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 32 of 82.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said that under the Constitution the Chief Justice retires at 65, and I know by Gazette notification that he has been re-appointed for three years, and again for a further three years. I have pointed out that the Attorney-General should have retired in 1984 and I cannot find any Gazette notification of his appointment. Finally, the superficiality of the Report.”
“No, I am not. I am saying he was appointed for a further three years by the Prime Minister. Please, if you will just listen, Mr Minister. And that is that, after that date, both the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General were beholden to the Prime Minister for their offices.”
“It may not have to be. Produce the agreement then. Let's put an end to all this, produce the agreement. Don't hide it. Produce the agreement! But I should have thought it should have been gazetted. He is a holder of high office, the Attorney-General. Why should it not be gazetted? So that's that. Secondly, again I am sorry to have to say this, but it cannot be kept out. The Chief Justice himself had reached the age of 65 for High Court Judges in 1982. He was appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister for a further three years. So he was holding his post as well, at the pleasure of the Prime Minister - appointed for a further three years.”
“The Minister is obtuse. I have pointed out to him, and I am saying I cannot find an agreement. The Article says there must be an agreement. Will you please produce an agreement? If you produce an agreement, of course, it is constitutional. I do not know.”
“I do not know. You have got to answer it. I am asking you, "Was there an agreement?"”
“I am pointing out to you Article 35(4). It says, "shall otherwise hold office until he attains the age of fifty-five years". Is that clear to you, Mr Minister?”
“Article 35(4) of the Constitution says: 'The Attorney-General may be appointed for a specific period and, if he was so appointed, shall, subject to clause (6), vacate his office ... at the expiration of that period, [this Attorney-General was not appointed for a specific period.] but, subject as aforesaid, shall otherwise hold office until he attains the age of fifty-five years: "So the Attorney-General could only hold office until the 17th January, 1984. After that, under the Constitution his appointment lapses, but there is a proviso. And the proviso is that: 'the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, may permit an Attorney-General who has attained the age of fifty-five years to remain in office for such fixed period as may have been agreed between the Attorney-General and the Government.' So he must retire but the President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, can permit him to remain in office for a fixed period. I do not know whether there is such an agreement between the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General after the 17th January, 1984. And this transfer was made in August, 1984. I have caused a search to be made of all Gazette notifications, going back to December, 1983, and I cannot find any Gazette notification that an agreement had been made between the Attorney-General and the Government for him to remain in office after he reached the age of 55. But there may still be an agreement.”
“It was only him, the Chief Justice, and the Attorney-General. I am saying that Article on which the Attorney-General relies upon is no authority for the delegation. So we come to this position, Members of the House, that the transfer was not of the Legal Service Commission. It is as simple as that. The transfer was not made by the Legal Service Commission. So it is unconstitutional. Of course, the Minister will perhaps come back with an opinion written by the Attorney-General. May I tell the Minister not to come back with an opinion of the Attorney-General on this point? It is a serious matter and, if he thinks it is serious enough, perhaps he should refer that to leading counsel in London for their opinion. If that is so, that the transfer was made outside the Legal Service Commission, then the District Judges have lost the protection given to them by the Constitution. It must follow, must it not, Members of the House? There was a particular reason in the Constitution providing for six members to meet together and decide on the transfers, promotions and appointments, and that they should come from various sectors of the society. In that way, some protection is afforded to the holder of the post. But now, it would appear that the transfer was made outside the Legal Service Commission. So, I say, District Judges have lost the protection given to them. Do I need to have to say any further? The transfer would appear to me to have been unconstitutional. Then the position of the Attorney-General himself. The Attorney-General was born on 17th January, 1929, and on the 17th January, 1984, he reached the age of 55, Members of the House. If one looks at Article 35 of the Constitution, what do you find, Members of the House?”
