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 30 of 82.
“That is the tragedy which has brought on this economic recession - the assumption that the Government knew best, that our people did not know anything, and so the Government refused to listen, even when people were warning the Government. And then we find ourselves in the plight that we are. Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to amend, the Minister says, an existing power in the Board to vary mortgage rates where they have already been agreed upon between the parties and entered in the mortgage deeds. Of course, the Minister says with a smile, "This will really benefit the tenants because if the rate goes down, we will vary it." I am not so sure that the Board will be ever so ready, prompt. But, of course, if it should go up even by a little bit, the Board will be ready, almost the next second, to raise the interest rate. I agree that perhaps the interest rate should be pegged, but it could be written like that into the Bill so that regardless of what the Board does it is pegged to something external. I say this because what is proposed by this Bill (I know the Minister has said this exists already) the existing power runs counter completely to the Evidence Act. Under the Evidence Act, if parties have agreed upon something in a document and the document particularly is under seal, then no single party can vary it or alter the terms. So the principle is wrong. I wonder whether whoever drafted this Bill ever gave that any consideration. That shows the care and thought that has gone into the drafting of this Bill. It is a shoddy piece of legislation. It runs counter to a number of sections in the Evidence Act and the Government draftsmen would appear not to be aware of these principles in the Evidence Act. Then if I may move on, Mr Speaker, Sir, to clause 4.”
“But before I do that, may I also say this: that the Minister in introducing this Bill does not, at least to me, appear to comprehend, I am sorry to have to say this, does not appear to comprehend the magnitude of this Bill, in the dangers that are present in this Bill, and in the cutting down of the liberties of the people that are present in this Bill. He makes a cursory presentation of the Bill. He sounded as though he were saying, "Yes, I am asking for all these powers but look at me. Do you think I am the sort of man who will exercise these powers? I have a soft heart. So, please, give me these powers. I am not going to exercise them." But that is not the way that legislation is presented to Parliament. It is not for Ministers to come and say, "Give us these powers. But you can be assured that in the exercise of those powers we will be lenient, we will take into account the feelings, the considerations of the people." Legislation should be precise. It should be certain. The citizen must know where he stands and he must know what the penalty is. He cannot be left to guess what the Minister of the Government may do or may not do in any particular case. I have again more than once spoken about the danger of entrusting arbitrary powers to Ministers, discretionary powers, without limiting them and affording sufficient, adequate, remedies to citizens against the misuse of such powers by Ministers.But, of course, all my pleas, I see, fall on deaf ears. The Government knows best. Nobody else knows anything else. That is the tragedy of Singapore.”
“On the contrary, it would appear that the Government proposes that statutory boards and itself should arm themselves with more powers so that the citizens may be further ground down, so that whatever rights they even now have may be taken away from them. This is the sort of double talk, talking with a forked tongue, that is so familiar of this Government and of which the people are now fully cognizant, and of which they are getting a little bit sick and tired. Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill, I said, is obnoxious. It flouts well-known principles of law. It runs counter to all accepted codes of human relationship and conduct, and it is discriminatory. It is not once but several times that I have spoken in this House of the measures of this Government as being thoroughly discriminatory and objectionable. This is another instance. I propose now, Mr Speaker, Sir, to examine, with your permission, the various clauses of this Bill, and to try and point out why, in my view, this whole Bill is obnoxious and should be thrown out. Of course, that is a pious hope. We may have Members of the Government Party speaking in debate against any provisions of the Bill, but when it comes to them being called to stand up, we find nobody standing up. So it is a pious hope that this Bill may be thrown out. But, I repeat that the whole Bill is repugnant to the common law and to the principles under which people should regulate their lives. May I say a little bit about clause 3?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill, may I say from the outset, is unprincipled in its entirety. It is obnoxious and it is discriminatory. Sir, after the last elections, the Prime Minister acknowledged that there was a message from the electorate - that they were sending a direct signal to the Government that the Government was getting very oppressive, making things very hard and that they wanted a relaxation of the rules and conditions under which they were tied down by the Government. Sometime after the general elections, maybe a month, two or three months after that, there was a report of a forum or gathering at which the First Deputy Prime Minister was present. And it was reported that he had agreed with somebody saying, "I think you have a point there" when the man complained about all the unnecessary measures and restrictions and the powers that the HDB appeared to enjoy. So one thought that perhaps the Government having received this clear signal, as the Prime Minister put it, from the electorate, would think a little bit and being an accountable Government that it is, accountable to the people, taking into account the people's wishes and their needs and their desires, it would try and examine all the powers exercised by statutory boards and the Government to see whether there was any area in which these powers could perhaps be reduced or completely taken away. The Government says all this. But what do we find in action? We find that the Government has no such intention of relaxing any rules or conditions under which the people are tied down.”
