INDEPENDENCE AND INTEGRITY OF SINGAPORE'S JUDICIARY (Motion)

Debate resumed.

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

Mr Ling How Doong: Our party will issue a press statement making our position unambiguous. That is what we are going to do. We will issue a press statement making our position unambiguous.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Can I request the Member to make a statement now and tell us what he means by "unambiguous"? What exactly is he going to say?

Mr Ling How Doong: I think Members of Parliament will have to wait until a press statement is being issued.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I then confirm Mr Ling's personal position once more that he considers it wrong what Francis Seow had said, he considers it wrong what Dr Chee Soon Juan did not say, and if the party does not make this clear, he will make this clear himself?

Mr Ling How Doong: As I mentioned earlier, I expressed my view that what Mr Francis Seow said was wrong. I also mentioned much earlier that the mistake he made was that he did not rebut there and then. He did not rebut him on those salient points there and then. That is our view.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I just be quite clear? Does Mr Ling consider this a forgiveable mistake by Dr Chee or something fundamentally wrong which Dr Chee should not have done?

Mr Ling How Doong: He was at the College. He was the one who responded. I do not know the circumstances and the situation how he had gone into the whole thing. As I said earlier, the only mistake he made was that he did not rebut.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I then request Mr Ling to explain why this mistake was repeated after Dr Chee returned to Singapore, when Dr Ow Chin Hock asked him to clarify his position and, subsequently, when Mr Chan Heng Wing asked him to clarify his position, and he had full opportunity to consult with all the members of the SDP CEC, including Mr Ling and Mr Cheo in Singapore?

Mr Ling How Doong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the party replied to the Prime Minister's Press Secretary asking him to produce the full text of the speech. There was no response. If you had supplied the full text of his speech, we would have gone through with you to say whether we agree with this or we do not agree with that.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister's Press Secretary had already quoted the relevant parts of what Mr Francis Seow had said. Indeed so did Dr Ow. Were these not sufficient in addition to the presence of Dr Chee at the meeting when these words were spoken for the SDP to make its position completely clear?

Mr Ling How Doong: As I said earlier, he said a lot of things. In fact, the cyclostyled speech clearly clarified the whole thing. There were eight pages. So is it unreasonable to ask for the full text before we respond? If you have supplied us with the full text and we still ignore you, then you can say, "There you are, you are not prepared to come out." You did not supply us the full text. You stopped there.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, these were not new issues. I do not believe that Mr Ling understands the gravity of his position. These issues were first raised at the beginning of May when we debated them in the context of Flor Contemplacion and the SDP had already equivocated. They claimed that they were taking a neutral position between Singapore and the Philippine critics of Singapore but, nevertheless, had a high opinion of the Singapore judiciary. That was the equivocation which Mr Ling now cites in his defence explaining why Dr Chee did not clarify his position properly in Williams College.

At the beginning of August, after Dr Chee got involved with the Goverment's debate against William Safire, Dr Ow Chin Hock cited the items which William Safire wrote against us, talking about the Chief Justice, talking about the Judges, talking about miscarriage of justice and official cover-up in Flor Contemplacion, and asked for the SDP's position. There was no transcript to speak about, because these were William Safire's published columns in the public record reproduced in full in the Straits Times. Why was there no response? Then Dr Chee went to Williams College. Francis Seow repeated the same. Why was there no response? Dr Ow asked him again after he came back. No reply. Mr Chan Heng Wing finally said, "Please give me a transcript of Francis Seow's speech." Your ears are not sufficient?

Mr Ling How Doong: Mr Speaker, Sir, at any rate, he asked for a full transcript of the speech. Do you not think you should give him the benefit of the doubt? Let him have a look at the whole speech. Let him reply. I thought it is very fair.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Can I ask Mr Ling then what transcript he would request in order to clarify his position on the statements made by Mr William Safire?

Mr Ling How Doong: I thought we are talking about Francis Seow's speech. Now, suddenly, you switch over to William Safire. I really do not follow you. We are talking about Francis Seow, and the next thing you mentioned William Safire. I am confused.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very sorry if Mr Ling is confused. But if he had listened to Dr Ow yesterday, he would probably have been a little bit less confused. The connection is quite simple. All three made calumnious, unjustified, scurrilous attacks on our judiciary. In all three cases, the SDP and Dr Chee Soon Juan failed to rebut them. In the case of Francis Seow, he is now looking for a fig leaf. He says he wants the transcript. He asked for a bikini, we had given him eight pages to cover himself up in his shame. What does he need to cover himself up in the case of Mr William Safire?