“The Attorney-General refers to Article 111(4) of the Constitution of Singapore for the authority, he says, that he and the Chief Justice had for making the decision. You may remember, Members of the House, that it was said that the power had been delegated to the two of them. I cannot spend the time that I need for all this. But if one looks at Article 111(4), it becomes quite clear that there could not have been any delegation to the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General by the Legal Service Commission. Because Article 111(4) says quite clearly: 'The Legal Service Commission may delegate to any officer in the Singapore Legal Service or to any board of such officers appointed by it...' I will stop there, Mr Speaker, Sir, "may delegate to any officer in the Singapore Legal Service or to any board of such officers.". I will ask the Minister for Home Affairs to try and persuade me that the Chief Justice and the Attorney -General are officers in the Singapore Legal Service. He better look at the definition section in Article 103 and consider it very seriously, because it is my view that neither the Chief Justice nor the Attorney-General are members of the Legal Service. And Article 111(4) says, "to any officer in the Singapore Legal Service". As I said yesterday I do not know what goes on. I am not privy to the decisions that are taken by the Government, by the Ministry, or by any Department. All I can do, as I said yesterday, is to come here and to raise disquiet that I see outside, and then for the Government to explain it. I had assumed that the Legal Service Commission had decided on the transfer, the whole of the Commission. But as it transpired later, revealed by the Prime Minister on the 21st March, it was not the Legal Service Commission.”
“I told him that in my view section 4 was not the same kind of privilege that sections 128 to 133 of the Evidence Act talk about. That, in my view, section 4 imposed an absolute prohibition, and the fallacy of the Commissioner and Mr Glenn Knight is to think that the privilege was my privilege. That is where you get the fallacy, Members of the House, because the privilege is not of the Member, the single Member, or the Members. The privilege is the privilege of this honourable House. It is the privilege of the House, of Parliament, not the privilege of a single Member and so it was fallacious to suggest that I could waive the privilege that belongs to this honourable House. How could I do that? Only this House, by a resolution, can waive that privilege or this House can appoint its own Committee and this is what I said at the beginning - appoint a Parliamentary committee. So that is what I tried to point out to him. But he would not listen. He would not listen. When I tried to explain to him why I was not going to give evidence because he did not want to give me the assurance, he said, "I am not going to hear you. Get him out." And he walked off. So much for the thing that I had changed my mind. I was not changing my mind. I told him that in spite of that, and I think the Minister read yesterday, I said even though I may be seen to be aiding and abetting the Commissioner in committing contempt of Parliament I was prepared to do that and incur the displeasure of Parliament at a future date. I told him that, "in spite of the absolute prohibition I will do it, if you give me the assurance." So let us not hide anything more. That is absolutely clear. May I now turn to one or two legal findings of the Commissioner to show that he is completely wrong.”
“" The Commissioner said, "You can call them." I laughed, Members of the House, when Mr Glenn Knight, wrote to me and said, "Do you think the Attorney-General is going to support your allegations? Will you get me a brief of his statement supporting your allegations?" Does he think I was born yesterday? Cross-examination is one of the very useful arts, functions, of getting at the truth. I wanted them for cross-examination because it is by questions directed at them and they answer them that one may arrive at the truth. So let it be made quite clear to the Prime Minister. I see in today's papers - I did not follow him quite clearly - he says, "If he says they will confirm his evidence then he can call them." I do not for a minute expect them to come and confirm my evidence but I want them there for cross-examination. I have a number of questions to put to them and let them give the answers. So let that be made quite clear. Carry it to the Prime Minister that I am not asking that they be called just to confirm my statements and to be my witnesses. I want them there to be cross-examined by me. I hope I have made that very clear. The Commissioner's comment that I changed my stand in the afternoon. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the morning we were talking about section 4 of the Act and it seemed to me that the Commissioner was equating the privilege under section 4 with the privilege afforded under the Evidence Act to communications made to solicitors and professional communication, and that is why he kept talking about "you waive privilege", "you claim privilege", "you waive privilege". I had another look at it carefully during the lunch adjournment, and I thought it was all wrong to try and approach it like that.”
“In the end, as it would appear from the Report, he was not called and yet it is about his transfer that the Commission was appointed. The evidence of the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General and Mr Michael Khoo lie at the core of the Inquiry. To try and say that they did not would be to pretend, and I wanted an assurance and that assurance was not given. May I also bring to the notice of this House that there were lawyers who told me not to take part in the inquiry particularly after the morning's proceedings. They said, "You should just refuse to take part." But I said I would still take part if the Commissioner was prepared to give me that assurance. So I did not give evidence because and only because I did not have the assurance. I know the Commissioner said, "We will consider. If they are relevant we will call them" but I could not be sure that they would be called, and I was not going to allow myself to be a party to proceedings which were farcical without these witnesses being called. That is the simple answer to it. I was not going to allow myself to be a party to proceedings which did not carry out its work properly. It was not only the Chief Justice and the Attorney -General, not only Mr Michael Khoo. I also considered it absolutely important if the Commission was to carry out its tasks, was to carry out the terms of reference that had been entrusted to it, I considered it essential that they should also hear Mr Tan Teow Yeow, Mr Chandra Mohan, and of course at that time I did not mention Mr Glenn Knight, and I was ready to name the two members of the Judiciary that I gave yesterday. They were not just conjured up last night or yesterday and they should have been called after I had named them. The Prime Minister says, "He can call them if they will confirm.”
