INDEPENDENCE AND INTEGRITY OF SINGAPORE'S JUDICIARY (Motion)

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this House:

(1) notes with regret that the Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), Dr Chee Soon Juan, with two other SDP members, attended the "alternative panel" discussion organised by Dr George Crane in Williams College on 15 September 1995, and there endorsed Mr Francis Seow's attacks on the judiciary, and

(2) deplores the SDP's support for a baseless attack by a fugitive from justice on the independence and integrity of our judiciary and legal system, that ensure the rule of law in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, an honest and independent judiciary is a key pillar of our political system. The 1994 World Competitiveness Report, by Geneva-based World Economic Forum (WEF), rated Singapore ahead of Japan, Britain and the United States in terms of public confidence in the fair administration of justice. Singapore is the only Asian country in the top ten. The Hong Kong based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) has also ranked Singapore's legal system as the best in Asia.

Sir, no one - I repeat - no one, Singaporean or foreigner, should be allowed to attack or question the integrity or independence of the judiciary, without being challenged either to back his criticisms with evidence, or withdraw them and apologise.

Members are familiar with the events surrounding the award of an honorary degree to Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong in September by his alma mater, Williams College in Massachusetts. Dr George Crane, a faculty member, organised opposition to the award in the College. He got William Safire, the New York Times columnist, to write a venomous article against the Prime Minister and Singapore. George Crane himself wrote a long article, which was published in the Washington Post on 30th August 1995. This was not an isolated effort by a few academics in one liberal arts college in Massachusetts. The Prime Minister's visit, and the award of his honorary degree, became the focus of a major campaign by some US media and human rights group to humiliate the Prime Minister and cut Singapore down to size.

George Crane organised an "alternative panel" discussion on 15th September, the day before the Prime Minister was due to receive his degree. He invited Mr Francis Seow, Dr Christopher Lingle, and Dr Chee Soon Juan to speak at the panel.

Francis Seow had colluded with US diplomats who were interfering in Singapore politics, after receiving assurances of support from the US should anything go wrong. Seow absconded before his trial for tax evasion charges, and is now a fugitive from justice in the United States, and a convicted criminal.

Dr Lingle was convicted by a Singapore court for committing contempt of court, arising from an article he wrote for the International Herald Tribune, which accused the Singapore judiciary of being compliant.

George Crane invited Dr Chee because he needed someone from Singapore to lend credibility to the alternative panel. Dr Chee had already sought to participate in the debate at NUS, which the Prime Minister had offered William Safire and George Crane, but which Safire and Crane regrettably declined. Crane got Polis, a student association, to pay for Dr Chee's air ticket. Dr Chee immediately accepted, and duly turned up at Crane's alternative panel to associate himself with Francis Seow and Lingle.

Dr Chee did not go to Williams College in his personal capacity. Two other SDP members accompanied him, and attended the panel discussion together with him. They are Mr Wong Hong Toy, the Vice-Chairman of the SDP, and Mr Mike Chan, an SDP member. Both Mr Wong Hong Toy and Mr Mike Chan are employees of Bukit Gombak Town Council, whose Chairman is Mr Ling How Doong. Mr Wong Hong Toy is the Community Relation Manager and Mr Mike Chan is the Estate Manager. Furthermore, Dr Chee himself is the Legislative Assistant to both Mr Ling How Doong and Mr Cheo Chai Chen.

In June 1993, after Mr Chiam See Tong resigned from the SDP Central Executive Committee, the remaining CEC members, including Dr Chee Soon Juan, Mr Wong Hong Toy, Mr Ling How Doong and Mr Cheo Chai Chen declared that they constituted a "collective leadership", and that the CEC would be the policy-making body of the party, as laid down in the SDP Constitution. The SDP CEC said in a letter to its party members, and I quote:

`This is the bone of contention between the CEC and Mr Chiam. A party calling itself democratic must have a democratic decision-making process.'

This was reported in the Straits Times on 26th June 1993.

