this House that the Workers' Party is for Singapore in his speech just now. But I am not convinced and I am sure Singaporeans are not convinced. I will just focus on the Workers' Party's statement on 11th April 1995. First, the statement, as Mr Choo Wee Khiang has mentioned, stressed "that Singapore's machinery for justice was on trial as a result of the Gancayco report." No doubts raised, no reservations raised, no criticisms raised. We all know what the Gancayco report said.

Further, it mischievously suggested, and I think this is important, that Singaporeans' confidence in the administration of justice had been eroded by the Commission's findings. I think that is an important point to make, because the press statement goes out to everybody, to parties outside Singapore. The Workers' Party wanted to dignify the Gancayco report by referring it to the World Court or a tribunal of jurists from Commonwealth countries.

Let me just ask whether he and the Workers' Party agree with the Gancayco report. Does he, in the first place, agree with the Workers' Party's statement? Is the Workers' Party serious in suggesting that the Gancayco report had put Singapore's criminal justice on trial? Does Mr Low believe what the Gancayco report claimed, that Flor Contemplacion had been raped and tortured, that she had been framed, that there had been a miscarriage of justice because Contemplacion was "denied her fundamental right to counsel" and that the caution administered under section 122(6) was improper?

Sir, what can we say? The Opposition, particularly the SDP, have not helped Singapore's cause. Would they have handled things better as a government? Dare Singaporeans trust Mr Ling, Mr Cheo or even Dr Chee or Mr Low Thia Khiang with such a situation?

Sir, I have here a photocopy of a page from the New Democrat, a publication of the SDP. It is captioned, "SDP Goes International". The article describes the many trips that SDP has made to foreign countries, including Hong Kong, Thailand, Australia and the Philippines. In Bangkok, the SDP joined hands with other human rights groups in the Council of Asian Liberal Democrats. The SDP has been gallivanting around the region, cultivating the foreign press and gathering support from liberal human rights groups. But when this crisis developed, and it was their duty to stand up for Singapore together with other Singaporeans, they failed miserably to do so. Could it be that in seeking a world stage, they have forgotten that their first duty is to Singapore and to Singaporeans? Why have they promoted the concerns of foreign countries and pressure groups at the expense of Singaporeans and the national interest of Singapore? Having let Singaporeans down so badly, the least they can do is to give Singaporeans a full explanation and apology for their conduct in the Flor Contemplacion case.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I clarify because the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the Workers' Party?

Mr Speaker: Mr Low, I would like to point out that under the Standing Orders, you can only speak once on the question.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I wish to clarify because he referred to the Workers' Party.

Mr Speaker: All right, I will give you a brief clarification.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Thank you, Sir. First of all, I wish to clarify that the Workers' Party does not believe in the Gancayco report. I have explained at length just now the Workers' Party's position in this case and the thinking behind the press release. I do not propose to repeat and Mr Speaker would not allow me to do so. But if the PAP, as stubborn as it is, chooses to interpret its way and to label the Workers' Party, so be it. But I really do not understand that by urging both Singapore and the Philippine governments to refer the issue to an independent tribunal to resolve the matter, we would gain political mileage or political capital. I do not understand.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first, I am glad to hear that Mr Low has said openly in this House that the Workers' Party does not believe in the Gancayco report. Their statement came out after the Gancayco Commission's findings were made public.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I have explained why.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: There was no criticism, no reservation, nothing. The implication must be that those who read the press statement would draw the conclusion that from the Gancayco report and its wild allegations, the Workers' Party is saying that Singapore's criminal justice system - entrenched, tested, a transparent one - has been put on trial. I think this is a very serious thing to say. And when you say, "let's refer to a third party", you are saying, "let us refer the matter, including the Gancayco report, to a third party." When you do that, are you not saying that, "Well, the Gancayco report can stand scrutiny."

Why should we refer to a third party? Isn't the Government's approach a better one? We looked at what the Gancayco report said. We studied all the allegations and we put out an objective, clear, point-by-point rebuttal, and made it very clear that there is no discussion on the matter because, as we have been vindicated and as everybody has agreed, there is no basis for what the Gancayco report had made in terms of the accusations about Singapore's criminal justice system.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that the Workers Party had capitalised on the report, the press release would just stop at that without referring to the Gancayco Report. We would not just stop at that, if we had the intention of discrediting the system. Moreover, in that situation, as I have explained earlier, what are you going to do? Are you going to say, "Well, you are the best person to solve the problem?"

An hon. Member: Of course!

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I think it does not solve the problem. It does not mean that when you refer someone's accusation to an independent party to judge, as I have explained earlier, to resolve a matter it is a show of weakness or that you do not believe in your system. It is on the contrary, Sir. You believe in it. There is nothing to hide. You refer it. I am sure that Singapore will stand up to whatever trial or investigation by the World Court or any independent tribunal.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Let me just say this very briefly. First, his paragraph 2, the opening statement, says that the Party wishes to stress that Singapore's machinery for justice is on trial as a result of the report of the Commission. I think that is a very telling statement because if you look at the Gancayco report, I would like Mr Low to point to the paragraphs in the report where he feels that those paragraphs or assertions stand scrutiny so as to put our tested criminal justice system on trial. He said just now that he does not believe in the Gancayco report. Then why make this statement? Why not, like what the Government has done, look at it very carefully and answer, "Look, I do not believe in points A to Z and this is why we do not believe in it." And stop at that, rather than submit it openly to a third party and have everybody look at it. I think that is not the proper approach. I would assume that Mr Low speaks for the Workers' Party.

