J. B. Jeyaretnam
Singapore
“And even if he did not know, as the Court of Appeal said, he was wilfully blind to that fact. This cannot be a defence because you cannot prove knowledge on the part of the accused. But what the court can do is to look at all the circumstances of the case and then conclude that it is beyond reasonable doubt that he had that knowledge.”
“Sir, as I now understand it, the payment to Mr Olds was compensation or gratuity, and not salary for the year 2000. If it was gratuity or compensation, may I ask whether there was any term in the contract of employment with him for the payment of gratuity, how long was he employed for, and why did he leave?”
“Maybe there are other areas in which we can think of similar useful schemes so that those who are unable to upgrade themselves sufficiently can still have good employment. It is a complex problem. And I think all Ministries and economic agencies would have to think harder how to address this problem.”
“May I make it clear that I shall talk about the aspects of the case which should have been considered by the court. So, in that way, it might reflect on the court's decision. But I do want the Cabinet, when it comes to advising the President on the clemency petition that had been sent to him, to take these points into consideration.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with respect, I do not quite understand your restriction because, as I understand it, all court proceedings are now over. So there are no pending proceedings in court. The court is now functus officio. Mr Deputy Speaker: You did not listen to me carefully.”
“Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Minister for Manpower, given the current economic climate, will his Ministry consider encouraging local employers to give priority to employing Singaporeans who can perform equivalent jobs, including our healthy elderly, rather than to resort to engaging foreign employees too readily.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,058 lines we hold for J. B. Jeyaretnam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 27 of 82.
“If the Prime Minister had just stuck to those two terms, I could not have raised privilege. If I had, I would have been laughed out of court. I take my profession very seriously, and the last thing I want is to be laughed out of court. So there it is. The Minister cannot say, "Whatever the terms, Jeyaretnam would have raised this privilege question." It is nonsensical because it fails to understand section 4 of the Act. Because those two terms of reference do not raise my statements in the House. They are an examination into something quite external. And how could I raise section 4? Nothing to do with section 4, nothing to do with parliamentary proceedings. So I could not have raised it. I hope the Minister will clear his mind of this misconception under which he is labouring - that I could have raised parliamentary privilege whatever the terms of reference were. I simply could not have raised privilege on those two terms.”
“You want to join in, do you? Come along! Come along, before the University students. "Whatever the terms, his position ..." [Interruption] The Leader wants to keep on nagging. We invite Members of the Government to come and debate with us in public, and they turn away, shy away. Here, because there are 75 of them together, they find strength. I must not digress. He says, "Whatever the terms his position was that he was absolutely prohibited." I have just tried to explain that if the Prime Minister had stuck to the two terms of reference, which were agreed in this House, which he accepted, I could not have raised privilege at all. Members of the House, I hope you will credit me with a little knowledge of the Act. An hon. Member: A little knowledge is dangerous thing.”
“He says, "Whatever the terms,his position..." - I have offered him a challenge. If he likes, we can have a University debate.”
“And he says, "Whatever the terms we might have published, whatever the terms on which we might have set up this Commission, his position was that he was absolutely prohibited." The Minister forgets again or he is unable. This is all the conclusion that I can make, Mr Minister, that you are simply unable to understand or comprehend. I am sorry, and I will repeat it, outside if you like, that you are unable to understand section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. And I will defend it, before your University students. Would he like it?”
