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 33 of 82.
“It is clear that the answer [Mr Keith Tay's answer] was in response to the question which required the witness to assume as a fact that Jeyaretnam was entitled to pay Mdm Chew's costs "from a donor"'". Again, a finding of fact that the judge allowed extraneous and irrelevant material to influence his finding on the case. Page 35: 'The trial judge, in my judgment, was wrong in his conclusion that the evidence, inter alia, was favourable to the defence on the question of a fraudulent intention ... At best, it was ... neutral evidence. Lastly, ... the trial judge erred in law in relying on the Rangoon Case ... for finding that even though the cheque was the property of the Workers' Party, Tay Boon Too had not obtained any right or title to its proceeds and consequently had no right to the distribution of the proceeds according to law.' Let me count. Six findings that the man was wrong on facts, on the face of the evidence on the record, before the court. Two findings wrong in law. In one judgment, six findings wrong in fact, two findings wrong in law. 'He erred that there would have been no grounds for the prosecution to complain had the cheques been first banked. He misconstrued. He came to the wrong conclusion.' Then he dealt with another charge in which Michael Khoo acquitted both the accused of defrauding creditors. This was a sum of $200 from a Mr Ping. On page 61, the Chief Justice has to say this of his Senior District Judge who was, previous to that, his Registrar in the High Court: 'The trial judge appears to have failed to observe, analyse or consider all these material facts and circumstances and in failing to do so, in my judgment, erred in his approach to the evidence of Wong and in accepting Wong's account of what Ping said when he handed his cheque to Wong.”
“Why didn't the prosecution call them? The Prime Minister: "... the defence elected not to call them totestify in support of its allegations." I quote the Chief Justice. I did not try the case. 'In my judgment, it was sufficient for the prosecution to rely on the cheque itself as proof that the cheque was the property of the Workers' Party but, having regard to the nature ... of the defence on the issue of Dr Chew's intention, the defence should have called her as a witness.' In other words, here was a party supporter, signed this cheque, was alleged to have given a piece of paper, and said, "You do with it as you like", had a subsequent telephone conversation. Here was the Secretary-General of the Party about to be found guilty and she could not be produced. All that they could get was a statutory declaration in which she very carefully said "tacit understanding". In page 33: 'In my judgment, these passages disclose errors on the part of the trial judge. First, in the passage beginning "In the absence of any evidence to the contrary" it seems to me that he failed to take into consideration the undisputed facts relied on by the prosecution together with such inferences as may be drawn from the proved facts and failed to weigh that evidence against Jeyaretnam's evidence before coming to the conclusion that Jeyaretnam's evidence could not be untrue. In my judgment this was a serious misdirection [a serious misdirection]. Secondly, the trial judge [ie, Michael Khoo] erred in his finding that "there would have been no grounds for the prosecution to complain" had the cheques been first banked into the Workers' Party bank account and then paid out to Madam Chew's solicitors. In my judgment the trial judge misconstrued the evidence of Mr Keith Tay [an accountant].”
“Mr Prime Minister, it was not appealed against. You are a trained lawyer, Mr Prime Minister.”
“The Prime Minister is misleading the House.”
“Are you ruling on this, Mr Speaker, Sir?”
“I have not finished, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have a right of reply to this point of order that I raised. It is very much an issue and which will be before the court. The fact that it has been published is neither here nor there. It cannot be referred to in this House in its proceedings. You can read them outside but you cannot refer to them in this House, in proceedings before this House, because they are - I see the Member for Punggol would like to display his knowledge of the law. I will give him the rostrum. He can come and tell us where he learned his law. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) 4.30 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, of course it is published. Of course it is published. It shows a complete inability to grasp the Standing Order in this House. Standing Order says that no Member shall refer to proceedings before a Court of law before they are over. That is what is contemplated by that Standing Order. And here the proceedings are not over.”
“--- will be the subject of comment in this appeal that will be heard. It will be severely criticized and shown to be wrong. So it is sub judice.”
“I am sure you have. He should know that the charge involves the questions as to whether those three sums of money on which the other three charges were founded were part of the Workers' Party's monies, and whether they were reflected in the accounts or whether they should be reflected in the accounts. So you cannot try and isolate one charge from the other three charges. It is all these questions - whether the amounts on those three cheques form part of the Workers' Party's monies - that will be canvassed at the hearing of the appeal. And now, what the Prime Minister proposes to do is to read the judgment of the Chief Justice. I tell the Prime Minister that the Judgment of the Chief Justice ---”
“No, Mr Speaker, Sir. I want a ruling on whether the Prime Minister is permitted under the Standing Orders to refer to judgments in cases which are far from over. There is an appeal. The Prime Minister keeps saying that what is on appeal is the conviction under section 199. That is, of course, true. But the Prime Minister should know if he has made a study of the case, and I am sure he has.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I must persist in my objection on a point of order because he is going to read the judgment. If he wants to reply to my objection on a point of order, let him do so. Let him not read the judgment now.”