Mr Speaker: Mr Ling, would you like to continue?

Mr Ling How Doong: Honestly, I did not even read this. I have only browsed through the whole speech. So I am in no position to answer this because I have just browsed through it.

An hon. Member: This is your issue.

Mr Ling How Doong: No, no. It is not my issue. It is the Straits Times of Saturday. I can well understand that Dr Chee attended the Williams College panel. This was not a talk. This was not expounded during the panel in his presence. How do we go around and ask everyone who makes a speech, "Why didn't you rebut this?" "Why didn't you attack this as wrong?" We cannot be doing that.

Of course, I understand that he went to Williams College. That is a different matter entirely. He was present there. He had the opportunity to do it. But he was silent, no endorsement. You cannot draw the conclusion that he endorsed it. As I mentioned earlier, the only mistake was that he failed to rebut them. But I do not know about William Safire. Was it a statement made by him in New York? I do not know.

An hon. Member: New York Times.

Mr Ling How Doong: Surely, if someone in the world makes a statement against Singapore and if we do not come out against it, you will say that we have failed in our duty. You do not expect us to do that sort of thing.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: But, Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Chee specifically made a point when he was in Williams College of rebutting Mr William Safire in graphic detail, explaining specifically what he did not agree with. And also when he was present at the alternative panel, he explained to the alternative panel that he was going to make this very important speech the next day and asked them to listen to him.

If you will read what Dr Chee said in the speech which was published in The New Democrat, he went to some considerable length, about 200 words, to explain exactly what he did not agree with in the case of William Safire. He said:

`Singapore is not like Burma or China or the erstwhile Soviet Union. ... Although I maybe under surveilance, I travel freely in and out of the country. Although the national newspapers are government-controlled, ... chewing gum ... fine.'

Dr Chee said all these things. Mr Ling has it in the The New Democrat in his hand. Why, from this long list of rebuttals of what William Safire said, was there not a single mention of William Safire's mistakes apropos the Singapore judiciary?

Mr Ling How Doong: Sir, this is a special edition which is supposed to cover whatever happened at Williams College.

Dr Ow Chin Hock: Not everything.

Mr Ling How Doong: Yes. How it started, who were the speakers and all these things. He cannot just pluck from the air and say, "Let me also talk about what Safire said one month ago."

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Is Mr Ling aware that Dr Chee is on record as claiming that this speech was written and settled before he left for Williams College?

Mr Ling How Doong: I suppose he said so. I am in no position to know. I do not know whether he prepared the speech ---

An hon. Member: What kind of chairman are you?

Mr Ling How Doong: --- before he left. I have no idea.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid I took the SDP ... [Interruptions].

Mr Ling How Doong: --- talking cock ---

Mr Speaker: Order. Resume your seat, Mr Ling. I want to remind the Member that he should refrain from engaging in conversation in the House with others.

Mr Ling How Doong: Mr Speaker, Sir, he was talking of funds. I am not going to tolerate a chap who does that. He should seek your permission first before he speaks to me. When he is unparliamentary, why should I be parliamentary to him? [Interruptions].

Mr Speaker: I have not heard him.

Mr Ling How Doong remained standing.

Mr Speaker: Order in the House. Mr Ling, I have not heard any remark being made. But I heard you engaging in a conversation with somebody else, and I think this is not the proper way to participate in a debate in the House. You will address the Chair and you will do so when you are asked to do so. Resume your seat, please.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Ling is squirming. I feel slightly sorry for him, but not too much. I understand his position. I hope he will be able to sort it out internally.

However, I think we should also take this opportunity to clarify the stands of the other Opposition Members in the House. Because it is not a matter where you can hide under the general cloak of the party position. Mr Ling has made quite clear that he disapproves completely of what Mr Francis Seow has said and also considers it a grave mistake, if I do not overstate his case, what Dr Chee did in Williams College. Can I confirm that?