“That in spite of my unhappiness with the terms of reference, in spite of my unhappiness with the choice of the Commissioner, in spite of my unhappiness with the choice of Mr Glenn Knight, I was resolved to give evidence so that the desire of the Prime Minister may be carried out, even however imperfectly, because I am here to assist. I am not here to obstruct and it is my conviction which I have tried to expound time and time again in this House and outside that the independence of the Judiciary is vital, that nothing will wreck a society, nothing will upset society more than a lack of confidence in the administration of justice. And may I also say the Prime Minister says in this House I agreed to give evidence. He again forgets - not that I am going to go back - but he again forgets that when I said "I will give evidence", I was talking about the terms of reference which he had agreed to accept. Then he completely changes them. But notwithstanding that, I was still prepared to give evidence. Why did I not give evidence? Mr Speaker, Sir, it must be again crystal clear to anyone that if you are going to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo from his position as Senior District Judge, then without any saying, it must follow that the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General must give evidence. Without them, it would be like staging Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. And can you try and stage Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark, I ask you, Members of the House? This is why I wanted an assurance. And it must also be clear to anyone that the man involved, who was the subject of the transfer, should be called to give evidence. He should be asked what he thought about it.”
“" Why was he anxious to have me removed from the proceedings? But the moment I moved out, the Chief Justice came in to give evidence. I was asking, "Is the Chief Justice going to give evidence?" Why could I not have been told, "Mr Jeyaretnam, the Chief Justice is going to give evidence"? Is this a hole-in-the-corner affair? Why was I not told? I was clamouring for the Attorney-General to be produced for cross-examination. I had written to the Secretary asking that the Attorney-General be produced for cross -examination. And after I had been told to get out of the proceedings, the Attorney-General turns up the next day and he says, it is in the Report, "I consider it my duty to appear before this Commission." I laughed when I saw that. If he had considered it his duty, was he not informed by Mr Glenn Knight during the lunch adjournment that Jeyaretnam was insisting that he come and give evidence, to be cross-examined? Was he not told about it? Why did he not send word back through Mr Glenn Knight to the Commissioner, "Mr Commissioner, I will be coming to give evidence." The whole thing could have been saved. But the task of the Commission was not saved. The Commissioner says that I never had the intention to give evidence. He is clearly wrong. I mentioned yesterday about the preparations I had made. I had written to the Registrar of the Subordinate Courts and my secretary, if she is asked, will confirm the time and effort I spent in preparing myself for this Commission and the Commissioner says, "He never had the intention to give evidence." I had written to the Secretary to say that I would be coming to give evidence. I want the Attorney-General produced for cross-examination. May I say this.”