“He fastens on to a phrase "because an appeal was filed by the public prosecutor against the acquittal" that I am saying that he was transferred because an appeal was filed by the public prosecutor. I am sorry to say it is a complete misunderstanding, an inability to understand the English language there. I am saying that he had written his judgment because an appeal was filed by the public prosecutor. He was transferred after he had written his judgment, and I am trying to explain that he had to write his judgment because an appeal was filed by the public prosecutor against the acquittal. Because normally, Members, the District Judges do not write their judgments unless there is an appeal. That is all to it. But he tries to put some other interpretation. The Minister must know that District Judges do not write their judgments unless there is an appeal. Does he not know? Are you saying they all write their judgments? All I was trying to say there is that after he had written his judgment, because an appeal was filed by the public prosecutor against the acquittal, ie, after he had written his judgment, he was transferred. "Because an appeal was filed by the public prosecutor against the acquittal" is in parenthesis and it explains why he had to write his judgment. That is all. If you cannot understand it, I cannot help you, Mr Minister. Then he says, "He tries to wriggle out as we saw on the tape that day." Well, what did we see of the tapes? Just what pleased you. You cut it short. I asked for the whole of the tape, and he said, "Well, we will give it to you at home. You go and watch it." You bring that here. And he says, "In the afternoon...", you see, he goes back to the Commission, "In the afternoon he made a 180-degree turn ." It has nothing to do with this motion.”
“You have got nothing else to read, read that again.”
“You take it home and read them, just as I was told, "Look at the tape at your house." I asked for the whole tape here.”
“He reads from col. 696 on the 19th March, and I was going to answer this because he clasps on to a phrase ---”
“I have said, Mr Minister, for the last time that there was public disquiet about all these things and I said the Government had to explain, just as I said about Michael Khoo. If you cannot understand plain English, I am sorry. And then he comes to col. 696, on 19th March.”
“I have just said it. His decision acquitting the man was not acceptable. The Ministry of Communications that evening said, "We don't accept it."”
“Please, let us not waste time, Mr Minister, because I have only got one hour. I know what the object is. May I carry on? All I am saying is there were two other instances. And I still repeat that these decisions were not acceptable to the Executive, and I instanced that in the case of Mr Jeffrey Chan, the statement made by the Ministry of Communications that same evening saying, "Forget about that judgment. We are going to carry on." So clearly it was not acceptable to the Executive.”
“Please. And there were these two instances before Mr Michael Khoo, and they need an explanation. The public need an explanation from the Executive about these transfers.”
“I am saying that these persons were transferred and there was public disquiet. An hon. Member: Don't wriggle out.”
“Yes, thank you. Not acceptable to the Executive. And then these persons were transferred.”
“All right, tell me which part I am not quoting correctly.”
“He said I was alleging that the two transfers were caused by Executive interference and I am saying I never said it. Let us look at it. I was talking about the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo and I said, you know that he was transferred after the case was heard and he had acquitted us. Then I said, "I am sorry to have to say this, that was not the first time." First time, what? - that two members of the Subordinate Court Judiciary were transferred after they had acquitted accused persons. That is all I am saying - a fact.”
“I can see the reason, and I can see such a course of action or conduct. He could have proposed that to me here, "Do you agree that if they come up with a clean slate, you will subject yourself to an inquiry on this as to why you came up to this House and made all these statements?" But what did we find when the terms of reference were announced? A complete departure. The object of trying to show the public that the Subordinate Judiciary was not only independent but is manifestly seen by them to be independent was lost sight of, as I said. Because that is the whole object and purpose, to show the integrity of the judicial system in Singapore which everybody on both sides of the House agree is essential and vital. So that was the object and purpose. But what do the terms of reference announced require the Commission? I do not want to read them again. That object and purpose is lost sight of, and we have a new object and purpose. Can you not see it, Members? The new object and purpose is no longer whether the Judiciary is seen to be manifestly independent of the Executive. The new object is an inquiry on Jeyaretnam, "What is the evidence upon which he came to Parliament? That is what we want to know." The independence of the Judiciary is pushed aside. "Let that wait. We want, first of all, an investigation into Jeyaretnam." Is that not a departure, Members? I am afraid the Minister completely fails to grasp the motion. And it is lamentable because, as I said, the Minister is also a lawyer. So what has the Minister got to say in reply? He tries again his old tactics - Jeyaretnam is trying to wriggle out. Wriggle out? My foot. May we look at the 10th January Report again, cols. 711-712 that he read.”