“Does the Leader of the House wish to say something?”
“--- if they wish to speak on any Bill. What is all the secrecy that this Government ---”
“I would like the Minister to give me these figures before I speak.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to the Minister. But he has only given us the figures for two categories. When I asked a question on the 31st of August 1982 for written answer, the reply I got was that there were 10 categories of persons who were debarred from applying for HDB flats. Does the Minister have the figures for persons who have been debarred under all these categories, category by category? Because I was given 10 categories on the 31st of August 1982.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I begin to address myself to this Bill, I have a question to ask the Minister. I wrote to him on the 23rd of this month to ask if he would be good enough, when moving the Second Reading of this Bill, to furnish the House with the number of persons, the total figure, who have been debarred from applying for HDB accommodation for one reason or another. I have not heard from the Minister in reply to this letter. I wonder whether the Minister is going to give us this information. Could you give it now, Mr Minister?”
“He said I can call them. May I have an assurance from the Leader that they will all be produced for cross-examination?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on the terms of the motion I can address you. Because he makes the same mistake which I think the Prime Minister tried to deliberately make. I said if he is going to appoint any Committee, I want all these witnesses produced to me for cross- examination.”
“There is no debate on the terms of the motion?”
“Well, they are anxious to avoid debate. Would the Minister reply? And if it is clearly unconstitutional, would he agree then that the transfer is unconstitutional?”
“He does not answer because he knows he cannot answer it. What research has he done that Article 114(4) does not empower the delegation to the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General? Let me tell him that I have the opinion of a lecturer in Constitutional law, who is experienced, and he is clearly of the view that that section does not empower, and he says, "I am of the view."”
“I am asking for a clarification because he does not answer.”
“"If you give me that assurance, I will give the evidence," I said. That is crystal clear from what we saw. So will you play the whole tape?”
“It is completely misleading and it will all be in the front page of the Straits Times.”
“If you are not going to allow me to answer these misleading statements ---”
“Because this is completely dishonest, the way the thing is being arranged.”
“Is that what you do, select something to your advantage?”
“Sir, since the Minister has brought this tape, why do we not go on? Do you want to cut it short? I did say. You heard me say that even in the afternoon that I would give evidence. Why does he cut it short? Why do you cut it short? Could you please play the whole tape?”
“May I clarify this because it is becoming important? I thought I made it clear to the Minister who obstinately refuses to understand what I said. Of course, I made another stand in the afternoon: that section 4 could not be equated to privilege under the Evidence Act, that section 4 imposed an absolute privilege. There is no denying that I said that to the Commissioner in the afternoon. I have said it once, twice, three times to you, that I maintained in the afternoon that the whole thing was absolutely privileged. And the Member for Potong Pasir has maintained that in the House today, that the whole thing is absolutely privileged under section 4. But I went on to say to the Commissioner that, in spite of that, I would give evidence if he gave me the assurance, and because he did not give me the assurance I was not going to give evidence. And when I wanted to explain to him why I did not want to give evidence, he walked out. So I am not denying that I said in the afternoon that section 4 imposed an absolute prohibition. I said it and I said it this morning.”
“I said that he is misleading the House in saying that I denied having said this. Mr Speaker: Let us adjourn for five minutes. I will take the Chair again in five minutes' time. It is 4.52 pm. Order. Sitting accordingly suspended at 4.52 pm until 4.57 pm. Sitting resumed at 4.57 pm [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Debate resumed.”