“" If he had simply said those words, then the Commission could have embarked on its work. But he refused to give me that assurance. So I said, "If you are not going to give me that assurance, I am not going to testify." That appears, if you read through the whole of the reports, patently clear. True, I was standing on my privilege but why? That is the point. The reason I was standing on my privilege is because no assurance was given by the Commissioner. So he shut me out from giving evidence. Nobody else shuts me out. And then a curious thing happened. And what is more? He says that I was disrespectful to him. I do not know whether it came out in the TV, but he was positively insulting to me. He said, "Either you get out or I have to have you removed." He did not want to hear me in the afternoon when I said I wanted to explain why I was choosing not to give evidence. He refused to hear me. Some of it came out in the Straits Times. He refused to hear me and I stood my ground. Then he told Mr Glenn Knight, "I am adjourning. See that Mr Jeyaretnam is removed." Why did he not want to listen to my reasons? Then I had to call the press outside to tell them why I did not give the evidence. Then he tells me also, "You have no more part in these proceedings." "But I am a party under section 17", I have to tell him. He does not accept that. Because I am a person whose conduct is being examined by the Commission, I have a right to be represented. If I can appoint an advocate and solicitor to represent me, I can represent myself because I happen to be an advocate and solicitor. I have done that in other cases in the courts, represented myself. He would not have anything of that. He said, "You are not a party. Get out. And if you are not going to go out, I will have you removed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we can watch the video afterwards. But if you will be patient and listen to me, if you will just hold your horses for a while. That deception is responsible for the indictment that I had no intention to give evidence, which is what the Commissioner says. That is his first finding, that I had no intention. I laughed when I saw that. Second, I had no evidence at all; and third that my conduct in Parliament was scandalous. It is a very strong indictment and it is a gross delusion born out of an inability on the part of the Commissioner to grasp the essentials, or am I to think that it was deliberate. What was the stand taken by me at the Inquiry? If one reads the reports, and particularly a report that appeared in the Asian Wall Street Journal, it becomes abundantly clear - yes I know, according to the Minister, it is only the local press which prints the truth, nobody else prints any truth but the local press, yes, 100% true - if you read through the reports, it will become abundantly clear to anyone that I had refused to testify after the Commissioner refused to give me an assurance that the persons I wished called would be called. Of course, I had the privilege not to testify and I chose to exercise that privilege because and only because of one reason, and the reason is that the Commissioner refused to give me the assurance that these witnesses would be called. If anyone was responsible for my not giving the evidence, it was the Commissioner. It must become quite clear to anyone that he could have got my evidence. He had the opportunity and the power to get my evidence by only a simple statement, "Yes, Mr Jeyaretnam, I assure you that these witnesses will be produced to you for cross-examination.”
“May I say this before I embark on the third limb of my speech here that the Prime Minister had said that the Attorney-General would draft the terms of reference after I had given them to him. It should have been clear to the Prime Minister that the Attorney-General should not have been asked to draft the terms of reference because the Commission was over his own action, because it had been revealed in this House that the transfer was done between the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General. So if you are appointing a Commission to inquire into that, should you ask the man, who himself was a party to the action, to draw the terms of reference? That, I should have thought, would have been clear to the Prime Minister. As I said, in the end, the Commission sat and came out with its Report. May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, and Members of this House, that the Report is founded on a deception, a deception which again took the whole of the Report off its track, a deception which has coloured the entire findings of the Commission and led to misconceptions and misdirections of the law. The deception that was responsible for this Report is, I am sure Members are aware, the deception that I had claimed privilege under section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act and that I had refused to testify. That deception was capitalized upon by the Government through,again, its gutter press who tried to give the impression every time to the public that I had refused to testify claiming privilege. Nothing is further from the truth. The deception was persisted in through the Government-controlled media and it runs through the whole of the Report and is responsible for the indictment of me ---”
“I have made it quite clear that I was objecting to the Commissioner; I did not think he was the right choice. Finally, the appointment of Mr Glenn Knight. I again pointed out in that letter that Mr Glenn Knight was an unfortunate choice, if he wished to appoint someone to assist the Commission. I said he was too close to the bone. I am not the only one who shares that view. There was a letter written to the Straits Times, our press which at one time called itself the "National Press of Singapore" or the "National Newspaper". This was written by a pensioner, a Government pensioner. He wrote to the Editor of the Straits Times and he sent me a copy. He said the Government should reconsider asking Mr Glenn Knight to assist the Commission because, he said, he had been present at an interview with Mr Glenn Knight when he had made certain remarks which showed that he was completely biased. I am sure the Straits Times will produce that letter if it is asked to produce it. It, of course, never saw the light of day. So there were all these things wrong about the Commission. The terms of reference were wrong, the Commissioner was wrong, the person who was appointed to assist the Commission was wrong. So people began to wonder whether the Prime Minister was really earnest, was really sincere in wanting to establish the independence of the Subordinate Court Judiciary that they had nothing whatsoever to fear, or whether he merely wanted an endorsement, a white-washing, of his own view that the Executive did not interfere at any time with the Subordinate Court Judiciary. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the end, the Commissioner sat over my objections.”
