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 31 of 82.
“I see you did not enjoin that on the Prime Minister but you are enjoining it on me that I should not make a long speech.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, and I hope ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, you said you would allow me to clarify.”
“Thank you. He still stayed on. In this case he did not.”
“Is he now going to refer to persons outside this House in a derogatory manner without them being here to answer? If he thinks Mr Tan Boon Teik is the best man for him, let him say so. We can see that he is the best man for him.”
“Isn't the Permanent Secretary a member of the Executive? Isn't he an Executive of the Government?”
“He is not the legal officer of the Government?”
“Yes. You better ask the Attorney-General. He should have seen to the Gazette. The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is bad enough to make these allegations. It is worse when he tried to distract the gravity of these discussions by a rowdy, intemperate, tempestuous interjections. I have sought clarification because I think it is part of my duty to put the record right. There will be the Chief Justice when we meet. He will answer all questions. There will be the Attorney-General. There will be all the Legal Officers. The Attorney-General is not a member of the Executive. In Britain, he is. He is a politician. He is a Minister, a lawyer in the governing party takes over the job. And he decides who to prosecute, who not to prosecute. But not in accordance with party affiliations. Here, he is not a member of the party. He is a member of the professional service.”
“Will he point to the passages which, he says, are obscene?”
“Ask him to tell us where are the obscene allegations I made?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise on a point of order. You have got to rule.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think you have to rule on this.”
“Are you still upholding that all this is clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir?”
“When was he removed from the court, do you know that?”
“In 1972 he was transferred from the courts, wasn't he?”
“What is the clarification? He said there were two things he wished to clarify. Now he goes on in his rambling manner.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do rise. What is the clarification?”
“Did I say "delinquent"? Did I say that? Mr Speaker: We will check from Hansard.”
“Would you ask me to clarify and I will explain it?”
“I will explain that, if you will allow me to explain.”
“Not a clarification. I am not allowed even one minute.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not a clarification.”
“You admitted it yesterday, the reason for the transfer.”
“Delinquent? Did I say "delinquent, misconceptions, and misdirections."? Delinquent? When did I say "delinquent"?”
“Will the Prime Minister clarify if he wishes to clarify? Yes, I have asked him several questions. I asked him to produce the two affidavits, the two statutory declarations. He did not produce them. I produced them this morning. So will he clarify if he wishes to clarify and not make another speech?”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is the Prime Minister going to have a second speech? He has already spoken yesterday. Is he going to have a second speech?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the conclusion that can be drawn from this debate is clear that the Member for Anson has failed to substantiate his allegations of Executive interference in the Subordinate Court Judiciary. Secondly, that the Member for Anson, and now followed closely by the Member for Potong Pasir, has expanded his wild allegations in order to find a new foothold for his allegations which he can certainly not come across. Mr Speaker, Sir, why has the House spent so much of its time debating this issue?”
“May I clarify for the benefit of the speaker? True, I asked for a Parliamentary Committee. If the Member will recall, on the 19th March, my first proposal to the Prime Minister was that there should be a Committee of Parliament. Encik Yatiman Yusof( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I refer to the suggestions made prior to the 19th March. I refer to the suggestion that the Government sets up a Commission of Inquiry concerning freedom or independence which the Member had been harping on in this House previously. Be that as it may, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me say that the whole of this debate hinges on two stages. If we observe the performance and the arguments put forth by the Opposition Members, we will see that in the first stage they have done their utmost to weaken the value systems of the Singapore society, the value systems of Asian society. To show how despicable their attitude is, we notice earlier on how the Member for Anson contemptuously denigrated the Member for Ulu Pandan and ridiculed her as being senile and out of her senses. That is the brand of value system that the Opposition bandies about. However, after shouting from the rooftop about freedom of speech, freedom to express our feelings, freedom of action both inside and outside Parliament, we ask, are such freedoms accompanied by a sense of responsibility, not much, just a little sense of responsibility? In the course of this debate it is clear that the Member for Anson takes the position that it is his duty to merely ask questions, but in the process of doing so, he actually pours poison into the minds of the people in order that they will suspect and consequently reject the present leadership.”
“I know that, Mr Speaker, Sir. But the Prime Minister says, "you are moving the amendment for the Member for Anson. Is that his view?" Sir, I am saying, may I answer it? Or he does not want it from me.”