“I would like a ruling, Mr Speaker, Sir, on this.”
“I am sorry the Prime Minister shows such a poor comprehension of what is involved in this appeal. Has he studied the case?”
“Because the Prime Minister is not aware of the evidence and the facts.”
“Are you aware of the facts of the charges?”
“Mr Prime Minister, are you aware of the facts?”
“It is going to be argued, Mr Prime Minister, at the appeal that the Chief Justice was wrong. The Prime Minister: No, it cannot be.”
“Because you are going on without answering the point of order.”
“The point of order is this, Mr Speaker, Sir. As the Prime Minister well knows, at the retrial we were convicted and there is an appeal pending against that, and at this appeal the judgment of the Chief Justice ordering the retrial will be very much an issue relevant. His grounds as to why he ordered the retrial and his findings - they will all be canvassed again before the Judge who hears this appeal. And here is the Prime Minister, with all his experience, referring in Parliament to judgments and proceedings in Court which are not over yet. Is he not aware of Standing Order which says that no reference shall be made to proceedings which are sub judice?”
“He writes back and says, "Well, if you say they are matters of public record, you go and look them up yourself." That is the sort of cooperation I have had from Government Ministries and departments when I have asked for even the simplest information. So it is not for me, Mr Prime Minister - I hope you understand - to have to prove that anything was wrong with the Government, with the functioning of the Government machinery or with any other machinery. It is for the Government, once a matter is raised in this House, to lay bare before the House and the public, to show that there can be no question of any impropriety. There can be no question that might give rise to disquiet in the minds of the public. That is how democratic governments function. They are accountable to the people, and if you take that seriously, then it is the Government's duty to explain without hiding anything but to put everything in front of the people and to explain it. And that is all I asked for the last time. On 10th January I asked that there should be a proper explanation for the transfer of this man and that was not forthcoming and that does not amount to an attack on the Judiciary, as the Minister for Home Affairs has made it out to be. I cannot see by any stretch of imagination that that could be an attack on the Judiciary. So I hope the Prime Minister understands what is involved in all this. We are not, as the Prime Minister has said, playing a game here. It goes far beyond that. It is very serious, and it is the duty of the Government to explain and to satisfy the public.”
“Yes, there must be a reckoning. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is only necessary for me, as a Member of this House, to come and inform the House of anything that is disquieting the public. I shall be failing in my duty if I did not do that. The Prime Minister must know that I do not have access to what goes on in Government offices. I do not have access to Government files. I do not have access to anything. Indeed I have complained about this. In this country, everything is kept behind closed doors. I have telephoned many a time to Ministries and asked for information and I am refused information. Let me give the Prime Minister one instance. Preparing myself for this Commission of Inquiry which the President, on the advice of the Prime Minister, had appointed and which I was determined should not be frustrated, that it should be allowed to carry out its tasks fully, I wrote to the Registrar of the Subordinate Courts a letter asking him whether he would give me a statement of all the holders of the post of District Judge and First Magistrate and Senior District Judge way back from 1955 or even before that, 1952, I think, after I joined the Legal Service and what happened to them when they vacated their offices. This is something which should be a matter of public record and I wrote to the Registrar of the Subordinate Courts, "May I have this information?" And what do I get? "Very sorry. We cannot give you this information because it only came to me in the course of my official duties as Registrar. So how can I give you that information?" or words to that effect. So I had to write to him again and tell him, "Surely these transfers would have appeared in the Gazette Notifications and therefore they are matters of public record." Even then he does not give me the information.”
“I do not know whether the Prime Minister deliberately refuses to understand what I am saying in this House. It is not for me, Mr Prime Minister ---”
“There should be an explanation to the public why Mr Michael Khoo was transferred in August 1984. I said that was of vital importance if the public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained in this country and, of course, public confidence in the administration of justice, as the Prime Minister very well knows - it may not be accepted by the other Members but the Prime Minister, of course, is aware of that - is one of the strongest pillars of any democratic state or society. The Prime Minister: Do I understand now that these two cases also - Mr Yong Yung Sui and Mr Jeffrey Chan - comprise the three Subordinate Court Judges against whom the Executive has interfered in the exercise of their duties and they would also be the subject of investigation besides Mr Michael Khoo?”