“Bring it out afterwards. The Prime Minister forgets that immediately after that weekend of the sitting, I wrote to him and said, "On further reflection, I didn't think a High Court Judge should be the Commissioner." And he replied saying he disagreed. He thought a High Court Judge could be the Commissioner. Those two letters were released to the press by him and they were published. So even if I did not object in this House to the appointment of a High Court Judge, I had drawn his attention three days later to the undesirability of appointing a High Court Judge as the Commissioner. That was another thing wrong, appointment of a High Court Judge on this. Thirdly, the choice of the particular Commissioner. May I tell this House, I am sorry to have to say all this, may I tell the Members of the House that from the time the announcement was made that a High Court Judge would be appointed to head this Commission, no bets were being offered outside as to who would be the Commissioner. And then when the announcement was made on the 16th April, 1986, again I wrote to the Prime Minister by my letter, which I shall release when I come to the next motion, sending him detailed reasons as to why I thought the terms of reference were wrong and that he had never consulted me, and again drawing his attention to this particular Commissioner saying that I thought he should not head the Commission. The Prime Minister replied, again dismissing it. I told him that I would release both the letters to the press. But, of course, our gutter press (yes, Mr Speaker, Sir, I did say, our gutter press) could not bring themselves, did not have the courage, to publish both those letters. So there it is.”
“" Even then, I think there was some feeling that the Prime Minister was earnest and sincere in his desire to vindicate his Government and the Executive and to show that the Judiciary in Singapore had nothing to fear and that the public can repose full confidence and trust in the Judiciary, and particularly the Subordinate Court Judiciary because they do the bulk of the administration of criminal law in this country. But this desire on the part of the Prime Minister was dented very badly when he made the announcement on the 16th of April 1986 for the appointment of the Commissioner and the terms of reference. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say that everything was wrong about this Commission. Everything was wrong about this Commission. And from then onwards, the Commission went off the track, the track upon which it was thought this House had launched it. It veered off completely. First of all, the terms of reference. The terms of reference were a complete departure from that suggested by me in this House and which I thought the Prime Minister accepted as a Prime Minister of the Government in this House, Parliament. The terms of reference were a complete departure. I have another motion and I will dwell at length on that. So I do not wish to spend too much time. Secondly, the choice of the Commissioner. It was wrong in that respect. The Prime Minister yesterday seemed to imply that I had agreed in this House to the appointment of a High Court Judge. I said, "If the Prime Minister wishes to appoint, so be it. It lies within his power." So it was not an agreement. It was a you-do-what-you-want. I said, "So be it."”
“I repeat what I said. My only concern in bringing up this matter before this House is to safeguard the independence of the Judiciary, to see that it is seen by the public outside to be independent, manifestly independent. And I said that was vital to any society which believed in democracy and in a stable society. So I refute again this scandalous, outrageous, statement made by the Minister for Home Affairs that I attacked the Judiciary and made scurrilous remarks on the Chief Justice. Perhaps he would like to send them to somebody who understand the English language better than him and ask them what they thought about it, whether the passages amount to a scurrilous comment on the Chief Justice. Mr Speaker, Sir, to come to the motion itself, for a while, when the Prime Minister was speaking in this House on the 21st of March this year, it seemed that he was sincere, quite earnest and sincere, in wanting to establish and to show that the Judiciary and, of course, we were concerned with the Subordinate Court Judiciary, were acting quite independently of the Executive and had nothing to fear whatsoever from the Executive over any decision that they may make in the course of their duties. I suggested a Parliamentary Committee. Then he changed his mind and said, "Well, what about outsiders?" Then I began to suggest names and then after lunch the Prime Minister made a complete somersault and he came back and said, "No, I am going to appoint a High Court Judge and I will get the terms out.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I said, of course, he did not say it like that. Of course, he did not say it like that. But he said, "I can understand why he was transferred. He made six mistakes when he acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong." But he had come back to the point that the man was transferred because he acquitted us. I was going to ask the Prime Minister and he is not here. Has every judicial officer who made misdirections or mistakes in finding of fact been transferred or removed from their posts? Does he think that the High Court Judges should be removed from their posts if they made serious misdirections in law or in fact? I did not want to bring this but because of the Prime Minister's statement maligning this man, Mr Michael Khoo, may I ask the Prime Minister - I know he is not here - is he aware of the recent, perhaps not so recent but going back a year or so, decisions of the Privy Council, judgments of the Privy Council, which have criticized the Judiciary, the Judges of the High Court and the Court of Appeal? So does the Prime Minister say by the same token they should also be transferred or removed from their posts? Let us get that quite clear. The other thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, is this. The Minister for Home Affairs in opening his address on this motion said that I had attacked the Judiciary and then went on to say that I had made scurrilous remarks or comments about the Chief Justice. I asked him to draw the attention of this House to the passages in my speeches. And after some time fumbling through the reports, he referred to certain passages. I do not want to spend too much time on this. But may I say that it is only a distorted mind, a sick mind, which will find in those passages an attack on the Judiciary or scurrilous remarks of the Chief Justice.”