Mr Ling How Doong: When I used the term "grave mistake", I referred to Francis Seow, not to Dr Chee. As I said, Dr Chee's only mistake was that he failed to rebut. If silence is a grave mistake, I do not know how you interpret it. You interpret for yourself. If silence is a grave mistake, so be it.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: I do not know whether silence was a grave mistake for Mr Ling earlier. But I think Mr Cheo should not remain silent and be mistaken as having sided with Dr Chee on this position. I think it is necessary for Mr Cheo to state quite clearly where he stands on this matter, and whether he agrees with Mr Ling that what Francis Seow said was totally wrong and what the SDP did was also completely wrong.

Mr Ling How Doong: Sir, in fact, I have already explained that I cannot vote for the motion.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: I am asking Mr Cheo.

Mr Ling How Doong: No, no. But you have cited me as if I said that SDP was totally wrong.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: You said that.

Mr Ling How Doong: No. I did not say that the SDP was totally wrong. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your indulgence, I explained earlier that I cannot vote for the motion. If you look at the motion, it is very clear. If we vote for the motion, we are admitting that we are supporting what Francis Seow said.

An hon. Member: No.

Mr Ling How Doong: Let me read it to you. You are going to deplore. It says:

`This House ... deplores the SDP's support ...'. So if I vote in favour, I am saying that I support the baseless attack, which is not the case.

An hon. Member: No.

Mr Ling How Doong: Yes. But we have not supported. How can we deplore ourselves for supporting? Let me make it very clear. We have never supported Francis Seow's utterances. We have never supported. How could we support?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I really think it is Mr Cheo's turn to speak.

Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Democratic Party has never raised any doubt about the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Therefore, my stand is very clear. That being the case, the SDP and I will not support Francis Seow or anybody who hurls any baseless attack on our judicial system. But we must vote against the motion moved by Dr Ow. Otherwise, it would amount to saying that SDP supports and is in favour of Francis Seow's baseless attacks on our judicial system. That is not the stand of the SDP. We must reiterate, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we have always been in support of the independence and integrity of the judicial system. There will be no change about that.

Mr Speaker: Mr Low.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, am I on the list of speakers?

Mr Speaker: I was given to understand that you would be speaking. That is why I called on you. You may proceed now, Mr Low. You can speak.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Anyway, since I am asked to speak, Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, neither I nor my Party is interested in what Francis Seow had to say in the United States. He might have said it, but we never heard him. I do not know. Perhaps the Government should extradite Francis Seow to Singapore and ask him to repeat what he said there and I will comment.

I was given a copy of the speech of Francis Seow just now, Mr Speaker. We were given half an hour to read it. I am afraid I have to say that the language used is very flowery and I had difficulty reading even the first few lines. I asked in the Member's Room what "Mr GCT" meant. Then I realised that it was Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong. Then there is a term "op-ed essay". I do not know whether it would be fair to ask for my comments on speeches of people who commented on the Singapore judiciary. But if I am asked to, please give me a translation in Chinese which I will understand better, because I may not understand some of the implications.

Just now, the Leader of the House asked me to comment. I do not think I am in a position to comment or specifically to say what I agree or do not agree, because I do not want to end up like the SDP. Perhaps if you want me to do so, then maybe the Leader of the House would like to translate it into Chinese and tell me what are the implications specifically so that I could say whether I do or do not agree.

Anyway, from what I understand from the speeches in this House and what Dr Ow had said yesterday, I do not agree, and I do not think Francis Seow has any basis to attack our judiciary. I understand he was part of the judiciary in Singapore. And if he wants to say such things, he should come back and say it.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Low has said that he does not think there is any basis for Francis Seow to attack the Singapore judiciary. But he has also said that he regrets being unable to read the flowery language which Mr Francis Seow has used. I think we can overcome this difficulty which Mr Low has got if we ignore most of Francis Seow's speech and focus on the operative paragraph on the first page. I will read it carefully in English and Mr Low can listen carefully to the translation which he will receive simultaneously in Mandarin, and then he can tell me whether he agrees with that or whether he totally repudiates that. I do not think it is good enough to make a general statement that he does not think he agrees. I think it is necessary to say whether he accepts this in any part or whether he repudiates it altogether. The operative paragraph is this. I read from the middle of the first page:

`The judiciary in S'pore is neither independent nor free. It is pliant. It is corrupt. It is beholden to the Prime Minister and the establishment, judges in S'pore 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 LKY and his son Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister in waiting and Mr Goh Chok Tong, the seat warmer Prime Minister in the recent International Herald Tribune 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, there are no flowers in that paragraph. It is perfectly clear. It is in simple English. As Mr Seow has said, he is calling a spade a spade. I want to know what Mr Low calls it.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will call a spade a spade. I do not agree with what he said. From what I understand, the implication of it is contempt of court.

