INDEPENDENCE AND INTEGRITY OF SINGAPORE'S JUDICIARY (Motion)

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, while we are waiting for the Leader of the Opposition to appear in this House, may I be given leave, Mr Speaker, to join in this debate?

Mr Speaker: Yes, you may proceed.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Much obliged, Sir. During the break, I have the opportunity to read the speech of Francis Seow, the famous fugitive from Singapore, who has been making headlines of himself in America. This passage that I have looked into has, in fact, already been read by Mr Chay. But I think there is no harm reading it again because of the serious allegations there. It says here:

`The judiciary in Singapore is neither independent nor free. It is pliant. It is corrupt. It is beholden to the Prime Minister and the establishment, judges in Singapore are invariably leaning over backwards in favour of the government and of the establishment and award them grotesque sums in damages for so called defamation. The record quantum of damages awarded to the SM Lee Kuan Yew and his son Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister in waiting and Goh Chok Tong the seat warmer Prime Minister in the recent IHT libel case, is a good case in point. It is renowned among Singaporeans that the rule of Lee has displaced the rule of law in Singapore.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very serious allegation of our judiciary and of our courts in Singapore. And what astounds me is that the Secretary-General of the SDP was present there. Instead of saying that he agreed to many of the things spoken by Francis Seow, he should immediately, after the speech, stand up and say that the judiciary in Singapore is not at all like that of what has been made out by Francis Seow. That is the position he should have taken.

And it also surprises me that the Leader of the Opposition in this House has not come out with the position in regard to the independence and integrity of the judiciary because he has not taken a stand on what Francis Seow had said in Williamstown.

It saddens me that the SDP is now run by a megalomaniac. This man wants the centre-stage. He wants the centre-stage all the time. I think it is this character which sends him to Williamstown. He thought he could get centre-stage there and he could get some publicity and score some political points.

Mr Speaker, Sir, but what is more important that has happened in Williamstown is that there are certain people there who would like to see Singapore being run down and attacked Singapore. The issue here is not just about people like Chee Soon Juan who come and go in any event but about the survival of Singapore. Singapore's survival is at stake because there is an attack on the basic institution of Singapore and on the system of Singapore. And it is the duty of loyal Opposition to defend Singapore.

If I were asked: whether I would attend this alternative panel at Williamstown on 15th September, my answer would certainly be "no". I would not have gone even if I were given a free return air ticket. Why not? If you know the motive, the reasons why they want to hold the alternative panel, no decent Singaporean would attend that meeting.

The purpose of that meeting was specifically held to denounce our political system and, in particular, our judiciary. I say that it is not right to attend that meeting. In fact, it is very wrong. Any Singaporean with some sense of decency and good manners will tell you that it is wrong to attend. But some will even dare to say, "Well, Mr Goh Chok Tong went to Williams College on a private visit." People who said that are either completely naive or dishonest. I can tell you that those who aspire to win Parliamentary elections are not that naive. Therefore, the people who said that must be completely dishonest.

Would Williams College confer high honours on Mr Goh Chok Tong, if he were not the Prime Minister of Singapore or has not contributed to the economic success of Singapore? I do not think so. But the people at Williams College are no fools. It is precisely that they know Mr Goh Chok Tong, as Prime Minister of Singapore, has in fact contributed to the economic success of Singapore that an honorary doctorate degree was conferred on him. Therefore, it is wrong to say that one can attend and take part in the alternative panel discussion because Goh Chok Tong went there as a private citizen.

I have not been consulted by the SDP. If I were consulted, I would have advised them against sending a delegation to attend the alternative panel discussion at Williams College. I give my reasons. One, the SDP does not need such publicity. Two, the fact that the SDP was there, it had already given support to that occasion because the purpose for which the alternative panel discussion was specifically organised was to denounce the honouring of Mr Goh Chok Tong and also to denounce the political system in Singapore which includes, of course, the judiciary. Three, as Singaporeans, we must have human decency, good manners and behave honourably. As Singaporeans, it is really in bad taste to attend a function organised by foreigners to denounce the conferring of high honours on our own Prime Minister. If we, as Singaporeans, do not respect our own Prime Minister, how else do you expect foreigners to respect Singapore's Prime Minister.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chiam See Tong: At this juncture, I am not in any way running down the SDP. In fact, that is the party I founded. I am against those who are now in charge of the SDP. They are turning the SDP upside down and making it beyond recognition. When I first started politics in 1976, I said that I would be a constructive, honest and sincere Opposition and I have not, for the last 19 years, deviated from that philosophy.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Chiam See Tong: Some people think that the Opposition's duty is to tear down the system and one of the pillars popularly denounced, especially by people like Francis Seow, is the judiciary. I said "no", we should not do it. The SDP, in particular, should not do that.