The other point, of course, is that now Mr Low says that he believes that the Singapore criminal justice system can stand scrutiny and he supports it. May I ask him whether the Workers' Party is prepared to put up a press statement on this point, since now there is no need to submit or stress anything and they believe that the criminal justice system in Singapore is one that the Workers' Party has full confidence in.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I do not understand what is the Parliamentary Secretary trying to do. Is my explanation in Parliament not enough? I do not understand why he wants a press release. As to my understanding of the paragraph that he mentioned, yes, our system is on trial as a result of the report because it accused us about our system. So if we have been accused, what are we going to do?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: It depends on the very nature of the accusations. If the accusations are substantiated and can be backed up, perhaps there is some basis. But if the accusations and allegations are wild, and I think the first reading of the report would bear this out, that is a different matter altogether.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof): I just want to ask Mr Low to make a very clear stand on this issue. He had earlier applauded when Singapore agreed to have this case on the forensic finding to be taken up by an international arbiter. Our basis for agreeing to an international arbitration on a forensic matter is because forensic is a science by itself. But when he said that our agreement of allowing the independent forensic examination to be done as our willingness to have the judiciary to be examined internationally, I think he is mixing oil with water. Our judicial system has been proven to be transparent, factual, able, and we have stood the test of time. The fact that we agreed and decided to sever our Appeal Court from the Privy Council in London is a clear indication that we are confident of ourselves. But the Workers' Party Member of this House insists that because we have agreed on a forensic matter, we therefore should agree to have an international arbitration to decide on the facts and law on the Flor Contemplacion case. If that is so, what would be the Workers' Party's stand if supporters for the late Van Damme insist that we should take this matter to the international court? And there are so many other cases in which the Singapore court had, based on facts, found a person guilty. Will the Workers' Party then insist that every such case should be referred to international arbitration? This is the question which the Workers' Party must answer, as a matter of principle.

Mr Ling How Doong (Bukit Gombak): Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak.

First and foremost, I feel that the press was not being fair to me by reporting that I was absent in Parliament yesterday. In fact, I was right here in Parliament until after the speeches of Dr Soin and Mr John De Payva, the proposer and seconder of the motion.

When we examine this matter, one must seriously consider that this was an emotionally charged and politically motivated episode, as the Philippine election was just around the corner. You will notice that nowhere have we questioned the hanging of Flor Contemplacion. In fact, we did not even support the stay of execution. We have never questioned that. We have never even said that there ought to be a stay of execution. But what we had highlighted was the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, this was a politically motivated and emotionally charged issue. The Philippines had raised certain absurd issues. We are saying we give them a hearing, although whatever they may raise may be absurd or bizarre. In fact, I would come to that later on. I would say that some of the reports by the Commission were really preposterous and bizarre. I would speak as a lawyer and would tell you that certain issues that they have raised were just beyond belief.

I think I need to emphasise one simple issue here and it is this. If a man has been charged for murder and he has got four years but during those years he did not protest about his innocence, that alone is enough for me to come to my own conclusion. But what is more telling is that he has the opportunity to see his own Embassy people. One would have understood that if you see the local people you would not dare say it because you are afraid that you would not be able to air your views. But when she saw her own embassy people, she would have no fear in confiding in them that she was innocent. As I said earlier, we have never, by our action or by our words, questioned the integrity of our judicial system.

There are actually two aspects to this case. The first is the Government's handling of the hanging of the maid itself. As I mentioned earlier, we have never criticised nor questioned the Government's hanging of the Filipino maid. In fact, at the height of the controversy, we wrote to President Ramos. This was because we felt that any escalation of the situation would harm the interest of Singaporeans. In our letter to President Ramos, we said that we welcomed and supported the Government's cooperation to have the case reviewed by a third party and urged our officials to continue to show restraint with a view to resolving this matter with minimal disruption to the relations with the Philippines. In the same letter, we have urged him to exercise restraint and continue to keep channels open with the Government with a view to normalising ties between our countries whose relationship has been traditionally warm and strong.

We wrote this letter because President Ramos has expressed his view that, depending on the outcome of the Gancayco Commission Report, he would consider severing relationship with Singapore. Here we are not talking purely of the legal aspects of I am right and you are wrong. We have to be accommodating here in the sense that we are dealing with a fellow member of the ASEAN countries. In fact, I would say that Singapore has actually gone the extra mile to accommodate the Government in this respect. It is in this spirit that the letter was sent to President Ramos. We also told him not to succumb to pressure from the group. It was during the height of the preparation for the elections in the Philippines.

Generally, what we are saying is that we merely questioned the PR of our Government with other countries.

An hon. Member: How?

Mr Ling How Doong: If the Government is willing to say, "Do you think you can help in any way?" we are prepared to go there and make our point there. That is what we meant.

The Deputy Prime Minister (BG Lee Hsien Loong): As a neutral party?

Mr Ling How Doong: Why not? It is not a question of whether we believe or not believe it. I think all of us are aware of the fact that the election was around the corner and it was emotionally charged and politically motivated, and the remarks by President Ramos that, depending on the report of the Commission, he would consider severing ties with Singapore. It is in this respect that we say, "Why not we have a third party?" In fact, when the matter was referred to a third party, it was regarding the forensic pathology.

An hon. Member: That is a professional opinion.

Mr Ling How Doong: No, let me explain. When you say it is a professional opinion, are you doubting our pathologist's report?

Some hon. Members: No, we are not.

Mr Ling How Doong: If we do not doubt, then we say forget about it. You can just tell them, "We are not prepared to refer it to a third party." Why are we referring it to a third party? You are doing exactly what we have suggested.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: No.

Mr Ling How Doong: The point here is the report by the pathologists. We know they are absolutely right. Why did we agree to refer it to a third party?

Mr Speaker: Order. Will the Member please address the Chair?

Mr Ling How Doong: I suppose that was done in the spirit of cooperation and long friendship with ASEAN members. As I said, we are going the extra mile by giving them the benefit of the doubt. I think the more important aspect of this is that if you refer to an independent third party and its finding is with us, it would actually demolish the report by the Philippines. So it is not that when we submit to a third party, we are saying that, "Oh, we have no faith in our system." I do not think that is the case. We should be willing to have it done openly by internationally known specialists or experts so that they can confirm our findings. We have got nothing to hide. We have faith in our system. We believe in our system. Why not let it be confirmed by an internationally well-known body once and for all? We have got nothing to lose. You must bear in mind one thing � rightly or wrongly, because of the elections, they are insisting on so many things. You cannot just say "no" to them. They will stir up a lot of things.

As I said, our only criticism was that of our PR. We should be more sensitive to other countries by not passing certain remarks. You must bear in mind one thing: political parties come and political parties go; Singaporeans will remain here forever. And the remarks by the leadership may affect future Singaporeans. They will not forget it easily. Respect, yes. You must remember the words, "Grudging respect." When your economy is riding very high, they respect you. They invite you sometimes to sell your expertise and opinion, because they need them. They are developing. So they will respect you for whatever information or benefit they can derive from your advice. But would that follow? The point is that we must be aware of the fact that the moment a country becomes developed, she does not need our help any more. Would the respect continue or not? I doubt very much. We must think of this aspect and not take things for granted.