“I said that the Commissioner was not prepared to listen to me.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I hope the Minister will not mislead the House. I did not deny that I said that. I said I pointed out quite clearly that section 4 imposed an absolute prohibition and that I went on to say, in spite of that, I will still give evidence. And then I wanted to explain why I was not going to give evidence.”
“I accept his note that he made the transfer, and he says I did not accept his note.”
“He is misleading the House, Mr Speaker, Sir, because I said the Chief Justice's note, I accept that he made the decision. Would he like to look at my speech? I said I accept the Chief Justice's note but I wanted to know the circumstances why he made the transfer.”
“Would the Minister read out the entire passage?”
“All right, if you say you have nothing to do with it. This is all you need to do now. You do not have to have the President appoint a new inquiry. You just have to amend the law to allow an appeal and, in my particular case, to the Court of Criminal Appeal and from there I can take it to the Privy Council.”
“You see, Mr Prime Minister, you make the mistake. When they do that, they are sitting as a Court of Appeal from a legal judgment. But here the Commissioner is sitting over the Chief Justice's conduct, not as a Judge. As the Chairman of the Legal Service Commission, he does not exercise the functions of a Judge. He is not called upon to give his reasons for his decision. He is exercising a power that is given to him as Chairman of the Legal Service Commission and it has got nothing to do with his office of Chief Justice. But he happens to be their head. And you want a subordinate to go and probe into his action, into his conduct, in transferring the man. There is a world of difference, Mr Prime Minister, if you will try and think about it for a little while. That is why I say it is wrong to have just a Judge of the High Court to inquire into this. Finally, he says, "If he thinks he is still innocent and would like the case against him to be reopened, I would appoint a Presidential inquiry." I do not want a Presidential inquiry. All I am asking is: would you now amend the law and allow in our particular case an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal? That is all. It is simple. You can do it because under the law you stopped it. Now if you will amend the law and say, in this particular case, appeals shall lie to the Court of Criminal Appeal ---”
“Is that why you mentioned it? I pointed out in my letter to the Prime Minister why I did not think a High Court Judge was the best man for the Commission, and I said so. That is all I said. I was not condemning. I was not suggesting that they were corrupt, that they were incompetent, that they were derogatory. All I had to point out to the Prime Minister was that if we were going to inquire into an action that the Chief Justice says was his action in transferring the man, do we think it was right that a subordinate of the Chief Justice should inquire into it? It did not seem right to me that a subordinate should inquire into the conduct of a superior. That is all I said. So what is very wrong about that? Why do you not try and understand?”
“It is not a slip of the tongue. All I am saying is that I am just repeating, I am just pointing out what the position under the Constitution is and I am not allowed to do that, am I? He says the Attorney-General is the best man for the job, the present holder. If he likes, I will tell him what I was told when he was appointed Solicitor-General. Would he like to know that? If he likes, I will tell it to him. Then he says that I have condemned the whole of the High Court Bench. I do not know whether he is intending, by that, to draw the notice of all the Judges to my wickedness because I have got to appear before them.”
“1982, the Chief Justice reached the age of 65 and then it was left to the Prime Minister whether he continued or not. That is all I meant. So do not try and twist what I said into some sinister allegations. The other thing is this.”
“Because you have admitted what I said. You have accepted it. These words "beholden to the Prime Minister." All I did was to point out the Articles in the Constitution. The Attorney-General under the Constitution has to retire at the age of 55, and he reached this age on the 17th January 1984. I could not find anything in the Gazette that there had been an agreement, but the Prime Minister now tells us that two weeks later there was an agreement between him and the President and he was allowed to continue. And he says for all these years (1984-1986) no one has stumbled to the fact that it has never been gazetted, and I say it should have been gazetted because the Attorney -General is a high office. The other thing is, he says this man was removed because he made mistakes. And I asked this morning, "Does he then say that Judges of the Subordinate Court Judiciary who make such mistakes should be transferrred and removed?" And I asked him, "Is he aware?" Of some recent judgments of the Privy Council on the judgments of the High Court and even the Court of Appeal? Does he, by that token,agree, say that they should all be now removed? Would he like to look at those judgments of the Privy Council? We cannot have one yardstick applied to one man and then another yardstick applied to others. Why was it applied to this man? That is all I meant about "beholden to the Prime Minister" because the Attorney-General, clearly after the 17th June 1984, was holding office for a period fixed by the Prime Minister. And it lay in the hands of the Prime Minister whether he would extend it or not. That is clear. There is nothing mysterious about it, and equally for the Chief Justice.”