The present system that has been built up over the past 30 years has served Singapore well and Singaporeans have become prosperous. We have a good thing in hand, and I do not think we should destroy it.

Our judiciary system is now under attack. As has been mentioned by Members of the House, it has been voted the best in Asia, endowed with integrity, where people can get their case heard with confidence. This assessment is not by Singaporeans. This assessment is by foreigners. If foreigners, who have no particular interest in Singapore, have said that the standard of integrity in our courts is the highest in Asia and is incorruptible, I think Singaporeans have got absolutely no right to denounce our judiciary. Foreigners say so. It is not us. If Singaporeans say so, people might say that we want to praise our own system. But foreigners have got no particular interest and yet they say Singapore's judiciary is honest and incorruptible. And yet some people still deem fit to attack our judiciary. I myself have no doubt that our judiciary is independent and has the highest standard of integrity.

But is the Singapore system perfect? Is Singapore's political system perfect and there is no role for the Opposition? The answer, of course, is no. No political system in the world is perfect. Nobody has found a perfect political system yet. The Russians and the Chinese have tried the Communist system. They think it would build utopias, but what happened. They failed miserably. They have to convert their system from the so-called egalitarian system to the free market system.

Singapore has a free market system, but we are still evolving. The Government has commenced its privatisation programme. Singapore society is not static. We are changing all the time, hoping to improve ourselves. We have a good thing now but, of course, Singaporeans hope that we will get a better thing. So I think it is the duty not only of the Opposition but of all Singaporeans to be vigilant, to make sure that a good thing does not turn bad. Why? Because, as you know, human beings are greedy.

Look at Japan. It has been prosperous for over 40 years. Then what happens? Politicians there in the LDP, which has been the ruling power for over 40 years, I believe, have become greedy. But luckily, in Japan, there are patriotic and good people in the opposition who are ready to take over power and make sure that things do not get too bad for Japan.

If we take the example of Japan, Singapore must also put in its place an Opposition, but not any Opposition. Singapore must have a good, responsible and effective Opposition. That is the aim. I think of all responsible people in the Opposition, it is to make sure that Singapore has a good, honest Opposition. To me, Opposition means that we have to be honourable. On the Opposition, we must be honest and not dishonest. To me, the Opposition must be truthful, and not be liars and cheats.

Some hon. Members: Hear, Hear!

Mr Chiam See Tong: To me, above all, in the Opposition, we must be good and patriotic Singaporeans. We must not go around the world denouncing Singapore.

Some hon. Members: Yes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: A lot of talk has been made about the free air ticket. Apparently, it was paid for by students. But if I were asked for my view on this air ticket, I would say that they should not have accepted it. It is given by students who are not working. If I have already started work, I should pay for my own ticket. Why get it from the poor students? I think, in principle, it is just not honourable. It is not right to get students who are not working to pay for you when you are working and you have an income. What does it show? It just reflects the character of the man. Whatever he can get, he gets, whether it is $100 or $200!

There was also a serious attack on the Chief Justice - a crony of Lee Kuan Yew. If I were there, I would have rebutted and said that there is no such thing. It is a very serious thing to say that the Chief Justice is a crony of the Senior Minister. He cannot just stand there and do nothing.

I do not know whether Mr Yong Pung How and Mr Lee Kuan Yew are good friends, because they were students together. But I know for sure that they do have high respect for each other. And they both feel that they have responsibilities towards Singapore and contribute in their own way.

The Leader of the Opposition has already given his reasons for the way he would vote. But to me, this is an important issue which the Opposition must take a stand. For me, I will vote for the motion. I will support it.

An hon. Member: That is right.

Mr Chiam See Tong: When I vote for the motion, I am not voting against the SDP. I am voting for the long-term interest of the SDP. If the SDP, which is now run by people who do not take a stand on this issue and say categorically that the judiciary is independent and has the highest integrity, then I think the SDP has got no future.

What is the SDP trying to achieve? Is it just trying to be one of those irresponsible opposition parties that have come and gone? Or is it really going to contribute to making Singapore a success? I have said many a time that the Opposition must in fact be better than the PAP. We have to contribute as much, if not more than, the PAP in terms of nation building. The Oppositon has got a responsibility. The Government has a duty in nation building. So has the Opposition. And there are many issues in which the Opposition can enter into for the good of the people. I think my stand in the Opposition has been very very clear. But unfortunately, there are others who are very ambitious. They come into politics at 30 years old and they hope to be the next Prime Minister of Singapore at 34.