“That is what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister, of course, did not say that that was what the Chief Justice had told him. He says, "This is my own view as a reasonable person, and I say, 'Look here, this is why the man was transferred'." Of course, he does not say that the man was transferred because he acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong. He says the man was transferred because he had made six misdirections of facts and two misdirections of law. But whatever it is, the undisputed fact remains he was transferred because he had acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong. And in doing so he says the man made six mistakes. Now, who says he made the mistakes? A single Judge of the High Court says he made the mistakes. And I have tried to point out yesterday that I have been barred from appealing against that judgment of the single Judge of the High Court. So let us not make any bones about this. It is the Prime Minister's considered opinion, and he comes to this House with his considered opinion, that the man was transferred because he had acquitted Jeyaretnam and Wong making a number of mistakes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may move to the motion before this House, perhaps you are aware that I have written to the Leader of the House to ask whether he would move a motion to give me more than an hour to reply. He has declined. So I must try and finish it within the hour. Unless, of course, he wishes to change his mind. Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me state and put it on record again that yesterday we had it from the Prime Minister in this House that Mr Michael Khoo was transferred from his post of Senior District Judge because he had acquitted the Chairman and me on three of the charges. That is what the Prime Minister said. An hon. Member: Distortion.”
“May I have this clarification of the Prime Minister first, Mr Speaker, Sir, and then have an hour on my speech? Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday the Prime Minister referred to the affidavits or statutory declarations of Dr Ivy Chew. I asked him if he had got both the statutory declarations and would he like to read them. He did not read them. But he kept talking of just two words "tacit understanding", saying that there was nothing expressed. I have got both the statutory declarations and I will hand them up to the Clerk, Mr Speaker, Sir. Dr Ivy Chew in her own statutory declaration, made not to us but to the Receiver and without any consultation with us or with me at all, told the Receiver, "I posted the said cheque together with a letter to Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam at his office." So there was a letter. She says that in a sworn statement, and in spite of that the CJ says he cannot accept my evidence that there was a letter. Dr Ivy Chew was available all through the trial, waiting to be called by the prosecution. They had subpoenaed her. She was there and she was not called. So this is what I wish to make a clarification on. The Prime Minister's statement yesterday was that there was just a tacit understanding. He completely overlooked, and I am saying, regrettably, overlooked pointing out to the House that she said that she "posted the said cheque together with a letter to Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam."”
“As I indicated yesterday, Mr Speaker, Sir, I was waiting to see whether any Government Minister or Member wished to speak on the motion before I replied, but I see nobody else wishes to speak this morning. I had to ask the Prime Minister to speak yesterday. But before I begin my reply to this motion, may I clarify one or two things that the Prime Minister said yesterday in his speech to the House and out of which I sought clarification from him. I see he is not here this morning.”
“I do not understand about statements may be fabricated, but I will let that pass. It is all the insinuations that come from this Minister in particular, and generally from the Government Benches. The man's name is Mr P. Senivaratne. I think that's how you spell it. And as I have told the Minister, I know this man. He is a member of my church and he is a man whose integrity I respect.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, certainly. I told the Minister yesterday that if he wished to interview the man who gave me the statement (and it is in a signed statement as well, but he spoke to me orally first), he is very welcome to do so. I have told the man and he is ready to be interviewed by the Minister or by anybody.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have sought your leave to make a short statement about the matter on which I was referred to the Committee of Privileges yesterday. The Minister for Home Affairs then asked whether I had the address of this man who had complained to my friend about him being arrested, and I said I did not have it or I was not able to furnish it. But this morning the man who gave me this information and from whom I had a signed statement has sent me the address of this man. He told me earlier that he did not know the new address to which the man had moved. The address now is: Lim Poh Huat. He lives at Block 100, 567-D (I suppose he has given the old numbering), Aljunied Crescent, Singapore. I do not know what the postal code number is. That is the address, and if the Minister would like to send the Police to look for this man, they will find him there. The Minister for Home Affairs and the Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask a question of the Member for Anson? Will he also give me a copy of the signed statement which he said was the sole basis on which he raised the complaint in the House?”