Sir, it is very strange that I am put on a spot in which I have no part in it, neither has my Party a part in it. I make my stand clear that I do not agree with what he says. What else does the Deputy Prime Minister want? This is Parliament. I am objecting to being cross-examined in such a way like an accused person by saying "yes" or "no". I do not think I should answer all the questions he wants.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: If Mr Low Thia Khiang wants to be taken seriously, firstly, he should vote for the motion when it is called. Secondly, he should get his Party to issue a statement, just like the SDP, and have it signed by its Secretary-General, Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam, reaffirming the Workers' Party's confidence in the integrity and standards of the Singapore judiciary. Then we can take it that Mr Low speaks sincerely and with authority.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I find it strange again. A few months ago, when this House discussed the Filipino maid's case, I made my Party's stand clear in this House, I think I was asked by the Minister to make a statement for my Party. On the other hand, it seems to me that the SDP Members are being accused in this House of not representing the SDP because what they say does not represent the SDP. I do not understand what is all this.

As regard the motion, it states:

`(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 ..., and

(2) deplores the SDP's support for a baseless attack ...'.

My position on the motion is very simple. I would not support the motion, neither would I be opposing the motion. My party has made it very clear that we do not wish to enter into a debate on this. That will be our stand, Sir.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Sir, I take it that the Member is aware and remembers that Mr Francis Seow was the Workers' Party candidate in the 1988 General Elections and, for all I know, remains a Workers' Party member and therefore makes this statement with the endorsement at least of the Workers' Party, if not before, now after the fact, after you know about it, and you fail to dissociate yourself from it, or to expel him from the Party, that means you endorse him.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, the string is going to be very long. You are going to tie everyone together. From what I know, Francis Seow is no longer a member of the Party. I read his speech, a copy of which I only receive today. I have not even finished reading it, and I cannot really understand what he says.

Mr Speaker: Dr Ow, would you like to wind up the debate?

Dr Ow Chin Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Members for their contribution to this debate, in particular, the Senior Minister for sharing with Members why and how the Chief Justice and other judges in Singapore were appointed. SM has reminded us that the debate on this motion is not about Dr Chee Soon Juan or even Francis Seow. The crux of the matter is that some American media and human rights groups want Singapore to change and they want us to follow their prescription to be "democratic" like some Asian countries which have heeded their advice. These American media and human rights groups want to use Francis Seow and Dr Chee to attack and undermine the integrity and independence of our judiciary, a key pillar of our political system. By doing so, they hope to cut Singapore down to size, as I said yesterday. The Prime Minister has made similar points about the campaign by some western media and human rights groups against Singapore and the Singapore Government in his National Day Rally Speech on 20th August 1995.

I am glad that PAP MPs who spoke have focused their speeches on the crux of the matter, namely, the independence and integrity of our judiciary. It is very clear that my PAP fellow MPs will not allow anyone, Singaporean or foreigner, to attack or question the independence and integrity of our judiciary without being challenged. This will send a clear signal to all Singaporeans and to foreigners alike.

We, as Parliamentarians, have the duty to protect and defend our judiciary against any baseless attack and criticism. Mr Davinder Singh is right that Parliament has the responsibility to protect the honour of our judges.

I am very touched by Mr Chiam See Tong, although he is still a SDP MP. Mr Chiam has made his stand very clear that he has absolute confidence in our judiciary. I am glad that Mr Chiam has agreed to support my motion. Sir, Mr Chiam has once again proven that he is a truly honest, responsible and patriotic Opposition MP, as he has shown it in the Flor Contemplacion case.