As I said, I have never in our speech or anywhere challenged it. In fact, I cited one example about the absurdity of the report by the Commission on the innocence of Flor Contemplacion. [Interruptions.] The problem here is when you write a letter to a head of government urging him to consider mediation, not to do this but do that, you cannot just tell him this. Then you do not write to him to mediate any more. You do not write to him and at the same time say, "absurd, bizarre". If you say that, then why are you writing to refer the matter to a third party for arbitration? [Interruptions.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Can I urge Members that if there is some point in Mr Ling's speech that they do not understand, they can rise on a point of clarification. They can also rise during the course of his speech.

Mr Ling How Doong: Yes. Mr Speaker, I suppose I leave it at that. If there is any clarification, I will answer every point raised. I think it is better that way.

Mr Speaker, as Is aid earlier, we have not at any time questioned the integrity of our judiciary. We have not done so. In fact, that is why I have earlier decided not to speak. What is there to speak when we are not criticising the judiciary or the act of the Government for hanging Flor? We have not done this sort of thing. That is why I said: Is there a necessity for me to speak? So many speakers before me have spoken. Now that Members have raised all these queries here, I thought perhaps I should reply.

Mr Speaker: Assoc. Prof. Ho, you want to seek a clarification?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, Mr Ling now comes to this House, in a very sweet speech, to try to convince the House that the SDP has done nothing to weaken Singapore during the time when we were in crisis, when it mattered the most. The SDP issued two statements: The first statement said that the Government "chided, belittled, poked fun at other countries" and in the ensuing exchange in the press, the Secretary-General Dr Chee Soon Juan further made statements about the Singapore Government.

I would like to ask him whether, taken in totality, these actions actually weaken Singapore's position. The other point is that, drawing reference to the statement of the SDP, he says that the SDP wants to be a neutral party. But he must not forget he is in a Singapore political party. He may be in the Opposition. But in his attempt to remain even-handed, has he not forgotten that truth is on our side, fact is on our side, and on the other side there are a lot of wild allegations, fiction? Is it not? Even if you wanted to remain neutral, for example, in his letter to President Ramos, the only reference to the fact-finding Commission was that, "I understand this fact-finding Commission has found the late Mrs Contemplacion suffered injustice in Singapore." That is the only reference. He does not have to attack the Commission. But he could have mentioned the allegations that were made. What sort of impression would be gleaned by the people who read the press report about such a letter coming from a Singapore party written to a foreign government at a time when we were in crisis, not now in this House while things have settled down, because, as he has said himself, emotions were running high? What impression did the SDP give? Did it harm or strengthen our case by what it did?

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): I have just heard Mr Ling say that he found the Gancayco Commission "absurd, bizarre", etc. If he had said so in his press statements, I have got two press statements here, including this letter to Mr Ramos, [Copies of statements handed to Mr Ling How Doong] could he show me where he has said these words?

Mr Ling How Doong: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned earlier, when we wrote the letter to President Ramos, we were trying to ask him to hold his horse in order to refer it to a third party. I think it is highly improper and inappropriate for us to criticise all these things as it would then defeat the very purpose. For example, if you want to negotiate a settlement, you do not tell the other party, "What sort of demand are you asking of me?" You are going to negotiate a settlement, let us say, between the employer and employee. Before you negotiate, you go and tell the employee, "What absurd demand you are asking of me?" The employer will say, "What is the point of negotiating with you? You've made up your mind." It is as simple as that.

The purpose is to refer it to a third party so that one does not have to resort to the more severe action involving friendly countries. That is why we have not written anything in our letter because if we had written that, I think it would defeat the very purpose of the letter to President Ramos for him to hold on and then have a settlement. It is as simple as that.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, it is not just the omission. Mr Ling not argues that they had omitted certain things and therefore that has made the negotiation position strong, even though I think that we can doubt. Because when you negotiate, you do not just come blank. If you have certain strong points, you want to also show them. In other words, if you do not say anything, the impression may be given that you fully support the Gancayco report. And in fact that impression was probably given because the only reference in his letter to the report was the fact that the Commission had found that she had suffered injustice.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, since Mr Ling did not want to read this letter, maybe he did not draft the letter himself.

Mr Ling How Doong: I know the contents.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: He knows the contents but he did not write it himself. Fair enough. And he said that it is not nice to tell President Ramos that he disagreed and so on. But let me just quote one line here - this is the letter signed by Mr Ling to President Ramos. Paragraph 2 says:

`We have been following the development of the events regarding the hanging of Flor Contemplacion with great concern.' Next sentence:

`We understand that the fact-finding Commission that you appointed has found that the late Ms Contemplacion has suffered injustice in Singapore. We have also noted that you are prepared to sever ties with Singapore.'

Nowhere in this paragraph, following the sentence about Mrs Contemplacion having suffered injustice, has he repudiated this finding. In other words, even in a letter like this, supposedly to be nice to Mr Ramos, he did not say he did not believe that she suffered injustice. I think he should say so. Because if it is his position that the findings are absurd, bizarre, he can put it in a nice way to President Ramos that he did not believe this report and he did not like it. Even if he does not want to say so to President Ramos, why did he not say this in the press statement that his Secretary-General issued in Singapore, and I suppose he met the press. None of the press reports that I have here repudiated the Gancayco Commission report. None of it carries the SDP's position on the report that it is absurd and bizarre. Why did he not say so?

Mr Ling How Doong: As I said earlier, the intention of the letter is to try to mediate. We have to take the report of the Commission at its face value. [Interruptions.] All I am saying is that it is a sort of allegation by the Commission. So it may be absurd. I have already explained earlier. Because we are trying to -

An hon. Member: Be nice.

Mr Ling How Doong: Not be nice. We were writing to the other side and hoping that President Ramos would not succumb to pressure. In fact, it was in the letter. We hope that he would not succumb to pressure and then take this action. All of us are well aware of the politics in the Philippines. Sometimes, as I said, it was the fever of the election. Certain action would be taken out of political ends for the election results. So it was in this context that the letter was written.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Sir, can I air my views, please?

Mr Speaker: Mr Choo, would you like to seek a clarification?

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Seek clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: You are not to embark on another speech.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Yes. I am not clear as to what Mr Ling is trying to say. Therefore, I am seeking clarification, Sir. We know that Mr Ling is the unofficial Leader of the Opposition. He is a well known leader. He is a well known lawyer. And he was writing a letter to a well known leader of the world, President Ramos. By not saying anything to uphold our judiciarl system, he is implying that there is something wrong with it. How can he come back to the House now and tell us that is not the case? He said, "Yes, it is bizarre." But it was not stated in the letter. How does he explain? How does he reconcile the two statements? The fact that President Ramos saw him and his delegation meant that he took him very seriously. So I think Mr Ling, being the unofficial Leader of the Opposition, should explain in the House how he reconciles the two statements? And if he thinks that there is nothing wrong with our judicial system, please re-issue a press statement.