“And he accepted that the second object would be to inquire into all the circumstances of Mr Michael Khoo's transfer. "To inquire into all the circumstances", Members of the House, ie, to examine everything connected with the transfer. Why was the man transferred? Who started it? What were the reasons and was this a transfer really, or was it a demotion? So to examine the whole transaction (for want of a better word). That was the purpose and object, and I for one, Members of the House, went away feeling very glad that the Prime Minister had agreed to this. I thought perhaps I had done him an injustice in thinking that he was not interested in all this; he had shown himself not to be really interested. So that was the purpose and object. To demonstrate to the people of Singapore, because it is so vital a subject, that the Judiciary in the Subordinate Courts was not only independent but was manifestly seen to be independent, which is what I said. It is important. Just as the maxim in law is that Justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done. The public must see Justice, must see it manifestly being done. So that was the object and the purpose. And of course the Prime Minister, when he came back, said, "I want also another term of reference, and that is, to inquire into the basis of all allegations." He could have had that if he had first carried out the two terms of reference and found that there was nothing wrong about the whole thing; if they had examined all the circumstances and had come up with a clean slate. Then he could have said, "Go on, after that, to inquire into why Jeyaretnam came to make these allegations when you find that there was nothing wrong about the whole thing." That is perfectly all right.”
“The Prime Minister was prepared, regardless of whether my allegations were true or not - and this is why I said I thought he gave the impression that he was very earnest and sincere about the whole thing - that he was prepared, regardless of whether my allegations were true or not, to allow a Commission to look into it. And the Minister comes here and now says, "Why should we look into it? Should we not first inquire into the allegations made by the Member?" But that is not what the Prime Minister said. This is why I say the Minister for Home Affairs fails abysmally to grasp what is involved in the motion. The motion before the House is: 'That this House regrets that the terms of reference announced for the Commission of Inquiry appointed under Gazette Notification No. 1298 and published on the 18th of April 1986 depart significantly in their purpose and object from the purpose and object of the commission that was proposed and discussed in this House on the 21st of March 1986.' Should we not, Members of the House, determine what was the purpose and object of the Commission that was agreed in this House on the 21st of March? I have taken you, Members, through the Report of the debate in this House on the 21st of March. What was the purpose? What was the object? It is there. Do I need to take you through again? First, the purpose was to examine the independence of the Subordinate Judiciary and to see whether the system needs any improvement. That is the first purpose or object. The Prime Minister did not say in this House, "The first object will be to inquire into your allegations, Jeyaretnam. And after we have dealt with you, then we will embark on this." He did not say it like that.”
“All right, Sir. The absence of the Prime Minister shows that he cannot reply to this. So is it any wonder that his Minister cannot reply to the motion? Is it any wonder? May I, begging your pardon, Sir, hope that the Prime Minister is not indisposed. I wish him well and I hope it is not because of any indisposition that he has not turned up in this House. May I take the last part of the Minister's reply. He says this whole thing is a hypocrisy. He says before we look into the independence of the District Judges and Magistrates, before we try and improve the system or whether we need to improve the system, we must first inquire into the allegations, and he gave the example of the crack. I agree that if there is a crack you must first investigate whether there is a crack and what has caused the crack and you do not pull down the whole thing. I agree entirely, yes. But what the Minister forgets is what the Prime Minister agreed in this House. It was open to the Prime Minister on the 21st March to say to me, "Well, I am not going to inquire into the independence of the Subordinate Court Judiciary. I am not going to inquire into all the circumstances surrounding Michael Khoo's transfer until I am satisfied on your allegations." Then I could have responded. But that is not what he said. He did not say, "I am not going to embark on an investigation into the independence of the Subordinate Judiciary until Mr Jeyaretnam's allegations have been proved." You see the whole world of difference.”
“This is not a debate on Parliamentary democracy.”