Mr Low Thia Khiang was put on the spot, as he said, but he was a little bit evasive. However, he was honest enough to say that he did not want to end up like the SDP. I do not want to say more, but I would remind him that the Workers' Party's Secretary-General did issue a statement saying that the WP does not wish to enter into a debate over "what Dr Chee said or did not say at Williams College". But this was a good opportunity for Mr Low Thia Khiang himself, as a Member of this House, to state his stand. But he has missed the opportunity.

Now let me come to Mr Ling How Doong's response. Sir, you may have seen that just now I gave him a copy of Mr Seow's speech, with some highlights, so that he could read it. I have also given him copies of my press cuttings on my exchange with his Secretary-General on this important issue of the judiciary.

I reminded the SDP MPs yesterday that "this is a final opportunity for SDP to come clean". Mr Chiam has done so with his passionate speech. Mr Ling and Mr Cheo, in their speeches as SDP MPs, only said that Seow's attack on our judiciary was wrong. But they have still not come clean on the SDP's action and on what SDP's Secretary-General said or did not say at Williams College. SDP is now offered another opportunity by the Deputy Prime Minister to publish in its party organ The New Democrat an article along the line suggested by DPM.

Mr Ling said there will be a statement. So until I see the statement or the article, or both, I cannot say that the SDP has come clean before the people of this country. There is one particular point I want to point out to Mr Ling. He asked for the full text of Lingle's speech. In fact, he need not do so. I will just ask him two specific questions:

(a) Is Dr Chee Soon Juan deaf? If not, after listening to Seow's and Lingle's speeches, including their attacks on our judiciary, why did Dr Chee not rebut Seow and Lingle? Mr Ling said that was his only mistake, but I say that was a very big mistake because Dr Chee did say that the SDP had its own agenda at Williams College, and his mission was to clear up any misperception that foreigners or Americans have about Singapore.

(b) Why did the SDP not respond to William Safire's attacks on our judiciary even before Williams College, at Williams College and after Williams College? All these were published in letters to the Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao in September and early October. I have shown Mr Ling copies of these letters.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I promised yesterday, I intend to call for a division at the end of this debate. We have come to the end of this debate. I wish to call for a division.

Mr Speaker: Will Members who wish to support the division rise in their places?

More than five Members rising in their places -

Mr Speaker: There being more than five Members, the Clerk will ring the Division Bell.

The House divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 2; Abstentions, 2. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Abdullah Tarmugi Lim Boon Heng Ahmad Mattar Lim Hng Kiang Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Loh Meng See Chandra Das, S Low Seow Chay Chay Wai Chuen Mah Bow Tan Chen, Bernard Mohamad Maidin B P M Chen Koon Lap, Kenneth Ong Chit Chung Chen Seow Phun, John Othman bin Haron Eusofe Chew Heng Ching Ow Chin Hock Chiam See Tong Peh Chin Hua Chin Harn Tong Shanmugam, K Chng Hee Kok Sidek bin Saniff Ch'ng Jit Koon Tan Cheng Bock Chong, Charles Tan Keng Yam, Tony Choo Wee Khiang Teo Chee Hean Davinder Sinh Teo Chong Tee De Payva, John Umar Abdul Hamid Goh Chee Wee Vasoo, S Goh Chok Tong Wan Soon Bee Goh Choon Kang Wong, Aline K Harun bin A Ghani Wong Kan Seng Heng Chiang Meng Wong Kwei Cheong Ho Kah Leong Yao Chih, Matthias Ho Peng Kee Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Ho Tat Kin Yatiman Yusof Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Yeo Cheow Tong Jayakumar, S Yeo Yong-Boon, George Ker Sin Tze Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Koh Lip Lin Zulkifli bin Mohammed Koo Tsai Kee Lau Ping Sum Noes Lau Teik Soon Lee Boon Yang Cheo Chai Chen Lee Ching Yen, Stephen Ling How Doong Lee Hsien Loong Lee Tsao Yuan Lee Yiok Seng Abstentions Lee Yock Suan Leong Horn Kee Low Thia Khiang Lew Syn Pau Tan Soo Khoon

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

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 Wong Kan Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, we have come to the end of a very long and important debate. The first two days were on the Family Violence and other Bills, but today's sitting is crucial because we have talked about a very important subject, ie, the independence of our judiciary. I think most speakers are very clear about the stand to take, but some are still bumbling along and at the end, they are still fumbling for a position which they can only take at the end of another umpteenth meetings amongst their CEC members.