So the high-powered SDP delegation to Williams College, which included both the Secretary-General and the Vice-Chairman of the party must have gone with the authority of the SDP collective leadership. We must therefore hold the SDP Members of Parliament, who include two SDP CEC members, accountable for the actions of Dr Chee Soon Juan and his SDP delegation in Williams College.

Francis Seow's speech at the alternative panel on 15th September was an unfounded frontal attack on the independence and integrity of the Singapore judiciary. Among other accusations, Seow charged that:

a. "The judiciary in Singapore is neither independent nor free. It is pliant. It is corrupt. It is beholden to the PM (by which he referred to SM Lee) and the establishment. Judges in Singapore are invariably leaning over backwards in favour of the Government and the establishment, and award them with grotesque sums in damages for so-called defamation ... the rule of Lee has displaced the rule of law in Singapore."

b. Mr Lee Kuan Yew "appointed as Chief Justice of Singapore a banker, who had not practised law for two decades, whose superior claim to this illustrious position was that he was a faithful crony"

c. Mr Lee Kuan Yew "uses the courts as a legal weapon with which to bankrupt or cripple the opposition", because he is "confident that these judges know on which side the judicial bread is buttered."

Dr Christopher Lingle also spoke at the panel. He alleged that while courts in Singapore follow commercial law, contract law and property law very closely, he went on to say, I quote:

"the problems come in when there may be a dispute that involves the Government and the opposition or critics. Businessmen are unlikely to have any engagements in courts on any ground other than commercial. This creates an illusion of a rule of law as opposed to the rule of Lee ... I actually refer to it as lawless order, because there is an illusion of law and order, ... this perception of order based upon arbitrary enforcement of law."

Dr Chee Soon Juan was the last person to speak at the alternative panel. He spoke from the floor, at the end of the question and answer session. Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerk of Parliament to circulate to Members copies of the transcript of Dr Chee's remarks at the alternative panel. [Copies of transcript distributed to hon. Members]. Sir, I obtained the transcript from journalists who were present at the alternative panel. I have highlighted the key passages, paragraphs 2 and 5. Members will note that not only did Dr Chee not rebut Francis Seow and Lingle or defend our judiciary, but his very first statement was, and I quote:

"I've heard a lot of comments and questions about Singapore and Singapore's government this evening and I must say that I do agree very much with many things that Mr Seow and Dr Lingle have said and that even as we speak, me and my colleagues that are here this evening are going through some of these difficulties." (Paragraph 2)

So Dr Chee "agreed very much with many things that Mr Seow and Dr Lingle have said". In other words, without having to utter their unfounded allegations himself, he had endorsed Francis Seow's and Lingle's attacks on the Singapore judiciary. Dr Chee "agreed very much" with them that the Singapore judiciary is pliant and corrupt, and is being used by Mr Lee Kuan Yew as a legal weapon to bankrupt or cripple the opposition.

Dr Chee went on to say that while Mr Goh Chok Tong had promised to work for more open and consultative government, and I quote:

"My own feeling is that he has not come very far. But when you look at the constraints he has to work under, not least of which is the presence of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the difficulties become very evident." (Paragraph 5)

In other words, Dr Chee was saying that these problems with the judiciary highlighted by Francis Seow and Lingle had been very serious problems in the past. Furthermore, because Mr Lee Kuan Yew has prevented Prime Minister Goh from making this a kinder, gentler Singapore, the situation has not improved much, and the problems still continue.

After I gave notice that I would be moving this motion in Parliament, the SDP issued a statement signed by Dr Chee Soon Juan. It challenged the PAP to produce evidence to back our accusations that the SDP had supported Seow's claims, and offered to issue a public apology if such statements could be found. I have produced the transcript of its Secretary General's statements at the alternative panel just now.