“Mrs Thatcher, the British Prime Minister, is now being hauled over the coals. I do not know whether you have seen this but if you have been listening to the BBC - they have a programme every week "People and Politics" - you would have heard that she is being hauled over the coals and she will be hauled over the coals, when Parliament resumes in October after the Summer recess over the Civil Service leak. I do not want to go into too many details but there was this Westland deal and there was a purported leak from the Civil Service of a Memorandum to the Defence Minister Haseltyne. Then there was an All-Parliamentary Committee which inquired into the conduct of the Civil Service. There, Members, you see how Parliament controls the Government machinery, which is what I have been pleading for in this House so that we in Singapore may also show ourselves to be responsible. So there was a Parliamentary All-Party Committee. And what did this All-Party Committee find? That a responsible Permanent Secretary, the Head of the Civil Service, had gone wrong. And they said, "Who is responsible? The Prime Minister." And so they are in full cry after her, not just Members of Parliament, the press is in full cry. And do you think she will stay away? If she stays away, she will have to resign. That is all the stuff of Parliamentary democracy, Members of Parliament. But we merely put up with a show, a pretence, of Parliamentary democracy. I want the real genuine Parliamentary democracy in Singapore. That is all I want. I do not want anything else. I do not want subversion, terrorism, communism or whatever have you. I want genuine Parliamentary democracy to function so that our people can --- Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, can you confine yourself to the terms of reference?”
“It is really a matter for regret and I, again, would say that I think the Prime Minister is failing in his duty to this House. He is failing in his duty to the House to come to this House to answer the motion. That is showing disrespect to the House. If somebody in the United Kingdom Parliament had tabled a motion which criticized the conduct of the British Prime Minister, and particularly over an assurance she had given in Parliament and which the Member said she had not kept, do you think she could have kept away from Parliament? It is unthinkable. She would have been there to answer the criticism. She would have been there to face Parliament and to stand by whatever act she did, or conduct she did. Why is the Prime Minister not here? That is lamentable. That shows that the Prime Minister is unable to answer the motion. I am sorry, but that is the inescapable conclusion that I can draw and which the members of the public in Singapore will have to draw. Here is a motion from an Opposition Member saying that the Prime Minister has departed from his assurance in Parliament and the man, the central man in this motion, does not show up. It does not say very much for the Prime Minister, I am afraid. It does not say very much for Cabinet responsibility and Ministerial responsibility in Singapore. And this is a prime example, Members of the House. I know you are all Members of the Government Party. But you have got to take cognizance of this one day, whether you proclaim it outside or not is another matter. But you have got to take cognizance of this because Cabinet government, Cabinet responsibility, if it means anything, means this: that Ministers will appear in Parliament and take the brunt of any attack on the Government, and particularly on them.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have got a full hour. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I say that I am simply astounded, astounded at the reply made by the Minister to this motion. I, of course, realize that the Minister was at one time a Professor of Law at our University. That is why I am astounded because he fails to show any grasp - I am sorry to have to say this - he fails to show any grasp of the motion. All he can do is to repeat that I had the opportunity before the Commissioner and I did not take it. But we are not talking about that any more. The Speaker told me, "Mr Jeyaretnam, we are not discussing the Report. We have already finished with it." But I was not talking on that. I was trying to outline the principle. But the Minister of the Government comes up, and what does he say in reply to this motion? He rehashes, plays his record that he played in the last debate, edits it a bit, perhaps SBC helped to edit it. And he comes back and says, "Come along, here is my new edited version now of what I said the last time." Because that is what it all amounted to. He does not realize that the motion is not dealing any more with the allegations or what took place before the Commissioner. The motion is dealing with the question, simply, whether the Prime Minister of the Government in which he serves, and the Prime Minister whom he serves, has departed from the assurance given to this House. I am sorry to have to say this. The Minister might think that I am insulting him all the time, but I wish the Prime Minister were here. Because I am sure he would have shown a better grasp of the motion. He would have responded to the motion, instead of trying to circle round it all the time which is what the Minister for Home Affairs and the Second Minister for Law has done.”