Singapore has a viable system and I do not think that any Opposition should try to sing to the tune of people outside Singapore, whose intentions are in fact questionable in regard to the prosperity and success of Singapore. [Applause].

Mr Speaker: Mr Ling, you have the floor now.

Mr Ling How Doong: Sir, this copy of Mr Seow's speech is in small print. In fact, I have sidelined those portions which we agreed. The Minister can take a look, and that is it.

The Deputy Prime Minister (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Read out!

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, this sidelining of Francis Seow's speech is not my doing. This is SDP quoting and sidelining what is in this text. I think it would be useful for Mr Ling, as the Leader of the Opposition, to take a stand on this and read out the passages that he agreed with or did not agree for the benefit of the whole House. There is no point showing it to me. I would just keep it to my chest. Please read it.

Mr Ling How Doong: The print is very small. I cannot see very clearly. I am going to read out the passages that we agreed. Take a look at this, it is voluminous. I will just read out the portions that we agreed.

At page 1, second paragraph, which says:

`Overarching them all is its spectacular promotion to the status of a developed nation by the OECD ... Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, for having attained a gross national product of US$19 thousand ...'

I agree with this, up to " ... understandable pride." Let us turn to the next page.

An hon. Member: No.

Mr Ling How Doong: We only agreed with that. As for the rest of the page, we do not agree. We have gone through it. [Interruptions].

An hon. Member: "We" means who?

Mr Ling How Doong: The SDP.

An hon. Member: The whole SDP?

Mr Ling How Doong: How can it be, because we do not have the CEC here, unless you give us a longer adjournment. We do not have the whole CEC here. When you say "whole", I suppose you mean the CEC.

On the next page, in the ninth line, the sentence which reads:

`A truism which has resounded thru the veil of years ...' and those portions we cancelled out because we are not going to comment about Henry Kamp's observation. We do not know this. Then we go down to "elite are nervous about speaking out." We agree with that.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Ling, can I suggest that you read the words exactly for the purpose of the record, instead of just mentioning in passing the words.

Mr Ling How Doong: All right.

`A truism which has resounded thru the veil of years ... the elite are nervous about speaking out.'

We have deleted some of them, because I do not think we are in a position to comment. I do not know who is this chap and whether he had made the comments. We are in no position to comment.

Then we go further down, somewhere in the middle, which reads:

`Thru'out the web of S'pore's history under Lee and his PAP Government one dark thread is always to be seen and that is the long sinister line of arbitrary detention under the ISA which enables Lee to imprison a person indefinitely without trial.' We agree to that.

On page 3, in the middle of the first paragraph:

`A physics lecturer, an opposition Barisan Socialist MP - his is a classic case of the gross misuse of the ISA which also exemplifies the unparallel vindictiveness of the PM.'

Then in the next paragraph:

`In 1987 22 young men and women were arrested under the ISA accused of being involved in a dangerous Marxist conspiracy to overthrow the Government by violence and replace it with a Marxist state. They were no more Marxist than Lee Kuan Yew is a Communist. In any event how 22 young social activists without a single rifle between them let alone an army were going to achieve this violent transformation was never explained.'

No more. That is all.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: That is all? You repudiate everything?

Mr Ling How Doong: Yes.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, Francis Seow made an 8-page damning indictment of the Singapore system. Mr Ling How Doong, after some effort, has produced four short passages which he says he agrees with and has repudiated the rest.

Dr Chee Soon Juan, at the alternative panel, said, and I quote again:

`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.'

I suppose Mr Ling will consider these four items that he has listed "many things". But my first question to him here is: which of these four items he has listed constitute "difficulties" which Dr Chee and his colleagues, who are here this evening, are going through?

Mr Ling How Doong: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is only the speech of Francis Seow. I believe there is also the speech of Dr Lingle.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: You want to see that too?

Mr Ling How Doong: No. My understanding is that his comment, "I agree with many of the things" is not confined to the speech of Francis Seow. It also referred to Dr Lingle. That is what I am given to understand.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Would you like to go through that? [A copy of the speech was handed to Mr Ling How Doong].

Mr Ling How Doong: This is a 9-page speech. It is even longer than Francis Seow's speech. I cannot go through this speech at this stage.