Mr Ling How Doong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I need to repeat the whole thing all over again.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Please clarify!

Mr Ling How Doong: The letter was written in the context of the elections in the Philippines, the threat by President Ramos to sever ties with Singapore and the probable pressure that we had brought to bear on him to sever ties. So one has to give him the benefit of the doubt because we are going to a conference table. That is why we did not bring in this point. As I said earlier, we are going to a negotiation table, we cannot just pre-empt the whole thing by saying that we do not believe their story. From the very outset, I have cited an example where someone has never claimed his innocence for four years, even to his own Embassy people. How far do you want me to go further than that? The statement, as I said earlier, is for the purpose to negotiate so that the matter will not deteriorate. It is as simple as that.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, maybe Mr Ling could just be honest enough and admit that he did not write the letter. He did not draft and issue the statement and all these were done by his Secretary-General who had put him on the spot. Because he said, "We took the Gancayco Commission at face value", which means there is something to be believed. Then he said, "We give President Ramos the benefit of the doubt", which means there must be some truth. And then on the other hand, he says, "It is all absurd and bizarre." And he upholds the institution of Singapore, that it is fair, and so on. Which version does he want to believe? Which version is his true position? Which is his Secretary-General's position? Maybe he should be honest enough to tell us that the letter and the statement were actually not his. He just signed as the leader of the Party. Somebody else had drafted it. Say so.

Mr Ling How Doong: The letter was by the Party. The Party had discussed the whole matter. We sent out the letter. As I said earlier, when you want to negotiate or advise one party to hold his horses, and not resort to extreme measures, would you not think it is better to give him the benefit of the doubt? Otherwise, you would preempt the whole thing. If you tell them that the Commission is talking rot ---.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: You must tell them.

Mr Ling How Doong: No. You are wasting your time writing the letter. As I said, our intention is to make sure that the situation will not deteriorate to such an extent. That is why the letter was sent out. As I mentioned earlier, I have to repeat it again here, you will notice that nowhere in the letter had we questioned the hanging of Flor Contemplacion.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Nowhere have you supported it either.

Mr Ling How Doong: But the point is that you do not support the negative. The facts are all there. When we do not criticise, that means we support it. It is not that we have not written anything. It is not that we are completely silent, then you can say silence means something. But we did write something and yet we could not bring this issue out. We had never challenged the hanging of Contemplacion. Neither did we ask that there ought to be a stay of execution. We have not done anything of that sort. But the mere fact that we have never asked it is an indication that we completely believe in our judiciarl system.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Then say so.

Mr Ling How Doong: Unless you do not understand simple English, when I said that we have never questioned the hanging, it explains all. We do not have to tell you.

Mr Bernard Chen (Brickworks GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, based on what Mr Ling said just now in his letter to President Ramos, is he saying that the SDP and he are prepared to sacrifice principles, facts and instead resort to political statements to placate a third party outside the country? And is his party prepared to take the same step again, in future cases, where you just ignore the facts, principles and play politics?

Mr Ling How Doong: Mr Speaker, seriously, I do not see anywhere in our letter that we are ignoring the facts. How does the Member come to that conclusion? I am really baffled. We have not ignored the facts. As I mentioned earlier, we have never questioned the right of the hanging of a convicted criminal. In fact, I gave some of my reasons why I believe her guilt. So where is the question that we sacrifice principle and facts?

Mr Bernard Chen: Mr Ling just said that he knows the report is bizarre, far-fetched, and he said, "How can I tell all these to President Ramos in my letter?" He knows what are the facts. He chose not to put them in. Now could he tell me what is wrong with getting the bizarre and strange facts to President Ramos if he believes in it?

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence and the Minister for National Development (Mr Matthias Yao Chih): Sir, may I ask Mr Ling one question? He said that he did not put all these adjectives in the letter because it was at the height of the Philippine elections and so on. Now that the situation is cooling down and we are getting things back on an even keel, will he now write another letter to President Ramos stating SDP's true stand on the Gancayco Commission report?

Mr Ling How Doong: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the press were to report what I said, it is known to the world. What is the necessity of me writing a letter? The press here can forward one copy of it to President Ramos. It is as simple as that.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M): Mr Speaker, to cool things down and reduce tension, I will speak in Bahasa Melayu.

(In Malay): Mr Speaker, what we have witnessed is a political game of vacillations and shifting positions played by a number of the Opposition Members. And in my view, this is the very sort of problem that led to the tense relations between Singapore and the Philippines - the presence in the Philippines of opposition parties who exploited the situation to create tension and create all kinds of false stories, all for the sake of freedom of speech. Playing another role was the Philippine media, which took advantage of the confused situation by creating all kinds of absurd stories and fiction about the Singapore judicial system, about the way hearings were conducted, and all in the name of freedom of the press.

We find that this has made a very bad impact on the relationship between the two countries. But what is more perplexing to us is how the Opposition in Singapore, who are no citizens of the Philippines and who have no direct concern with the emotional problems of the Philippines, could have succumbed to the confusion created by the opposition and the press in the Philippines. I also say that the Opposition in Singapore have been easily misled and this is clear from the statements that they have issued in the press and the correspondence by both the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and the Workers' Party.

Mr Speaker, one of the reasons why this problem has led to such tension is that some opposition parties in the Philippines had relied on the tactic of spreading malicious stories. They misrepresented the facts, twisted the stories and created all sorts of lies, which we have seen in the reports that reached Singapore, excerpts from the newspaper reports there. And when we see these lies and falsehood, Mr Speaker, I personally am not surprised that certain Opposition leaders in Singapore like the SDP Secretary-General, Chee Soon Juan, would join the fray, because he himself had been accused of being a cheat and a liar. He never denied that and has never dared to bring this matter to the court. So when there were cheating and lying in the Philippines on the issue of the hanging of Flor Contemplacion, I remember the English proverb that says "birds of the same feather flock together". So even though there was one here and many more perhaps in the Philippines during the crisis, I am not surprised that some of those in the Opposition here had responded and had sought to participate in lying and in the misrepresentation of facts.