“Building a better system and his allegation that the system should be improved is based on his scurrilous allegation of Executive interference: yes, the Commission looks into it if his allegations are proved. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not think I need to add anything else. I will just end up by repeating that this motion is farcical, irrelevant and an exercise in hypocrisy. The real issue before the House is not the terms of reference. The real issue before the House is an issue which I have mentioned the other day - attempts to bring down into ruin, bring into total disrepute and damnation, key pillars of our society. And when such allegations that he has made about the Judiciary are made in this House or elsewhere, the accuser must be able to back up his allegations. Opportunity was given, did not take up. Morning - hithering, dithering, waiver of privilege, "I might waive, I might not" if you produce his witnesses. Afternoon - 180-degree turn: "Sorry, I want to go in voluntarily, but there is a rule of law which forbids me to do it." Pitiful, pathetic display. But the Government has said it has got nothing to hide. The Government wants to give him yet another opportunity and he has been told that he will have an opportunity to prove all these allegations because, in the ultimate analysis, we cannot let persons trying to bring down the whole edifice of our society in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I urge Members to vote against this motion. 4.25 pm”
“He makes much ado of the fact that he wanted the Commission to look into this whole question of improving the Subordinate Court Judiciary. The term of reference is in the Commission's terms, the fourth term. But he complains that the fourth term reads, as follows: 'if the Commissioner finds, on the evidence, that the transfers were due to or caused by interference by the executive arm of Government to receive proposals as to how the existing system and procedure ... can be improved.' Why complain? Because this inquiry into whether we can improve the system must surely depend on whether his allegations are founded. Let me give an example. If the Member for Anson happened to see a crack in this building, suddenly rises and says, "Mr Speaker, Sir, this building is unsafe. It has been built in a negligent manner. We should bring down this whole building and let us put up a new, improved, House of Parliament." Well, sure. But before we look into the question whether we should accept his proposal to build, bring down, demolish the House and build a new House of Parliament, we must inquire whether the premise on which he bases his conclusion is established. We must first find out: is it true that the building is unsafe? Is it true that it has been built negligently? This is commonsense. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the terms of reference, in fact, are based on what the Member for Anson wanted and what the Member for Anson said in Parliament. He alleged Executive interference, the Commission has to look into Executive interference. He alleged impropriety in the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo; the terms of reference authorized the Commission to look into them.”
“What it really boils down to is that the Member does not want and did not want the Commission to look into the specific allegations. Look at what he says. He says (and he reminds the Prime Minister) he suggested two things: (a) that the Commission look into the general question of the independence and impartiality of the Subordinate Courts, see whether a better system can be constructed; (b) to look into the circumstances of Mr Michael Khoo's transfer. Then he expresses astonishment, surprise, over the terms which include reference to the specific allegations. He did not want the specific allegations to be included. The question is, why? Now we know, because he could not defend himself; he could not justify his allegations. No wonder then that the Prime Minister replied to him, as follows: 'You made serious allegations in Parliament on two occasions, in January and March 1986, that there was executive interference with the Subordinate Court judiciary. The Terms of Reference enable the Commission to investigate the truth of these allegations. It is strange that you do not consider these allegations important enough to include them in your proposed terms of reference.' Indeed strange that he did not want these specific allegations to be included. Because he knew, and it has now been established, that he was unable to back his allegations. But we are still giving him an opportunity, as was indicated two days ago. He would still have an opportunity, if he claims he was shut out, to prove his allegations, bring his witnesses, his evidence, before the Committee of Pri- vileges, as mentioned by the Leader of the House. The third point, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.”