Dr Chee has demanded that the media publish in full his speech at Williams College, claiming that this will vindicate him. The SDP has since published its own version of events in a Special Williams College edition of its party organ, The New Democrat. Sir, with your permission, may I ask the Clerk of Parliament to circulate to Members copies of this issue New Democrat Issue No. 3, 1995. [Copies of The New Democrat distributed to hon. Members]. Members will note that The New Democrat completely blacked out the fact that the SDP delegation attended the alternative panel with Francis Seow and Lingle. It does not carry Francis Seow's and Lingle's speeches, nor a single word of Dr Chee's remarks at the alternative panel! Why this glaring omission? It is because the SDP and Dr Chee know that what Dr Chee said at the alternative panel at Williams College was wrong, and are trying to cover it up.

Sir, earlier I have circulated the transcript of Dr Chee's remarks at the alternative panel and the Special Williams College edition of The New Democrat, so that Members can see for themselves the dishonesty of the SDP. This is yet another example of Dr Chee altering the record after the event, in order to deceive the public about the wrongs he has committed. He did it with Dr Vasoo over the minutes of the meeting with the Dean of NUS, Prof. Ernest Chew, when he called them "fabricated". He is a compulsive liar.

Sir, Dr Chee's comments at the alternative panel were not casual remarks. Dr Chee was completely familiar with the issue of the integrity of our judiciary. On 7th August, Dr Chee had offered to go to Williams College to rebut William Safire's criticisms of Singapore. In a letter to the newspapers on 12th August, I had asked Dr Chee not to wait for an invitation to Williams College, but to state his stand immediately on Safire's most serious criticisms against the integrity of the judiciary:

a. Did Dr Chee agree with Safire, that we had a "corrupt judiciary" who were "black-robed enforcers of conformity"?

b. Did Dr Chee agree with Safire's descriptions of Christopher Lingle as being "out of reach of corrupt judges' crippling fines and canes", and of Francis Seow as an "exiled Singapore dissident ... now a fellow at Harvard Law School"? and

c. Did Dr Chee agree with Safire that in the Flor Contemplacion case, the Government had covered up official wrong-doing and wrongly hanged Contemplacion?

Dr Chee refused to answer my questions. Therefore, when Francis Seow and Lingle repeated these accusations against the judiciary, and Dr Chee said "I do agree very much with many things that Mr Seow and Dr Lingle have said", he thought he had cleverly delivered a blow on the Singapore judiciary without having uttered the allegations himself, but using the mouths of Francis Seow and Lingle.

At the alternative panel, Dr Chee referred to the speech he would be delivering the next day, 16th September, where he would address "some of these misperceptions, positive or negative" about Singapore. This is the speech printed in The New Democrat Issue No. 3, 1995.

Dr Chee's speech of 16th September is significant, both for what he said, and also for what he did not say. In it, Dr Chee said: "If you believe everything that Mr William Safire has said in his columns a few months back, then you are mistaken about Singapore." He then listed out specifically which of Safire's criticisms he disagreed with, and I quote:

`Singapore is not like Burma or China or the erstwhile Soviet Union. Although I maybe under surveillance, I travel freely in and out of the country. Although the national newspapers are government-controlled, press statements and letters expressing the views of my party are published. Although the sale of chewing gum is banned, and chewing of gum doesn't carry a $1,000 fine. Although the penalty for drug trafficking is death, smoking a marijuana cigarette does not automatically earn you a place on death row. Singaporeans enjoy a high standard of living with a relatively safe environment. The civil service is efficient and the PAP government is comparatively corrupt-free. Ours is not a dictatorial regime Iraqi-style although we have a long way to go before we find democracy.'

This was a prepared speech from a written text, not an off-the-cuff comments. Dr Chee referred specifically to it at the alternative panel. So we must treat it as part of Dr Chee's response to any "misperceptions, positive or negative" which he felt the participants or the audience at the alternative panel had.

More than a month earlier, in my letter of 12th August, I had asked Dr Chee which of Safire's grave criticisms he disagreed with. The list in this speech was Dr Chee's answer. It was a considered, comprehensive catalogue of what, in Dr Chee's opinion, were Safire's errors. By clever implication, he endorsed the other Safire's criticisms as true.