“He heard a case, again I do not know whether he was a District Judge; I think he probably was. He heard a case concerning entry into the CBD area by a police officer without displaying an area licence, and again I was the counsel for the accused, for this Inspector. I submitted at the close of the prosecution case that the whole scheme was ultra vires the Act. That the collection of the area licence fee was not authorized by the Act and therefore it was ultra vires. This was accepted. There was a DPP arguing for the prosecution. This was accepted by the Magistrate who acquitted the man. He was an Inspector in the Police Force. And throughout the case, I think it was raised as a preliminary point. This, of course, was not acceptable to the Government. I mentioned this in this House after I came here because the same evening, over radio and TV, there was an announcement, and in the press as well, by somebody from the Ministry of Communications saying, "We are not accepting that judgment. We will continue to collect charges and fees. We are going to appeal against that decision." That was a statement made by an official from the Ministry of Communications and I referred to that. I said, "That showed the contempt that the Government had for the administration of justice." Here is a Magistrate who makes a decision and the member of the Executive says, "Oh, forget that decision. We are not going to abide by it." What clearer contempt can there be for the administration of justice? This man was also taken out of the courts a few months later. So there are these two instances, Mr Prime Minister, and you can check them out. All I wanted to know, as I said on 10th January, is that there should be an explanation.”
“[Pointing to a pile of notes] That is all that I had got prepared to give evidence before the Commissioner. So I was surprised to read the Commissioner's statement that I had no intention to give evidence. I have already named, before this House, witnesses that I think should be produced before any Commission appointed to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo Kah Lip. Those were the names that I gave to the Commissioner - the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, Tan Teow Yeow, Chandra Mohan, and, of course, Michael Khoo Kah Lip. Then I said I think Mr Glenn Knight should also give evidence. You ask me now to tell you who are the members of the Subordinate Court judiciary who were transferred. One goes back to 1972, Mr Prime Minister, and he is Mr Yong Yung Sui. Probably he was not a District Judge. He was sitting in the Subordinate Court and he heard a case in which I appeared as the Counsel for the accused. The accused in that case was none other than the brother of Mr Lee Tow Kiat, an advocate and solicitor, who had stood as a candidate for the Workers' Party in the 1972 elections. He was charged with using criminal force on a top ranking police officer, and I understood then that this top ranking police officer was one of the top police officers who accompanied the Prime Minister on his travels abroad. He was a very important police officer. The Magistrate acquitted my client, the brother of Mr Lee Tow Kiat, of the charge. Shortly after that he was transferred, taken out of the courts. And he has never returned to the court, as far as I know. He is now in the Legal Unit of the Development and Building Control Unit of the Ministry of National Development. That is Mr Yong Yung Sui. The other man is Mr Jeffrey Chan.”
“What is it? Is it on a point of order? The Prime Minister: He is making a mystery out of these missing names of District Judges who were transferred. He knows of three. He has named one; he has got two more. I say, just name them. Let us produce them. Are they Mr Chandra Mohan, Mr Tan Teow Yeow, Mr Michael Khoo? Name them.”
“The Prime Minister keeps asking me to state again and again what I have already stated. I do not know why that is necessary, Mr Speaker, Sir. I should have thought once stated would be enough. Apparently not for the Prime Minister. I have said that I will give evidence and I will name the two members of the Subordinate Court Judiciary ---”
“The Prime Minister must be aware that I told the Commissioner that he was breaking the law and that, under the Act, he could be held to be in contempt of Parliament and he cannot plead the President's directive or order to him. The Prime Minister says he does not agree with my interpretation of section 4. Would he like to study it? Would he like to look at section 4 and contrast it with the sections in the Evidence Act which talk about communication which are privileged, and see the total difference in the wording?”
“But I said that in spite of that I will give evidence.”
“--- what I said on the afternoon. Because I say the Commissioner was all at sea over section 4 of the Act. I tried to put him right. And he did not want to listen to me that afternoon. That is all in the papers. He did not want to listen to me and walked out saying, "Get him out." You have asked me for an assurance that I will give evidence. I have given it to you, Mr Prime Minister. How many times do you want this assurance? I have given it to the Commissioner, except he did not want it. He refused to give me an assurance that these witnesses would be called.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, what I said in the afternoon of that 3rd of June this year was to try to put the Commissioner right on the interpretation of section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. The Commissioner had proceeded on the assumption or his understanding that section 4 was on par with the Privilege, which is protected under the Evidence Act.”
“Can we have the whole of that videotape?”
“I didn't say "suppressed". It was sent to the Commissioner. I have a copy of that letter. You want to see it?”
“Mr Prime Minister, that's very funny. Why don't you call for the letter? Hasn't the Commissioner sent you all the copies of the correspondence? It is a registered letter. I should have thought you would have had a look at all these. Well, he says that. And if you are not satisfied, Mr Prime Minister, why don't you go down to the market place? But for a minute, leave your bodyguards out. Just go and sit at the coffee shops and ask the people what they think. So it is that public disquiet that I brought before this House. And that is very important for the administration of justice in this country. The Prime Minister: It is part of the tactics of the Member for Anson to shift the subject and move the ground whenever he finds himself in an uncomfortable position. He goes back again now and says there is grave disquiet, that the registered letter was sent and suppressed.”