“Did he protest that the Commission should not look into these allegations? Did he object to these terms as summarized by the Prime Minister? No. He has attempted to place a special meaning on the words "so be it". Let me repeat: 'Now he proposes that a High Court Judge be appointed. So be it.' He maintains that does not mean agreement. If that does not mean agreement, what does? And he says: 'So it is for the Prime Minister, and if he thinks that is what it should be, well, fine.' He had an opportunity to object. He can say, "That's not fine. I don't agree with it." He could say, "Mr Prime Minister, I don't agree with it. If that is the summary of the terms, I will not appear before the Commission." But he said, "Fine, so be it. I will, if invited, certainly make my representations to whoever is appointed." Famous last words of a man who cannot be believed. Now, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, he refers to this letter which he wrote to the Prime Minister on 16th April, really like a spoilt child, complaining about the terms of reference. I might add, in parenthesis, when that debate ended, the Prime Minister made it clear after having noted these points that the actual drafting of the terms would be left to the legal experts in the Attorney-General's Chambers. That was made very clear. In col. 903, the Prime Minister made it clear that it will not be he who will draft it. It will go to the draftsman who looks after these matters in the Attorney-General's Chambers. For obvious reasons. The terms for the appointment of a Commission have to be drafted in order for the instruments to be executed by the President. I would like Members to focus their attention on the letter which the Member has just circulated. The second paragraph, what does it boil down to?”
“I do not think we should be too hasty about it. I will send it to you. You know, terms of reference have to be carefully drafted out. You do not expect me, this very second, to scribble out something and hand it to you.' He was not competent. He was not capable of drafting it then and there. So what the Prime Minister did was to get what were the points he wanted and so the debate went on. How did it end up? It ended up this way. Col. 914, and this is towards the end of the whole debate, the two days' debate, and this is what the Prime Minister said: 'I therefore propose to have this Commission of Inquiry of one Judge [and I stress this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir] to inquire into all the statements that have been made in this House which are privileged, and to find the basis upon which they have been made, including the two terms of reference which he has suggested in this Chamber. So, in fact, there will be three terms of reference - first, the basis for all the allegations made, all the statements made by the Member in this Chamber concerning the Judiciary and the administration of the law, ...' In other words, towards the close of the debate, after all the discussions on the various aspects of the proposed Commission, the Prime Minister summed it up, and his summing up made it very clear that the proposed Commission of Inquiry would definitely look into the specific allegations of interference by the Executive alleged by the Member for Anson. Let us look at it again, since the Member for Anson is shaking his head: ' ... the basis for all the allegations made, all the statements made by the Member in this Chamber concerning the Judiciary and the administration of the law, ...'. Now, what did the Member for Anson say?”
“Learning it from the Prime Minister and you.”
“And he is a product of Cambridge, not a product of the Singapore University, but a product of Cambridge where they investigate and encourage debate, questions, and he knows what the privileges of Parliament are. He knows that if he is going to depart from something that he had told the House, then it was his bounden duty, I say it was his bounden duty to have come back to this House and said, "Well, I have thought about the terms. I am not prepared to accept those terms, Parliament. I think I will now appoint a Commission with these new terms of reference." 4.01 pm”
“May I assure the Leader that I am quite happy to stay here until midnight. I have got enough stamina - I am sure the people of Singapore know - to sit out the whole night as well. So that letter did not see the light of day. And I am not going to repeat, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all that I have said earlier. But I trust the Members of the House will see that it is as a result of what the Prime Minister did that the whole Commission went off the rails, went off the track. Section 4 came into play. There was a collision between Parliament and the Executive, in the appointment of the Commission. Parliamentary historians will tell you, if you read books on Parliament history, that in England Parliament is very zealous of its rights and will not allow anybody outside, not even the sovereign, to encroach on Parliamentary rights. That is all that I was asserting before the Commissioner, that it is the prerogative of Parliament and the rights belong to the House. But all this came about simply because the Prime Minister did not keep his words uttered in this House. I say that quite seriously because the Prime Minister went back, as he went back twice on the 21st March in this House. Well, he can go back, as I said, in this House, withdraw something that he said and then come back and say, "I am sorry, I am going to withdraw. I am going to put something else." That is all right for this House. But once it is accepted, then you should stand by it. If he was going to completely alter the terms of reference, then he should have convened Parliament again. That is what any Minister, let alone the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister, let me tell you, as you already know, is a lawyer and he knows his Constitutional history.”
“I hope I am going to be given two minutes for loss of time.”