Anyway, in reply to the Deputy Prime Minister's question, I am in no position to answer simply because it is a remark passed by Dr Chee. I was not there.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Can I confirm with Mr Ling that he meant what he said just now in his main speech? He said that the only mistake his Secretary-General made in Williams College was to say that "I do agree very much with many of the things Dr Lingle and Mr Francis Seow have said." Can I just confirm that?

Mr Ling How Doong: Before going through the speech of Dr Lingle, I do not think we are in a position to answer that simply because you are now covering speeches by two persons, not one only.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Ling must state his position honestly, and I know the dilemma he is in, but let us be honest about this. Mr Chiam has been honest about it. His Secretary-General has taken a position in Williams College which is untenable. He knows it is untenable. He is now saying that he repudiates nearly everything which Francis Seow has said. Maybe something in Christopher Lingle's speech he will find not embarrassing to agree with now, but if he wants, we can give him time. I very much doubt he will find anything. What I want to know is whether he was honest and sincere when he said earlier that the only mistake Dr Chee made in Williams College was to say that he did agree very much with many of the things which Christopher Lingle and Francis Seow said. Did he say that and does he stand by that?

Mr Ling How Doong: Mr Speaker, Sir, that is my observation. I believe that is the mistake he made in that he did not specifically refute all the specific points I mentioned. What I said was that he did not specifically rebut those points mentioned by Francis Seow.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Would Mr Ling now say that his Secretary-General should have stood up at the alternative panel and specifically refuted all these points which we have listed down, which we have challenged him on, and which after repeated challenges, the SDP has refused to come clean and say that they repudiate these following specific statements of Francis Seow? You will note, Mr Speaker, Sir, that even now, with the text in front of him, he has preferred to just identify the frivolous items which he agreed with and blandly say, "Well, the rest we have no view." I want to know whether he has no view or whether he repudiates them as false, unjustified, evil and totally wrong.

Mr Ling How Doong: Is the Deputy Prime Minister asking for my view?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: I am asking for the SDP's view, as he is the Chairman of the SDP.

Mr Ling How Doong: Yes, it is wrong, evil.

An hon. Member: And totally wrong!

Mr Ling How Doong: Yes, I agree with what you have just said.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me just take it all the way. Let us read the parts where they scolded us, not the parts where they gave us faint praise. Mr Francis Seow said:

`The judiciary in Singapore is neither independent nor free. It is pliant. It is corrupt. It is beholden to the Prime Minister and the establishment, judges in Singapore are invariably leaning over backwards in favour of the Government and of the establishment and award them grotesque sums in damages for so-called defamation.'

Was this wrong?

Mr Ling How Doong: It is wrong. I do not think there is any ground or foundation to make such serious charges against the independence of the judiciary.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Do you speak on behalf of the CEC, and particularly of your Secretary-General, or are you expressing a personal view?

Mr Ling How Doong: As I said earlier, the SDP has never questioned the integrity. With that first remark, I will come to your point. As I mentioned earlier, we have never questioned the independence and integrity of the judiciary. This is the view of the CEC.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: That is wrong?

Mr Ling How Doong: Yes.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I confirm absolutely explicitly, because the SDP has been very general in its statements on this issue. Does the Secretary-General of the SDP, Dr Chee Soon Juan, confirm that the statement that the judiciary is neither independent nor free, compliant, corrupt and so on, is totally wrong, unjustified and in contempt of court, and he personally believes that this is an upright, honest judiciary with integrity and ability and efficiency and which does Singapore proud?

Mr Ling How Doong: We have generally discussed this among the CEC members and that, I believe, is the reason why The New Democrat never published it because it is defamatory. It is contempt of court of the highest degree. That is why when we printed The New Democrat we never even mentioned this because it is not worthy of publication. We are not prepared to extend the lie of somebody. That is why you questioned us why it was not in our Special Edition. It is simply because we do not believe in it. We do not want to be charged for contempt of court. So we have never published it.

An hon. Member: It is wrong.

Mr Ling How Doong: Of course, it is wrong. If it is not wrong, we will publish it.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Is that also the reason why The New Democrat did not publish the transcript of Dr Chee Soon Juan's remarks at the alternative panel, that it was wrong and that he knew that it was wrong, and he was ashamed of it?