Dr Chee went into some detail in rebutting William Safire: on chewing gum, on smoking marijuana, on the standard of living. Yet Dr Chee never rebutted Safire's serious allegations against the judiciary. He thought that he had cleverly left unsaid that he agreed with these allegations against the judiciary.

Since the SDP delegation returned from Williams College, the SDP has had at least two more opportunities to clarify and correct its stand. On 21st September, I wrote to the newspapers again asking Dr Chee why he had agreed with Francis Seow at the alternative panel, instead of rebutting him, if, as Dr Chee claimed, the purpose of his visit to Williams College was to "clear up any misperception that Americans might have about Singapore, and to set the record straight." Dr Chee could have used his reply to my letter to repudiate Francis Seow's criticisms of the judiciary and explain that he held the judiciary in high regard, even though he had failed to do so earlier. But again he chose not to.

Second opportunity, Sir, was on 10th October, when Mr Chan Heng Wing, Press Secretary to the Prime Minister, wrote to the press listing out Francis Seow's criticisms again, and pressing the SDP to have the honesty either to rebut them or to endorse them. The SDP has done neither. So it is necessary for me to move this motion in this House to specifically press the SDP for its position on this important issue.

While Dr Chee and his delegation represented the SDP in Williams College, what he said there obviously did not represent the view of every SDP MP. On 9th October, Mr Chiam See Tong told a forum organised by the NUS Democratic Socialist Club that:

`Political stability was critical to the country's continued success. It was therefore important, when Singapore was attacked by other countries, for opposition parties to set aside local party politics and close ranks with the Government ... The opposition must be credible, effective and patriotic. Singapore was a tiny nation dependent on foreign investments for its survival. It could not afford to have its politicians make comments which could undermine its political stability.'

Mr Chiam did not directly address Dr Chee's actions in Williams College, but his meaning is clear. Mr Chiam has more than once sued PAP Ministers and MPs for defamation, and they had apologised and paid him damages. Both he and Mr Ling How Doong are lawyers, and hence officers of the High Court. They must understand how our judiciary and legal system operate. Both Mr Ling and Mr Chiam and also Mr Cheo Chai Chen should state in this House whether or not they endorse and support Francis Seow's attacks on the judiciary at Williams College, as Dr Chee has done by deliberately omitting to list these allegations among the items he mentioned, like chewing gum, smoking marijuana and so on. This is a final opportunity for the SDP to come clean.

I note that the Workers' Party has also issued a statement saying that it does not wish to enter into a debate over "what Dr Chee said or did not say at Williams College". This is irresponsible, dishonest equivocation. The Singapore judiciary is either independent or it is not. The Secretary-General of the Workers' Party, Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, is a lawyer. As an MP, he was censured by Parliament after a full hearing of the Committee of Privileges, for making completely unfounded allegations of executive interference in the judiciary. He lost his Parliamentary seat after the courts convicted him of criminal offences - cheating, fraud and false declaration. For the Workers' Party, therefore, to have no view on the independence and integrity of the judiciary is unbelievable. Mr Low Thia Khiang, as an MP, must either make a stand, or be seen to be condoning and abetting Dr Chee.

Sir, I intend to call for a division at the end of the debate, so that the House will know where every Member stands on this issue. If the Opposition MPs oppose my motion, let them tell the House the reasons why and vote against it. But if they contrive to absent themselves when the vote is taken, they will be shown up as being as much tricky twisters as Dr Chee Soon Juan.

The SDP claims to aspire to become the alternative government of Singapore. If the SDP MPs fail to clarify their stand on their Secretary-General's actions and statements in Williams College, they are undermining the key pillar of the rule of law in Singapore, and becoming party to Dr Chee's back-handed efforts to knock down our very system of government.

I therefore ask the House to deplore the SDP's support for a baseless attack by a fugitive from justice on the independence and integrity of our judiciary and legal system that ensure the rule of law in Singapore.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.