“Then he said: 'He does not want the committee to inquire into the circumstances in which Mr Michael Khoo was transferred out and whether there was impropriety?' The Prime Minister was asking me, "Do you not want to inquire into Mr Michael's transfer?" And I said, "Yes, by all means." Not only just those words, but this is what I was saying in the next answer. Then the Prime Minister said, in col. 901: 'So I now have it clearly it is to inquire into the present system which does not safeguard the independence of the Subordinate Court Judges and Magistrates. Am I right?' And I said, "Yes." Then the Prime Minister said: 'Second, any impropriety in connection with the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo out of the position of Senior District Judge. Yes?' And I confirmed it by saying: "Inquire into the circumstances." Then the Prime Minister said: 'Impropriety, circumstances of any other subjects.'”
“He said, "All right, we will have it." I mean, he did not use these words, but that is what he said. Then he said: 'I now say, "Yes, let us have this Parliamentary inquiry." And he says it is my proposal to look into the system. It was his proposal. I am now asking him [this is ] to draft the terms of reference. Let me have it. It shall be done.' There is an invitation to me to draft the terms of reference and he says "it shall be done." It is quite clear. So I said something,and he says, "Put it down." He wanted the terms of reference. Then I said: 'You mean you want me to draft it now, right immediately, Mr Prime Minister?' He said, "Say it." Then again he said: 'All I want is the subject matter of this Parliamentary committee of inquiry. What is the subject matter? Let us have it.' This is col. 899. Then I went on. I am not going to read the whole of it. At col. 900, I said: 'But I am more concerned, as I was last year, [it should really have been 10th January, not "last year", it is a mistake there] with preserving the independence and the impartiality of the District Judges. I certainly would commend to the Prime Minister that there should be a committee set up to look into the whole question of the independence of the District Judges.' That is what I was saying, "should be a committee set up to look into the whole question of the independence of the District Judges." Then the Prime Minister said: 'Do I understand that he wants the committee to look into the question of safeguarding the independence of the Subordinate Courts (the Judges)?' Then I responded: 'That is why I think the District Judges' position should be safeguarded.' Because I said they come under the Legal Service Commission.”
“No, Mr Speaker, Sir. Please, if you will bear with me, Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will bear with me. Sir, Members are aware of what happened on the 21st of March this year when we were debating the estimates for the Office of the Prime Minister and I had tabled an amendment to the Supply vote. I had not raised this then but the Prime Minister came in and raised the question about a speech I had made in this House on the 10th of January 1986. And we went into it on the 19th of March 1986 and then it was not left to rest on the 19th of March. On the 21st of March, the Prime Minister reverted back to the debate that had taken place on the 19th of March. And it was on that day that the idea of an inquiry was first mooted and the terms were agreed, at least I thought they were agreed in this House. We were all awaiting the announcement of a Commission of Inquiry upon the terms that had been agreed before this House by the Prime Minister, terms that had been agreed and, I thought, accepted by him because, as I shall do so, Members will see from the Official Reports, he completely accepted my terms. He did not say he was going to reject any of those terms. Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may refer the House now to of the Reports of the Debate in this House on the 21st March, 1986. Mr Speaker, Sir, you may recall that I had told the Prime Minister that if he was really earnest and anxious to vindicate the assertion that he was making - that the Subordinate Court judiciary and, indeed the whole judiciary, are under no fear of Executive displeasure, that they are completely immune from any Executive displeasure, perhaps the best thing for him to do would be to appoint a Committee of Parliament to inquire into the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo. And he accepted that.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not asking the House to look at the Commission's Report. I am asking, as this motion says in its terms, this House to regret that the terms depart from what was agreed in this House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just exemplifying the instances in which Government Ministers make misleading, misrepresenting, statements. And we recently had the Minister for Community Development who just spoke on the press Bill making a statement about a detailed analysis and he cannot produce it. The point that I am making is this, that Government Ministers particularly have a very strict responsibility to honour statements made in this House and not to mislead the Members of this House and the public. I am sorry to say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Prime Minister has precisely done that. And I intend to take this House in detail through the debate in this House on the 21st of March 1986.”