“10 more minutes. All right, Mr Speaker, Sir. That will take us to 4.35 pm. Thank you. He says, do I now reject the appointment of any Commission. What I said this morning, and I will repeat again, was that with the Prime Minister's admission, do we need any further Commission. Has not my statement in this House been vindicated by the Prime Minister himself?”
“I have got a few more points, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, that is a matter of opinion.”
“No, I am not, Mr Speaker, Sir. I ask for your indulgence, the same indulgence that you gave the Prime Minister. I ask for the same indulgence.”
“I am going to clarify all he said. I am going to clarify, Mr Speaker, Sir. So I hope the gentlemen of the press will take note of that and the people of Singapore will know tomorrow that the Prime Minister says this, "that he was transferred because he made six mistakes of fact, two mistakes of law and acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong." This is what I said to the Prime Minister that the people of Singapore were saying. This is why I raised it in this House. The Prime Minister himself this afternoon says he has previously made mistakes. Have we transferred him? Of course, the answer was, "he was not transferred." But in this particular instance he was transferred because this happened to be a case where he should not have made those mistakes. He had no bloody business to make those mistakes.”
“Thank you. So he was transferred because he made mistakes and acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong. We have at last got it from the Prime Minister, "because he made mistakes".”
“--- from the issue in hand. My question was, did he say this? And he has conceded at last that he did say this. My next question following that, does it not follow, Mr Prime Minister, as a logical sequence, that he was transferred because he made mistakes and acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong?”
“The Prime Minister is getting very clever at trying to divert from ---”
“Did you not say yesterday, Mr Prime Minister, that the man, you could see very clearly, or you could understand very clearly why the man was transferred was because he had made six mistakes of fact and two misdirections in law when he gave his judgment acquitting Jeyaretnam and Wong. Did you not say that?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I did say this morning that he did not say it in so many words. I did say that. What I am saying is, can you not see the only logical sequence of your statement? The Prime Minister was saying the man was transferred because he made six mistakes.”
“I am not giving way. Would he concede, he can answer afterwards, that out of his own mouth in this House he has said that the man was transferred because he acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong?”
“I am not giving way. I am going to carry on. I am not giving way now.”
“Well, you were quoting the Chief Justice. Then he was not correct then. Is that what you want to say now? Is that what you wish to say? So I hope you are magnanimous enough, Mr Prime Minister, to say that you are perhaps a little wrong and that you should have looked up both statutory declarations before holding it forth and saying, "She just talks of a tacit understanding." Secondly, I asked him several matters for clarification. Did I understand him yesterday to say that, as a reasonable person, and I am sure he considers himself a reasonable person, he can see the reason for Mr Michael Khoo's transfer? Does he agree then that the reason for Mr Michael Khoo's transfer was that he had acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong? Because he gave many reasons.”
“Have you finished, Mr Prime Minister? Because you had the declaration with you yesterday and you picked out two words, I thought, "tacit understanding". So I told you to get the two statutory declarations. Did you get them, Mr Prime Minister? And did you read that she says she sent the cheque with a covering letter to Jeyaretnam? So your statement that there was no express wording of her intention ---”
“First of all, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister for clarifications. He does not seem to have answered all of those clarifications. I hope he has now looked at the two statutory declarations of Dr Ivy Chew and I hope he will be magnanimous enough to admit ---”
“I wish to clarify and I will come straight to the point. There are a number of things on which I wish to clarify.”