Mr Speaker, what has happened is really an exposure of the quality and the attitude of a certain number of the Opposition in Singapore. They were easily misled, but more than that, they had taken advantage of the situation and made it worse. Whereas in the Philippines, the issue was trying to defend something that has been proven in court and questioning the judicial system of Singapore, the Opposition in Singapore issued statements that sought to undermine the institutions of Singapore, raising questions that tended to imply that we have an unjust leadership and a dishonest judicial system. And they also sought to cast a smear on Singapore leaders, both the Prime Minister and the Senior Minister, through the letters that they circulated.

Among the suggestions they made was that Singapore leaders should not be honest when expressing their views to the world, to the Philippine leaders, to the Australians, etc. This is the suggestion that the Opposition made as we faced this crisis, the SDP opinion, signed by Chee Soon Juan. In other words, he wanted Singapore leaders not to speak candidly, not to speak the truth. Is he teaching the leaders of Singapore to lie? Is that the value he is promoting, Mr Speaker? And if we believed him and took his advice, what kind of image would Singapore leaders have, when they cannot be honest, when they cannot speak frankly about something when their hosts want them to do so?

I remember one issue raised by the Senior Minister, that became the subject of SDP's criticism, regarding discipline in the Philippines and the growth of democracy in the country and their social development efforts. If we look at what has happened to the debate on Flor Contemplacion in the Philippines, it is clear that the points made by the Senior Minister, on discipline and democracy, probably made no impression on them.

Just look at the issue of discipline in the newspapers. I think many questions have been raised by the way the newspapers handled the matter, with reports filled with lies. We note the discipline shown by the opposition parties. That is very surprising, too. They ignored the facts. They had no respect for another country. We have also seen how they burned the Singapore flag in an atmosphere of indiscipline. In other words, what the Senior Minister said was probably true. And if some quarters had sought a lesson or two from his remarks, it would probably be for the better.

The democracy that they were promoting there, too, was exploited by the opposition. We saw how they applied pressure by spreading nonsense, to force the country's leadership to defend itself by taking steps to similarly question Singapore's integrity. As a result, a number of leaders, the Foreign Secretary included, had to be sacrificed just to satisfy their anger.

So the question is: is it really the Singapore judicial system that is on trial? I think it is the Singapore Opposition that is on trial. So easily were they misled, so easily believing what we have been calling bizarre and absurd and so on, but then using these bizarre and absurd materials to apply pressure on Singapore.

Why does this happen, Mr Speaker? Are some members of the Singapore Opposition still unsure, even today, what they should do? We note the divergence between what they had said in their statements and what they say is their stand today - far different from their earlier stand. Or is that really the way they conduct themselves in politics, that is, as I was saying, by misrepresenting the facts, by lying, by exploiting the situation regardless of the consequences, as long as they can criticise the Government of Singapore at any time? If that is what they call politics, if that is what Mr Low Thia Khiang called patriotism, I think it is very surprising.

Does patriotism and participation in Singapore politics mean that we should be so easily swayed by the opinion of outsiders when we know it is not true? Or should we, in the context of Singapore politics, have our own principles and stand based on the situation, the need and the facts before us?

Mr Speaker, in a way, it is no surprise to me because when the Government, specifically the Ministry of Home Affairs, took steps a few months ago to impose heavier punishment in molest cases, for instance, we noted that some sections of the Opposition were not happy with the stiffer measures, which included showing the accused persons on television. They could not accept a higher punishment, but ignored the suffering of the young children, the little girls who were the victims of these culprits.

So back to my question, Sir, do they know what they are doing? Or is that really the way the Opposition want to conduct themselves in politics? And this is even more surprising. In one block party that I attended in my constituency in mid-April, some of the residents came with their Filipino maids. In the midst of the chaos in Manila, I asked the Filipino maids, "Are you happy in Singapore? Is everything all right in Singapore?" They said, yes, they were happy and they were carrying on with their jobs and their employers were treating them well. I asked, "Are you following the developments in your country?" They said, yes. So I asked them, "What happened?" The answer from a Filipino maid working in Singapore, speaking in front of many residents of my constituency, at Jalan Tenaga, Mr Speaker, was that the political opposition in the Philippines and the media there have been making up stories, fiction, that cannot be believed.

I bring up the example of this Filipino maid, Mr Speaker, simply to show the difference between the sense of judgement and the behaviour of the opposition and the maturity of a Filipino maid. Just look at the difference. Is our Opposition capable of analyzing the situation better than a Filipino maid? I hope so, because what has happened seems to indicate to me that the Filipino maid was perhaps politically more mature.

Mr Speaker, one question raised by the Opposition and some other Members concerns the issue of miscarriage of justice. I am really surprised how this question could arise. The murder occurred in 1991. The woman was hanged in 1995. Isn't that such a long time to enable, and indeed we have conducted, not just one, but more than one trial? And the woman concerned not only confessed to the murder but also described how she did it. And we are wondering about miscarriage of justice? I am surprised that this issue came about, when the facts show that what happened was far from a miscarriage of justice.

I am also surprised, Mr Speaker, that there are suggestions that we ought to ask why we did not allow a stay of execution for Flor Contemplacion. We know two persons were murdered, and their families had to wait four years for what we call justice to be done, for the two murder victims and their families. We waited four years for justice for these two victims. And then we ask why no stay of execution. In other words, we prefer delaying the hanging and delaying justice for the victims and their families for various strange reasons. Among those that I have heard are suggestions that we should, in the conduct of our judicial system, take consideration of external factors or political factors in other countries.

I note with dismay, Mr Speaker, that there are Members in this House who also said that the Singapore Government, the Cabinet, the President, should take into consideration political developments of other countries, and take account of rising emotions, when making decisions as to whether a stay of execution should be allowed for a woman who has been found guilty of murder.

We have heard before strong views expressed partly by the Opposition and also by international magazines, implying that the Singapore Government is one of those that rules with an iron fist, and that it always interferes with the judiciary. We have always denied the accusations and have always proven that they are not true. And in the Flor Contemplacion case, the evidence presented showed clearly that the Singapore political leadership, the President, the Cabinet, is far removed from any possibility of interfering in the judicial system of Singapore. What I feel strange are the arguments of some Members that we should take into account the feelings of the leaders, the opposition and the people of foreign countries when making decisions relating to the judicial system of Singapore. Isn't this in total contradiction with the many points that we have heard before, stressing the importance of the Executive in this country not interfering at all in judicial matters, in matters of justice?