“I am saying that they make statements and then they do not honour them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am just referring to the instances. We have already had a motion. Does he want another motion? I will table another motion if he likes. But there is that instance. Then I referred to the instance of the statement made by the then Labour Minister in 1965 that they would set aside the money collected from employers for their staff which the Malaysian Government had introduced. And in 1965, the Minister said they would set aside the money for the workers, into a welfare fund. That statement was never honoured. The workers never saw that.”
“So that is what happens to us. But time and time again, we have seen Ministers of the Government making statements here and which they do not abide or keep and which are in some cases deliberately misleading. I mentioned the statement made by the Minister for Home Affairs in moving the Adoption Bill. It was a deliberate misleading of this House.”
“I am going to show that there is a breach of the principle. It is a breach of that principle.”
“I am, Sir, but I am trying to enunciate the principle upon which this motion is based. It is, Mr Speaker, Sir, the principle upon which I say this responsibility arises, the departure.”
“So it behoves every Member who comes and makes a statement in this House to be honourable and to abide by any statement made by him in this House. And it applies more so a fortiori to Ministers of the government. It may be said that Backbenchers and, particularly Opposition Backbenchers, may be given a little bit of latitude. I see an hon. Member laughing. Perhaps he would like to read a little bit about parliamentary government. But Ministers of the government are a fortiori bound by this strict code. And we have seen how this operates in the United Kingdom, whose example we are trying to follow here. There, Ministers resign if they are shown to have made any misleading statement or not abided by anything that they have mentioned in the House of Commons. There is a full inquiry directed immediately. And the thing is taken up by the media and by the public, and they are in full chase against the Minister who comes and makes a statement in Parliament and then does not stand by it outside. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this country, the Government Members and the Ministers waste no time at all in trying to accuse me in particular, since I came into this House in 1981, of misleading, misrepresenting and the whole lot. And then they are in full cry, full pursuit, against me followed by their hounds, the press that they control. Sir, in a hunt, as you probably know, the hounds go first. But in Singapore the press hounds of the Government follow the Government. And so we on the Opposition are immediately the subject of this, as I said, the chase.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House regrets that the terms of reference announced for the Commission of Inquiry appointed under Gazette Notification No. 1298 and published on the 18th of April 1986 depart significantly in their purpose and object from the purpose and object of the commission that was proposed and discussed in this House on the 21st of March 1986. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not moved this motion to continue a private feud or dispute with the mover of the commission, as he suggested that it might be in a letter to me. I have asked now for 75 copies of that correspondence to be made available to Members of the House and they will be distributed, I hope, in half an hour's time. It is with the Librarian. She is making the copies now. So this is not a feud or a private dispute between the Prime Minister and me as he seemed to think that it might have been my motive in writing the letter to him. I am sorry that he is not here because I thought he would be here to answer this motion. Perhaps we might yet see him. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move this motion because it goes wider than the mere terms of reference appointed for the commission. It goes wider to bring in Ministerial responsibility and Cabinet responsibility to this House. Indeed, it goes wider to question and to examine the responsibility of each Member of this House. I have said that a parliamentary democracy, which we like to believe we are, rests on the very solid pillar of government accountability to Parliament and through Parliament to the people. That is the sine qua non of a parliamentary democracy, that Parliament makes the government accountable through Parliament to the people.”
“I say you do not have it. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."”
“Would the Minister concede that he has been untruthful, please, when he said that he had a very detailed analysis and he cannot produce it now? Will you concede?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister said that he had a very detailed analysis over many years. Does he have it with him now? May we have a look at it in this House now when we are debating this Bill?”
“Did you have it with you? May I have it now?”
“The question is: why does the Minister evade the question? Did he have with him at the time he spoke a very detailed analysis? If he did not have it, why does he not be honest enough to say, "I didn't have it." And would he then agree that I may say he has been completely untruthful?”