Mr Ling How Doong: As I mentioned earlier, the speeches of Francis Seow and Dr Lingle were not even in the Special Edition of The New Democrat. If you do not publish the speeches of the speakers, you cannot put in the comments from nowhere. That was why it was also not published. It is because you need to have the speeches first and the comments will follow. Otherwise, people looking at it would wonder what it is all about. It is natural.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Will The New Democrat, in view of the clarifications offered this afternoon, now publish in full Francis Seow's speech, the transcript of what Dr Chee said at the alternative panel following Francis Seow's speech and a further full clarification that the Secretary-General of the SDP and the whole CEC of the SDP are now completely convinced that all these statements were, without reservation, unjustified and defamatory, that the SDP was wrong not to have made this clear at Williams College at the occasion immediately the matter was raised, and that they now clearly state their stand that they have full confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, and that they apologise to the judges, the Government and the people of Singapore for what they have done?

Mr Ling How Doong: First, we have to settle the question of immunity because if we publish it, we can be sued.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Let me address this point. The Straits Times has published all of William Safire's pieces, repeating all the injurious things which William Safire has said about the Singapore judiciary. But because the Straits Times published it in such a way as to make it totally clear that it disagreed with this and that they considered this completely unfounded criticism, what it published did not constitute contempt of court, and therefore the Straits Times has not been sued or cited for contempt of court. There is no reason why The New Democrat should be treated in any different way.

Mr Ling How Doong: I need your assurance. You give us the assurance that we will not be sued we will publish it.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Will The New Democrat publish it together with a clarification which I ask for, that they consider it totally wrong, they consider it unfortunate, to say the least, that the Secretary-General failed to clarify this and rebut this vigorously and immediately, and that they now do so and make amends? I am quite sure that if you do that, there will be no cause whatsoever for any suit or any citation for contempt.

Mr Ling How Doong: It is a very simple proposition. Give us the assurance.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the basis that the Attorney-General will give an immunity, which is not for us to give, but the Attorney-General to give, but we will put this to the Attorney-General, will you publish it if such an immunity is granted to you?

Mr Ling How Doong: We will put in a repudiation to say that we have got nothing to do with whatever he said and we are not---

BG Lee Hsien Loong: That is not the same.

Mr Ling How Doong: Perhaps you can elucidate what you want us to do.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: If Mr Ling likes, we will draft the apology and the statement and clear it with him.

Mr Ling How Doong: If I heard you correctly, earlier on I believe one of the reasons you said was that we must apologise for impugning the judge. This, we cannot do, because we have not done so.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, let us be quite clear. I am not asking you to apologise for impugning the judge. I am asking you to state, firstly, that there was no basis whatsoever for any of Francis Seow's scurrilous attacks on the judiciary. Secondly, that the SDP regrets that its Secretary-General and his delegation failed to stand up and make quite clear its stand there and then at the alternative panel. And thirdly, to remedy this fault, the SDP now unreservedly states quite clearly that it has full confidence in the integrity and the competence of the judges and the judiciary in Singapore and that it apologises to the judges, the Government, and the people of Singapore for what it has done.

Mr Ling How Doong: I, on my part, am quite prepared to do all these things, but bear in mind I am only one official of the CEC.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: No.

Mr Ling How Doong: I am prepared to get the CEC and then ---

BG Lee Hsien Loong: You have two CEC members here, and you also have Mr Chiam See Tong who is already of this view.

Some hon. Members: Mr Cheo.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Yes, that is right. Mr Cheo is the other CEC member. So, is the SDP prepared to do this over the Secretary-General's signature? In other words, to state all these which I listed out just now, signed: "Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the SDP, on behalf of the SDP".

Mr Ling How Doong: We need the CEC's approval for all these things. As I said, our party is based on collective leadership. We need the CEC's approval. I cannot just say "yes" or "no". I personally, on my part, will do that. But we have to go through the process of the party. Surely you can wait for a couple of days for these things to be done. Then you can draw your conclusion in any way you want.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: We will have to wait to see what the CEC of the SDP decides in the fullness of time in due course. What I want to know is, if the CEC does not do so, will Mr Ling and Mr Cheo have the honour to stand up, as Mr Chiam has done in this House, and state his personal conviction and his disagreement with his party's position?

Mr Ling How Doong: I do not even have the opportunity to refer to the CEC. If you give me time, I will be back here straightaway.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: We will adjourn again.

Mr Ling How Doong: Yes. Give us 15 minutes of adjournment, and then I will state my view right here.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is very important for us to know the SDP's view, in particular, the views of the two SDP Members, since Mr Chiam has already stated his view. We will have a short adjournment, so that he can clarify his mind and his position.

Mr Speaker: I think it is very wise of Mr Ling to ask for 15 minutes' adjournment and we should accede to his request. I therefore suspend the Sitting again for 15 minutes and will take the Chair at 3.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.19 pm until 3.35 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.35 pm