But in this case, we seem to be making an exception, that the Government in its handling of the matter should take into account external factors. I find this strange, because isn't this the first time we bring up the importance of external factors and seek to impose them on the judicial system of Singapore? Does this not mean that we are putting pressure on the Government to interfere with the judicial process, not for justice but to take care of the feelings of others, to make sure that certain people win their elections, so that certain societies would not be so angry with Singapore? Are these the factors that we want to put across as a way for us to improve the judicial system of Singapore? Or are we promoting a way to play with the judicial system of Singapore?

Mr Speaker, if they do indeed happen, all those suggestions we made - that we do not want to provoke anger, that we do not want to create difficulties for somebody in the run up to an election - and the Government, let us say, takes these into consideration and takes the necessary measures, whether a stay of execution or whatever, for external reasons, I think there will indeed be cause to ask about miscarriage of justice. The question will then be: why the Government should take into account external factors when carrying out a sentence, when it has been decided by the court? Is this justice? I am proud and happy that with the many choices to be made and despite the pressure, the Government has stood firm on its principle of not interfering in the conduct of the judicial system, of not taking into account factors that have no relationship with the judicial system, that are of no interest to the judicial system, so as to change its decision or to give in for reasons other than justice.

Mr Speaker, there was also the question of Singapore's international image. This issue and the readiness of the political leadership to be firm when it comes to justice, not just on this but on many previous occasions, were regarded as undermining Singapore's international image. We are accused by the Philippines, for example, of being a police state, possibly a totalitarian state, that does things as it pleases, that tortures prisoners, all kinds of accusations, and all because we have been just and firm in the conduct of our judicial system. Is this an effect we should be afraid of? Should we fear being misunderstood because we are too strict? Mr Speaker, we have heard in many countries of how the judicial system is undermined by pressure from quarters outside the courts, whether political parties or human rights organisations. In consequence, we find criminals no longer fear the judicial system, because they believe the law can be undermined by pressure groups or human rights groups, etc.

The question is, if it were true that there was torture and that Singapore is a police state, that we have been arrogant, iron-fisted and so on, if these were all true, do we believe that all this time the Philippine government or other governments would have allowed their people to come to Singapore and work? If they had no confidence that there is a fair and well-established judicial system in Singapore, would they have allowed their people to work in this country and perhaps be threatened by an unjust system? There lies the difference between truth and falsehood.

Mr Speaker, I would like to touch on the points made by the Gancayco Commission. We have heard earlier the unofficial Leader of the Opposition saying that the report was absurd and bizarre and so on. Yesterday, we heard a leader of the Opposition, who today seems to have become the opposition to the Opposition, Mr Chiam See Tong, stating his position that we should not allow the foreign press to use the Opposition as a club to attack the Government. I hope he would consider using this club to hammer on the other Members of the Opposition so that they would come to their senses and realise the difference between fact and fiction. The Gancayco Commission report, I feel, Mr Speaker, contains a lot of fiction, imagination and myths.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.50 pm until 3.20 pm Sitting resumed at 3.20 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M: ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, as I was saying, having scrutinised the report of the Gancayco Commission, the views of the National Bureau of Investigation of the Philippines and the level of professionalism displayed by the Filipino and Singapore sides, the important question to ask ourselves is: If something happens and we have to be judged, would we prefer to face an investigation, a trial, in the Philippines or in Singapore?

Mr Koo Tsai Kee (Tanjong Pagar GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much for allowing me to join in this debate.

The Flor Contemplacion incident has clearly been exploited by the SDP and the Workers' Party to serve their own selfish political agendas. The two parties chose to release what I would call misinformation to feed the hysteria and frenzy of the imaginative Philippine and foreign press. Even though there was no substance to their charges, the timing of their press release, I think, was laced with malice and mischief.

From what I have heard earlier on, it appears that both the representatives of the Workers' Party and the SDP in this House today, Mr Ling How Doong and Mr Low Thia Khiang, seem confused about their stand. But I think that it is quite clear that the press statements released by them have done them more harm than good.

The Workers' Party dropped innuendoes about a possible miscarriage of justice in Singapore when they proposed that the case be referred to an impartial tribunal. Mr Low is not here. But earlier on he suggested that the PAP MPs do not read the Chinese press. But I think that is not an important point. The important point is that we read the original press statement. And the original press statement submitted by his party leader was written in English and the innuendoes are very clear that there could be a possible miscarriage of justice. Mr Low Thia Khiang appears not to pick up the innuendoes perhaps because he was interpreting it from the Chinese translation of the English press release.

Yet the trial of Flor Contemplacion was fair and transparent to even our critics in the West and, in particular, to a liberal paper like the Asian Wall Street Journal (ASWJ). The editorial of the ASWJ on 13th April 1995 after the release of the Gancayco Commission report, called the findings of the Commission "sloppy". The newspaper accused the ex-judge of orchestrating a judicial circus.

ASWJ is no lover of Singapore. Mr Low Thia Khiang suggested earlier on that we have antagonised all the foreign media, we have no friends in the foreign media and they are always attacking us. But I think the greatest vindication on this case is that a newspaper, a liberal newspaper like the Asian Wall Street Journal, has come on board our side and has made very strong accusations that the whole finding of the Gancayco's report was a fiasco.

ASWJ said, and I quote here:

`... it would have been fully within its [Singapore's] rights to refuse to cooperate with what has clearly become a judicial circus. Yet Singapore has agreed to reopen the Contemplacion case and repeatedly offered to submit Mrs Maga's remains to outside pathologists'.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid in this judicial circus, there was one - the Workers' Party chose to play the role of the clown to excite the audience in the Philippines and to titillate some of the less friendly, less objective journalists in the foreign media. And what did the SDP do? The SDP provided rich fodder for the already imaginative Filipino press to burn down the Ramos administration, hoping to damage his political standing, and damaging the bilateral ties of the Philippines and Singapore. Mr Ling, when he wrote to Mr Ramos, thought he was doing Mr Ramos a favour. In fact, he was giving Mr Ramos pressure. SDP's press release was picked up by several leading newspapers in the Philippines, including the Philippines Star and Today. Prior to the two statements released by SDP, no press in the Philippines, and not because they are unimaginative, had linked Senior Minister's speech in the Philippines to the Contemplacion case.