“Can the Minister not see that, as a result of the policy reversal by the HUDC or the HDB, several of these owners who intended to sell them may have suffered considerable damages, loss? Does he not see that? And does he not think it dishonest on the part of the HDB to reverse this policy just because it does not suit the HDB?”
“Will the Hon. Minister concede that only a little while ago he said that they were not allowed to sell their flats within the first five years and they had to offer them to the HUDC or the HDB as the case may be? Did he not say that?”
“Will the Minister, without any further ado, concede that it is dishonest for the HDB now to refuse to buy back these flats from intending vendors where they had in the past compelled them to offer the flats to the HUDC? Does he not agree that it is dishonest where these HUDC flat owners may have suffered loss as a result of the policy of the HDB?”
“Does the Minister concede now that he says it is in the agreement? Yesterday I thought he said there was nothing written about it. Does he concede that any intending vendor of an HUDC apartment within the prescribed period had to first offer it to the HUDC and without offering it to the HUDC could not sell it outside?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Hon. Minister a supplementary question touching upon his answer to part (c) of the question asked by the hon. Member. Would he agree that he had not really directed his answer to the point of the question, which is, assistance provided for flat owners who are not able to sell back their flats to the Housing and Development Board? My supplementary question to the Minister is this. Would the Minister say whether, until the recent announcement was made by the HDB, HUDC owners were compelled to sell back their apartments to the HUDC or HDB now if they proposed to sell them within the prescribed period?”
“I will speak tomorrow, Mr Speaker, Sir, because that was the motion.”
“All I said was I understood, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the House would sit until the Prime Minister finished. That was the motion before the House to which we agreed. I will speak.”
“I wanted to clarify on this objection that I raised under Standing Orders.”
“But the motion from the Leader of the House was that the House would sit until the Prime Minister finished his speech. That was the motion, and now is he going to make another motion?”
“And so there was not just my testimony before the Senior District Judge, he had the affidavits of Dr Ivy Chew to consider. Then there is the question about who should have called Dr Ivy Chew. The Senior District Judge held that the prosecution should have called Dr Ivy Chew and this man, Ping Koon Yam. Of course, the Chief Justice took a different view. But, perhaps, may I ask the Prime Minister, by way of clarification, is he also aware of the important rule that it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and that there is no duty on the defence to supply any witnesses, to explain any deficiency in the prosecution's case? Is he aware of that rule? May I have clear answers from the Prime Minister before we finish this evening? Is he saying that the reason for Mr Michael Khoo's transfer was because of the many errors he had made in the judgment he gave in January 1984? I know he says the Chief Justice did not tell him that. But is he saying that that is the reason? Does he as the Prime Minister say in this House, "I say these are the reasons for the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo." And then perhaps you can ask the Chief Justice whether he agrees with that, or whether there were other reasons. Thirdly, would he answer the question about the judgment of the Chief Justice, whether it is binding on another High Court Judge? And fourthly, whether he is aware that there were no appeals. Does he not concede that? And finally, would he look at both the affidavits of Dr Ivy Chew?”
“Exactly. The Court of Criminal Appeal merely said, "Under the Singapore law, under the Statute [I wonder whether you had a hand in drafting it] there is no appeal once the High Court Judge refuses to grant leave." So for the last time, Mr Prime Minister, there was no appeal against the judgment of the Chief Justice. It just could not be heard. And from the Court of Criminal Appeal saying that the Singapore law did not permit an appeal against the refusal of the High Court Judge to refer questions to a Court of Criminal Appeal, we went up to the Privy Council. Because my counsel conceded that the Chief Justice was sitting in an appellate capacity when he heard the application, the Privy Council said, "Well, in that case we agree with the Court of Criminal Appeal that there is no appeal from the decision of the Judge if he refuses to give leave to refer the appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal." So it must become crystally clear to you, Mr Prime Minister, that there was no appeal. There is only the judgment of the Chief Justice. And the judgment of the Chief Justice is not binding on the High Court Judge who hears this appeal. You can ask any lawyer that. Secondly, the Prime Minister refers to one affidavit of Dr Ivy Chew. Is he aware that there are two affidavits filed or given by Dr Ivy Chew? Would he like to look at both those affidavits? Is he also aware, because he seems to imply that we got those affidavits from her, that that is not so. Those affidavits were, in fact, statutory declarations. They were given by Dr Ivy Chew to the Official Receiver. So we did not get them, and we did not even know that she had made those affidavits. The prosecution had to produce those affidavits because we forced them out of the Receiver's hands.”