“Yes. But let us get this clear, Mr Prime Minister. You cannot try and manufacture something from what is not there. You must, as I said, look again very carefully, read very carefully, my speech in this House. It is a pity you were not here, Mr Prime Minister. You could have dealt with it then more efficiently than your Ministers could. You will see, if you read those speeches, that I was referring to the public disquiet. And I am sure the Prime Minister must be aware - if he is not aware, then perhaps he can call for it - there was a registered letter written to the Commissioner and a copy sent to me by a member of the public. And he said: 'It is not only Mr Jeyaretnam but thousands of Singaporeans are disquieted by this transfer of the Senior District Judge [after the case against me].' So there you have it. That is what I was raising before this House - the disquiet felt all over Singapore at this transfer. And it is not just that one man writing it.”
“The Prime Minister need not ask me again. If he had followed the proceedings before the Commissioner, he will find that I said the same thing there. I told the Commissioner, I made it very clear, that I would give evidence if the Commissioner gave me the assurance that these persons would be called to testify. The Commissioner refused to give me that assurance and that is why I did not testify. So the Prime Minister need not ask me to repeat that in the House again. But if he would like it repeated, I will repeat it.”
“Is he not also the Chief Legal Officer for the Government?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed surprised to hear from the Prime Minister's lips that the Attorney-General is not a member of the Executive.”
“Well, you will see when you appoint the Commission and the questions are put to them.”
“Those are the five names I gave the Commissioner, ie, the CJ, the Attorney-General, Mr Michael Khoo Kah Lip, Mr Tan Teow Yeow and Mr Chandra Mohan. But now may I add to that list? I gave five names. Mr Glenn Knight should also be called to testify at this inquiry.”
“Those are the names I gave to the Commissioner. I might have another one, but I think those are the four names I gave to the Commissioner. I think in addition to those four names, may I give you other names now?”
“I will give you the names I mentioned to the Commissioner. But I thought you wanted all the names as well. You can have them, Mr Prime Minister.”
“Whom I told the Commissioner? All right, I will give that first to you.”
“I did not give this name to the Commissioner. But I am saying you want all the names now. Do you want all the names, don't you, or not?”
“And they are - I asked whether the Chief Justice would be giving evidence before the Commission. And I wrote to the Secretary of the Commission requesting that the Attorney-General be called for me to cross-examine. I also indicated before the Commissioner that I wanted Mr Michael Khoo. It is beyond my comprehension that a Commission set up to inquire into the transfer of this man does not even hear him. And that is the Report this House is asked to accept. So there is Mr Michael Khoo Kah Lip, the then Senior District Judge, Mr Tan Teow Yeow from the AG's Chambers; well, Mr Glenn Knight of the AG's Chambers.”
“The Prime Minister will see, if he has read the Report of the Commissioner, that I named four witnesses.”
“First of all, the Prime Minister should clear his own mind as to what were my allegations made in this House on the 10th January 1986 and - perhaps I should correct myself here, I did not make any allegations on the 19th or the 21st March. It was the Prime Minister who came forward saying that his Minister had not dealt with the allegations in January, and so he proposed to deal with them. He raised them for the first time and referred to my statement made on the 10th January 1986. Well, if the Prime Minister will again read carefully what I said on the 10th January 1986, he will find nothing else but this, Mr Prime Minister, that the transfer of that Senior District Judge in August 1984 had raised disquiet in the minds of the public and I went on - you can read the whole of my speech, Mr Prime Minister, when you have got the time - I went on to say that this tended to erode the confidence of the public in the Subordinate Court Judiciary, not because of anything that the Judiciary was doing but by Government executive action in transferring these persons. And I wanted an explanation, an investigation into all the circumstances of the transfer. That is all, Mr Prime Minister. And of course I did say, I did say that the prosecution of me and my Chairman was politically motivated. I have very good reasons for saying that.”
“That if anyone prevented me from giving evidence at this Commission, it was the Commissioner himself. It will be the burden of my speech that the Prime Minister could have had all the evidence that I had. He could have had names of the two District Judges. I could have said everything but I was not allowed. And the only reason that I was not allowed is because the Commissioner refused to give me an assurance. So if the Prime Minister says now that he will appoint another Commission and he will have all these witnesses produced to me for cross-examination, I will accept it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I indicated, it will be the burden of my answer to this motion.”
“Yes, Mr Prime Minister, you heard me right because it will be the burden of my speech when I come to make it - that this Commission did not carry out the terms of reference and therefore you should now consider whether there should be another Commission, forgetting everything about this Commission, and appointing a new Commission to inquire into the terms of reference properly.”