RESPECT FOR THE JUDICIARY

3.40 pm

Mr Speaker: This motion is subject to signification of support by at least one Member.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I support.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this House regrets that the Executive does not respect the Judiciary as the final arbiter in the application of all laws passed by Parliament.

Sir, I assure you and the House that I am not embarking on an academic exercise, but raising a question which I shall say is very relevant even in the economic woes that face this country at the moment. There have been calls for greater transparency and accountability in decisions taken in other countries in their financial matters. It is not altogether irrelevant to our problems in Singapore today.

No doubt the ever faithful press will report of the NCMP wasting the time and I see that every time they refer to me, they say the NCMP. I am here not just as an NCMP. I am also here as the leader of the Workers' Party, and I am speaking on behalf of the party, not just for myself

Mr Speaker, Sir, when we decided in the 1950s to set out on the road for self-government, we chose deliberately, of our own free choice, the form and system of government that we would like for Singapore. And, of course, as Members are aware or should be aware, that an All-Party Mission went to London for talks to hammer out what should be our style of government and our form of government, and included among them was none other than the one-time Secretary-General of the ruling party and Prime Minister for many years. And we chose the Westminster pattern and the pattern that was followed in other countries which had evolved into independence after British tutelage, that we would have a division of powers. We would have the Executive to implement and carry out the day-to-day decisions that are necessary. We would have the legislature, the Parliament, that would make the laws for the people and circumscribe the powers under which the Executive may act.

Finally, that we would have an independent Judiciary - this was clearly spelt out in the memorandum - the importance of an independent Judiciary who will interpret the laws of the country and decide whether, be it the Executive or any citizen, has acted in accordance with the law or laws of the country. So we had chosen for ourselves these three divisions of Government.

Following that choice by us, we finally enacted by Article 93 of the Constitution that the judicial power shall be vested in the Supreme Court of Singapore and such other courts as may be established. Any lawyer will tell you that judicial power includes the interpretation of any law passed by Parliament. It is part and parcel of their function - that the courts are always called upon to do just that, to interpret what the law means and whether anyone has acted outside the law.

Good government, Mr Speaker, Sir, requires that government acts in accordance with the law. Government is not above the law. No one is above the law in a country which observes the rule of law. In a civilised democratic country, if the government acted above the law or outside the law, then it ceases to be a democratic government subject to the rule of law and it becomes no better than a mafia government. And any issue, whether the Government has acted under the law, must be determined by the Judiciary, not by the Executive. Otherwise, the Executive becomes judge and jury, master in its own cause, decides what is the law and whether it has followed the law or not. That is not the case where the Rule of Law prevails and in a country which professes to practise parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy, by its term, implies that Parliament shall be supreme and the Government shall act under the laws passed by Parliament and shall be accountable to Parliament, not act as a law unto itself. These are absolutely necessary if we are to have any transparency or accountability in our system of Government. We have, even our own Ministers, proclaiming over and over again how transparent the Singapore Government is, that they accept the need for transparency, for all their decisions to be seen openly and to be judged by persons who are competent to judge such decisions.

It is therefore a matter for regret, it is indeed sad, that over the last few years the Government has not been seen, and manifestly been seen, to have acted in accordance with the law. That, as I say, is vital in any democratic system of government.

May I first of all highlight the recent instance where the Government has not been seen and perceived to have acted within the law. I should have also said that above all laws, the Constitution is the supreme law and all other laws are subject to the Constitution. Parliament is subject to the Constitution. The courts are subject to the Constitution. The Executive is subject to the Constitution. It is the people's charter. It is an Act of the people and it is through the Constitution that the people control the Government. Therefore, it is a matter for regret that the Government should have been seen to disregard flagrantly the provisions of the Constitution. Of course, I am referring to the question which I raised in this House not very long ago, whether the Government had acted in accordance with Article 144 of the Constitution. I do not wish to read again what Article 144 of the Constitution says. It is clear enough, and it seems to us that before any loan is given Parliament's authority by way of a resolution should be first obtained and that should again be ratified by the President.

May I say from the outset that this motion does not raise the question whether it was right or wrong to have offered this loan to Indonesia. That is a matter which perhaps has to be decided at some other time. This motion raises the question whether the Government has been seen to act in accordance with the law. May I also say quite clearly at the outset that I am not here to argue that the Government's interpretation of that Article is wrong and that the interpretation that we seek to put is the right one. Parliament is not the forum to determine the interpretation of any Article of the Constitution. That, as I said, is the province of the courts. The courts have to determine it. It is in recognition of this that the Constitution was amended, I believe, in 1994, to set up a Tribunal consisting of Supreme Court judges to whom any question concerning the effect of any provision of the Constitution can be referred to for an opinion. So we have the machinery already set up. Under Article 100A of the Constitution, the President may refer to the Tribunal any question concerning the interpretation of any Article in the Constitution.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, can I ask you to resume your seat to allow Mr Wong to move a procedural motion.