“Will the Prime Minister answer my question? Is he saying that the decision of the Chief Justice is binding on another High Court Judge who hears this appeal and that I am just wasting my time in appealing to the High Court? Is he saying that? Because if he is saying that, then let him say it categorically in this House. Then perhaps I will have to withdraw the appeal. Secondly, is the Prime Minister seriously saying that there was an appeal from the Chief Justice's decision? I am rather surprised, Mr Prime Minister, that with your training as a lawyer - I know as I said it was some 30 years ago - that you could fail not to see the difference. There was no appeal from the Chief Justice's decision. We applied to the Chief Justice for leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal for him to refer questions that arose at the hearing of the appeal for the determination of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the Chief Justice turned down that request. And when we went up before the Court of Criminal Appeal, it was not to appeal against the Chief Justice's judgment; it was to appeal against his order refusing to give us leave to refer the questions to the Court of Criminal Appeal. They are two different things. The Court of Criminal Appeal did not go into the merits, Mr Prime Minister.”
“Is the Prime Minister seriously saying - I know it was some 30 years ago since he gave up his law practice - is he seriously saying that the judgment of the Chief Justice is binding on another High Court Judge, that the High Court Judge is bound to follow the Chief Justice's rulings when he speaks of finality, that it cannot be reopened? Is he saying that?”
“Public document, but it is before the next hearing of the appeal.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I only hope that the Prime Minister's speech is not going to be sent on to the counsel who appears for the Government to be read in court there, that the Prime Minister of the country agrees with the Chief Justice's views because, as I said, the Chief Justice's judgment will be taken to task at the hearing of the appeal. The Prime Minister, if I heard him correctly - I hope I heard him correctly - has now said to this House that the reason for Mr Michael Khoo's transfer was because of the errors he made in this judgment. Did I hear him correctly that that is the only reason why he was transferred?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not replying to the motion. I want clarification from the Prime Minister on some of the things that he said in his hour-long address this afternoon. The Prime Minister has spoken like a counsel arguing the prosecution's case before the Court of Appeal. I know you have ruled but it is still my view, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it was very wrong for the Prime Minister to have done this. It was sub judice.”
“Did it occur to you that perhaps we were dissatisfied with the whole conduct of the inquiry?”
“He was fired. Is that what you are suggesting?”
“I did not say that. Look up the passages.”
“And the Chief Justice says that, on the evidence, Mr Michael Khoo was wrong in acquitting. He reversed him on facts and he convicted and let him off lightly with a $1,000 fine. $1,000 for fraud! That is how lenient our courts have been. But I hope the courts recognize that as a result of all this, the Member believes that he has now got such a halo around him that he can go around town pretending that he is a saint, that all these are calumnies. This is the same Michael Khoo that the Member feels should have been made a High Court Judge a long time ago.”
“' "Failure to observe, analyse or consider material facts and circumstances." These are not words tossed lightly in a debate in Parliament. The Chief Justice thought about these matters for many months and decided that he would say these words on the record, on permanent record, against the man who had served him as Senior Registrar and whom he had transferred as Senior District Judge. On page 62: 'In my judgment, on a full consideration of the material evidence and the circumstances and bearing in mind that an appellate court should be slow in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses but is nonetheless duty bound to review at large the evidence upon which that finding was reached, [in spite of his reluctance, the Chief Justice says] I am satisfied that the trial judge was wrong in accepting Wong's account and in finding that Ping had no intention of transferring the property in his cheque to the Workers' Party. ' 'It follows, in my opinion, inescapably, [these are the Chief Justice's words] that Jeyaretnam's recollection, as given in evidence by him, that Wong told him Ping wanted to give something for Madam Chew's costs must also be untrue as was his recollection that he endorsed it so that they could get the money for Madam Chew. Accordingly, I find that at all material times Ping's cheque was the property of the Workers' Party.' Very simple. The man gave a cheque. "Workers' Party or Bearer". He had cancelled "Bearer". In a private room, Mr Jeyaretnam, Mr Wong in a separate room, Mr Wong with Mr Jeyaretnam present asked the man, "revive the bearer and endorse it in order to defraud the creditors." The Member said he cannot remember. Mr Ping said the Member was there and Mr Wong was there.”