The SDP's mischief, however, met with widespread disapproval from Singaporeans across the political spectrum. Dr Chee Soon Juan's allegations - I hope he represents SDP, because from what I heard earlier on I am not quite sure who represents SDP now, Mr Ling or Dr Chee, and I do not see how come two separate statements were signed by two leaders; there should only be one leader and only one signature - that Filipinos took offence to SM Lee Kuan Yew's remarks were untrue. In fact, if Dr Chee had looked up the Philippine media on the day after Mr Lee Kuan Yew had made his speech to the Philippines Business Conference, he would have picked up the mood and sentiments of the Filipinos.

What did the Filipino press say? I remember the Philippine media is always the accurate mirror of the popular opinion. The Manila Bulletin reported that the Senior Minister's remarks were especially "pertinent to the Philippines with its over-tendency to over-use the freedom of speech and to carry counterproductive speeches and investigations instead of enacting needed legislation speedily to get the country moving again."

That was a direct quotation from the Manila Bulletin. The Malaya newspaper of the Philippines wrote the day after SM Lee's speech that Senior Minister Lee was too diplomatic, not at all rude, to tell the Filipinos off for all their democratic sins which made them and condemned them to poverty. Far from antagonising, far from insulting the Filipinos, they welcomed it.

Mr Speaker, please let me carry on. The Manila Chronicle said Senior Minister Lee's speech was done "without malice" and that the message was "not resented" by the Philippines. "Not resented" means they welcomed it.

The Manila Bulletin in fact even went further and thanked Senior Minister Lee. And the Manila Bulletin said, and I quote:

`... perhaps it takes a wise man from the East, a fellow Asian like ourselves, to remind us what is painfully obvious. One hopes that his visit will be the occasion for taking stock and, more important, for taking action.'

From a summary of some of the leading newspapers in the Philippines, we gather that not only were they not insulted, in fact they welcomed Senior Minister Lee's speech.

Mr Speaker, SDP's 10 examples - they quoted 10 - of how we had "chided, belittled, and poked fun" at our friends were all taken out of context. There was no evidence to suggest that our neighbours were offended. ASEAN is still one single united bloc. We are close to Malaysia, with Thailand. In fact, when Senior Minister Lee went to the Philippines to make his speech, he told the Filipinos that he hoped they will soon join the ranks of Malaysia and Thailand. In other words, we wish Philippines well and we want ASEAN to be strong, prosperous and be respected. When our leaders cited examples from other countries, the intention was not to put them down, or tell our neighbours how to behave, whether they should follow our practice. The intention was to educate Singaporeans on what lay ahead for Singaporeans if we were to ape some of these foreign practices.

Who was offended? If you look at the press, only perhaps the SDP. So I asked myself, "Why was the SDP offended when our neighbours were not offended?" I think because the PAP was doing a good job by pointing out what could happen to Singapore if we were not careful. And of course SDP is not happy. SDP would prefer that these examples not be cited so that Singapore could fall into the same trap. Because if the economy remains strong, then the SDP would have little chance of becoming an alternative government.

Which incidentally brings me to the latest exchange between Dr Chee Soon Juan who wrote in the Forum page of the Straits Times and myself. He asked me to explain why I had equated the PAP with Singapore. He asked me to explain my remarks, suggesting preposterously that I should even apologise if I cannot explain. I will not write to the Straits Times' Forum page to give him space because he is really not interested in my reply. He is only interested in conducting a monologue. He wants space to continue his soliloquy. I do not intend to give him that space. But I am not running away from a political fight.

I want the people in the press to know that I make no apologies for my statement to equate modern Singapore with the PAP. Rather, I wear my remarks as a badge of honour. The dark and impoverished days before 1959 (when the PAP assumed power) is something Singaporeans, like Dr Chee, would prefer to forget. But we should not.

It is the PAP Government which lifted our spirits and well-being. It is the PAP Government which has given people, like Dr Chee, the time and space to oppose and criticise the Government. The time, because we have made Singapore rich so he can engage in this idle exchange. The space, because the PAP has created a democratic institution to allow him space in the Forum page of the Straits Times. Without the PAP Government, many of us would be perhaps too busy competing with the millions of Asians, some of them are Filipinos and some may be from other countries, as construction workers and maids around the world.

But instead today, Dr Chee and I have the luxury of debating the merits of an alternative government. This is the triumph of the PAP Government versus the rhetoric of the SDP. And this is the reason why I equate the PAP with modern Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Flor Contemplacion case, unfortunate as it was, did have some salutary impact. First, it exposed the kind of leaders within the SDP and the Workers' Party. These people first of all are confused with the released press statements without knowing the implications of their remarks. And I think that if elected, they would deliver platitudes to whoever volunteers to be their audience. If Dr Chee Soon Juan were elected as Singapore's Prime Minister, I think he would go round the world and telling them the things they want to hear. If he were to go to the Philippines, he would tell them precisely the things that had kept them poor. In other words, he would condemn them to poverty for his own political gain.

Mr Speaker, the second lesson from the Contemplacion episode is that it educated Singaporeans on the meaning of press freedom, on free speech. Press freedom gave the Philippine media the right to be wrong. In other words, it gave them the right to spread rumours, to seek malice and to provoke violence. I was shocked one day when I saw on Channel 5, 10.30 News, when one Filipino editor of a respectable press told our reporter that it was not their duty to check the truth of the story. It is only their duty to print it and allow the people to derive the right conclusions. In short, what he is telling us (I hope Singaporeans learn something from it) is that it is okay for the editors there to run lies, day after day. It is okay for them to make all kinds of accusations in the press.

In contrast, I take my hats off to our media. Our media published a fairly detailed account of the happenings in the Philippines and also the allegations and charges of the Gancayco Commission report. The media provided their version of the story, and we provided an objective, unemotional response, a point-by-point rebuttal. Unfortunately, my friend in the Philippines told me that there was a total blackout about what we said here in Singapore in the Philippines. Does democracy not give us the right to be heard in the Philippines? Basically, the Philippines had violated the most important charter in the First Amendment which is the right to be heard. And they denied us our right to be heard. They chose not to hear us because they were afraid that the truth might destroy them. At this point, I have to disagree with my friend and hon. colleague, the Nominated MP, Dr Kanwaljit Soin, when I read this morning's paper. She said that justice was done in the Flor Contemplacion case, but it was not seen to be done. I think she is wrong here. I think justice was done and it was seen to be done.

Even an avid supporter of the First Amendment Bill like the Asian Wall Street Journal saw that the whole episode was a fiasco, as I said earlier on, and I quote again:

`Manila's handling of the Flor Contemplacion matter has given up any pretense of legal impartiality and lurched into the realm of political cant.'