“The Prime Minister refers to the amendment that the Member has moved on my behalf. And he wants to know whether that is my view that he is espousing. So may I answer the Prime Minister? He does not want it from me.”
“I am sorry I cannot remember which Member spoke on this this morning, and I said that the matter had already been referred to the Committee of Privileges. I hope Members will realize that once a matter has been referred to the Committee of Privileges, there should be no debate in this House until the Committee has reported on it.”
“All right. Before I sit down, this is in clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not making another speech. I referred to two letters and I said that they could get them from the Secretary of the Commission. I do not know whether he has got them, ie, the Minister for Home Affairs. The letter is dated 22nd April 1986 addressed to the Secretary, Mr Lim Teik Hock, Commission of Inquiry, and it was sent by registered post on 22nd April 1986. The other letter that I referred to this morning was dated 16th April 1986 and was addressed to the Editor, Straits Times Press, Kim Seng Road, Singapore, Letter to the Editor.”
“You told me I cannot speak any more. So I cannot speak, if you rule so.”
“I will ask him. Mr Speaker: And therefore you will not be speaking at all because you have spoken for one hour?”
“May I then ask the Member for Potong Pasir to move the amendment in my name? I take it that will be in order. I have given notice but I am present and he can move it as his notice of amendment. Mr Speaker, Sir, the point is purely technical. You said I had not done it within one hour. I agree. I am very sorry it went out of my mind that I had to move this amendment. I am begging your indulgence to move this amendment. It would not take me two minutes to move this notice of amendment and I am appealing to the House to give me two minutes to move this amendment. I am appealing to the House. I can appeal to the general House.”
“Hallelujah! Here is a Born-again Christian.”
“Don't you know that? Born-again Christian.”
“You do not expect him to apologize, do you? Born-again Christian.”
“The Prime Minister appoints the civil service?”
“All right. Thank you, Sir. But what about my point of clarification? Will the Member give the passages?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, one other thing, ie, I have given notice of an amendment to the motion. May I just move that?”
“She says I have dragged their names through the mud. Could she again refer me to the various passages in which she says I have dragged their names through the mud? Would she do that? She says so. An hon. Member: Read the Hansard.”
“May I ask for clarification from the hon. Member? An hon. Member: You have spoken for an hour.”
“I am not afraid. Good grandmotherly advice, that's all.”
“Thank you, grandmother. Some hon. Members: So rude.”
“You are ruling that she is speaking to the motion, Sir?”
“A point of order. Is the Member speaking to the motion or is she speaking about something else?”
“On a point of order, ie, that matter has been referred to the Committee of Privileges and they are looking into it and they will be studying it, I hope. Is it right for the Member to speak now on a matter which has been referred to the Committee of Privileges?”
“" He should have been asked, "Could you give us any reasons for your transferring Mr Michael Khoo?" Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, your hour is up. 12.31 pm”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. May I point out how superficial the whole Report is. I had assumed that it was a parallel transfer of Mr Michael Khoo with Mr Errol Foenander. I had overlooked reading carefully the note that the Prime Minister had produced on the 21st March, but then later studying it, I found it was not a parallel transfer. Mr Michael Khoo is in Grade D (I think it is right) of the Legal Service and Mr Errol Foenander is in Grade E of the Legal Service. There is a discrepancy or difference of, I think, about $1,000 in salary. But the thing is Mr Michael Khoo was in Grade D of the Legal Service, Mr Foenander was in Grade E. After Grade D, there is E1, and I think it is E after that. I have a note, one can check all this. What is the truth then? Mr Michael Khoo was sent to take over the duties of a person two grades below him. So it was not a parallel transfer. And the man who was two grades below Mr Michael Khoo was sent to take over his duties. Does the Commissioner inquire into that? Does the Commissioner consider whether this was a parallel transfer? Does the Commissioner consider what were the reasons for this transfer, whether it was career development? The Chief Justice does not give any reasons. We heard it yesterday from the Prime Minister. I see that he is here now. We heard it yesterday from the Prime Minister that he, the Prime Minister, can see the reason as a reasonable person. And the reason was that he had made mistakes in acquitting us. But does the Commissioner inquire into the reasons? The Chief Justice was not asked, when he gave evidence, "Could you tell us why you decided on this transfer?" I hope these things are not done by the Chief Justice sort of waking up one morning and saying, "I am going to transfer an officer.”