TRANSFER OF PRESIDENCY IN THE PHILIPPINES

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam asked the Senior Minister if he will explain his recent statement that the transfer of the presidency in the Philippines is not a plus for democracy and whether he was speaking for the Government of Singapore when he made the statement.

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam (Non-Constituency Member): Question No. 1, Sir. May I apologise that at the last sitting, I did not rise from my seat. I offer you my apologies.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Dr Ow Chin Hock) (for the Senior Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Senior Minister, in an interview with the Associated Press on 22nd January 2001, expressed his personal opinion that it would have been better for the Philippines had President Estrada been removed in a constitutional way by conviction in the Senate. The fact that Estrada was not so removed, did not resign, and the Supreme Court had to declare the presidency vacant in order to swear in the Vice-President, did not strengthen the democratic institutions of the Philippines.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first of all express my disappointment that the Senior Minister is not here to answer the Question. After all, he is asked to explain, not simply to say that he made the statement. May I ask: did he make it clear that he was speaking in his personal capacity and not speaking as a member of the Government, disassociating the Government from his view?

Dr Ow Chin Hock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought I have answered the question. I said, "Senior Minister expressed his personal opinion".

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, the question was: did the Senior Minister, when he did express these views, make it quite clear that he was not speaking on behalf of the Government of Singapore, but that it was his own personal view?

Dr Ow Chin Hock: Sir, if Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam reads carefully what Senior Minister had said in the interview, at no point did Senior Minister profess to be putting across the views of the Singapore Government.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that he still does not answer my question. The question is: did he make it clear that he was not? If I am not going to get an answer to it, may I move on to the next question?

Mr Speaker: Yes, by all means. Move on to the next Question, please.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Sir, the next question I am moving to is not Question No. 2 but another question for the Minister of State.

Mr Speaker: All right.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Has the Senior Minister now explained why, giving his reasons for saying that it was not a plus or boost for democracy?

Dr Ow Chin Hock: Sir, I have explained in my reply to his main Question that the fact that Mr Estrada was not removed in a constitutional way is therefore not a plus or did not strengthen the democratic institutions of the Philippines.

Mr Jeyaretnam: This is ex post facto. But is the Senior Minister now aware that the Supreme Court has ruled that he was constitutionally removed, and that it was not against the Constitution?

Dr Ow Chin Hock: Sir, I am not an expert on the Constitution, but I am aware that the Supreme Court's ruling is different from Mr Estrada being impeached and convicted in the Senate.