The newspaper asked the Philippine Judge Emilio Gancayco, "Are you running for office? If you are not running for office, why are you creating all this hype?"

And incidentally, I read in yesterday's Straits Times that another Filipino maid, one of the many, had died in the Middle East, in the United Arab Emirates. This Filipino maid, by the name of Sarah Tabar, died because of induced abortion. But the Philippine authority, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), claimed otherwise. The NBI claimed that this maid, Sarah Tabar, died because of a premature delivery. And again, there was this scientific controversy.

So Ramos suggested that the Gancayco Commission should take over and arbitrate. And do you know what the foster mother of the deceased, Ms Sarah Tabar, said? She said that she does not want the Gancayco Commission to have anything to do with her adopted daughter's case because her case would be politicised. In other words, the Gancayco Commission has very little credibility even to the parents and relatives of the deceased. And this is not the first time that foreign countries had executed Filipinos abroad. These incidents happen periodically in the Middle East but the Philippine media chose to remain silent. They picked on Singapore probably because their election time was near. But I think also probably because we are small and they know that the Singapore Opposition might join their side and apply pressure on us. If the SDP and Workers' Party were to remain united with Singaporeans on this cause, and if they just remained silent, I think the Gancayco Commission report might have been written a different way and the violence there would have taken on a different tone. But they chose to add fuel to fire. I think when all these factors come together they created this unfortunate incident.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have also read today that the Gancayco Commission is now on a 17-nation junket. I think they are inspired by the SDP who went to the Philippines to meet President Ramos.

Mr Speaker, Sir, another point that Singaporeans must learn is that a foreign media, including the media in the Philippines, has said that Singapore is a police state. We cannot do this, we cannot do that. There are too many rules and regulations. We have rules and regulations. We do not pretend to be an unsweetened democratic state. But we do not stop our citizens from going anywhere. Singaporeans, like you and me, can travel anywhere we like, when we like. In fact, when we present our passports at the immigration counter in Changi or Woodlands, the immigration officers just wave us on.

But I am told during the height of the Flor Contemplacion case, the Philippine Immigration Department stopped some of their maids from leaving the Philippines for Singapore. I cannot understand. This is a denial of the Filipinos' basic human right to choose what they want for themselves, the right to freedom, the right to travel, the right to free speech. And yet the Philippine media remained silent and also our Opposition remained silent. But at least, I think the Philippine media could have offered to donate the proceeds of their increased circulation to some of these poor maids who were trying to leave Philippines to look for a job in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it was quite clear that the whole episode was a political spectacle. It was regrettable that both the Workers' Party and SDP chose to join the media and this was what the Asian Wall Street Journal described as a judicial circus. I think they have betrayed Singapore's interest without even knowing it. Or maybe they did, but pretended not to know it. I think they have done great harm to the bilateral relationship between the Philippines and Singapore because they have provided (not to President Ramos who is our friend) the opportunistic politicians to burn down the relationship, to burn down the bridge between Singapore and the Philippines.

Another point is that the hon. Member, Mr Low Thia Khiang, said that MFA had misread the political situation in the Philippines. I cannot understand. When the incident broke out in the Philippines, I think the President of the Philippines was not in the Philippines. He was, I think, at that time, in Denmark and at the height of it, he was in London. Is it our job to tell them that something is developing, is brewing and that they should do something? We believe in non-interference. It is their right to do what they like and it is our right to do what we like.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no evidence that Singapore's international relationship with the world has been damaged because of remarks made by Senior Minister Lee or by Prime Minister Goh. Contrary to what Mr Ling How Doong and Mr Low Thia Khiang said, we are a respected nation worldwide. We are a small nation but we stand tall on the world's platform. In the United Nations, our voice is respected and the World Trade Organisation is hosting its first Ministerial Meeting in Singapore soon. It represents the high standing that we have in the international community.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Government's decision not to grant a stay of execution for the reasons that Prof. Jayakumar stated very clearly yesterday and I have full confidence in the criminal investigation and judicial system in Singapore.

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah GRC): After the long debate, Mr Speaker, Sir, almost all aspects have been covered. But, nevertheless, it is extremely painful to watch the Opposition Members trying to backtrack from their position. Now suddenly they are all agreeable that the Singapore Government had done a good job and that they are patriotic and condemn the appalling way the Philippine government has treated Singapore. But was it the case when the Flor Contemplacion case was at its height? I think from all the evidence, when we trace back the event, it is not so.

The two Opposition parties have made a lot of press statements and written letters to the press, leaving no doubt that they are extremely unhappy about the way the Singapore Government handled the case. They cast aspersion and insinuation on why the Philippine government and the people reacted the way they reacted. They accused our Government leaders of making uncalled for statements and, as a result, caused this whole crisis to blow out of proportion.

Sir, while I understand and even sympathise with the Filipino people's emotional outburst, because of their predicament in having the family separated and seeing their loved ones going overseas to take up manual employment, and that at election time, politicians would seek every opportunity to gain support and popularity, I cannot see any justification whatsoever for the response and action taken by our two Opposition parties. The timing of issuing press statements and letters written to the press is, to say the least, opportunistic and malicious. I am very sure that even Dr Chee, deep in his conscience, agrees that the Government has acted justly and transparently. Because all the accusations levelled at us have been rationally refuted in detail. Why then has he chosen to do what he did? I can only think of one reason, which is to exploit the situation to gain personal popularity and score political points. But is it the time to play party politics when our nation's honour is at stake, when our legal system is being challenged, our national flag being desecrated and our law enforcement officers are being accused of fabricating evidence to frame the accused and most of our citizens are being branded as heartless and inhuman?

Dr Chee said that he has made this statement in the name of constructive criticism, but I am not the least convinced that that is his motive. Because when you have constructive criticism levelled at the Government, you could have chosen a better time and better issue. Now that the Leader of the House, Mr Ling How Doong, has made his position clear ---

Some hon. Members: No.

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap: Sorry, Leader of the Opposition.

An hon. Member: Unofficial!

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap: Unofficial. I am sorry, Mr Speaker, Sir.

An hon. Member: Say sorry to the Leader of the House!

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap: And sorry to the Leader of the House.

Now that the unofficial Leader of the Opposition has made his position clear, I think it is about time that the SDP, together with Dr Chee, made a final press statement. They should have the honesty and courage to make a final press statement, retracting what they said earlier and admitting that they have made a terrible political judgment.