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 40 of 82.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have heard a lot for the last 35 minutes from the Prime Minister, and it can all be summed up in this: "I decide how much my Senior Minister is worth. I pay him $26,000. It's got nothing to do with you." And what work does he do? "Oh, he counsels me when I need any counsel sometimes."”
“Have a Commission of Inquiry into Pan-El.”
“You are talking about Minister's salaries.”
“Tell us what he is discharging. What responsibilities is he discharging?”
“Then say it again. And let us see why. In spite of the recession, you are saying that they should not take a cut, but they should be paid more. Let the public know. One of the things that I have been stressing, Mr Speaker, is the accountability of the Government, the Prime Minister and the Ministers, to the public. And nowhere is this accountability more important and more serious than when it comes to expenditure of public funds. You have got to account to the public for every cent you spend; and justify it. I am sorry the Prime Mnister has not responded on any of these things.”
“May we know what responsibilities is he discharging in the Office? Or is he paid for his duties as a trade unionist? Where is he? In the Port of Singapore Workers' Union? I think the public must have clear answers to these questions. It is the public moneys that are being spent. What about the other Political Secretaries? What about the man in the Singapore Press Holdings? What responsibilities is he discharging? We have not heard a word from the Prime Minister, and he says "I have answered them." What about my call for the salaries of the Ministers to be cut, for them to forgo? He has not said a word about it. Is he still of the view that they should be paid more?”
“With respect, Mr Speaker, Sir, the questions that I posed to the Prime Minister were these. Would he outline to this House what responsibilities are discharged by the Senior Minister in his Office? Let me say that I am amazed, and no doubt the rest of Singapore will be amazed, that the Senior Minister is given $26,000 a month. And all he does is to give counsel, sometimes when it is needed, to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister instanced one occasion when he had to seek the counsel of the Senior Minister, and that was when, he said, somebody was seeking political asylum. I said then and I say it now, "Isn't $26,000 a little bit excessive, Mr Prime Minister, for counsel like that?" Would the Prime Minister tell us what responsibilities are discharged by the Senior Minister? Let us have them so that the public may know whether the Senior Minister is worth the salary that is paid him. We know that he accompanies the Prime Minister abroad on travels. Is that why he is paid $26,000? What Ministry has he got to be responsible for? Likewise, the Second Deputy Prime Minister. Would he tell us what responsibilities does the Second Deputy Prime Minister discharge as holder of that office? As I said earlier, he is the Secretary-General of the NTUC. Is he paid $24,000 a month for discharging the duties of Secretary-General of NTUC, or is he paid that sum to discharge Ministerial responsibilities? If they are, what are those Ministerial responsibilities? May we have clear-cut answers to these questions? May we know what the Political Secretaries are discharging? This man in his Ministry who was sent to take over Anson; they were so convinced that they were going to take over Anson that they had all the banners ready on Polling night: "Congratulations for winning Anson".”
“I thought the Prime Minister was going to respond to the rest of my amendment. We have been sidetracked into these issues. Would the Prime Minister respond to my amendment?”
“I would like to speak on it, but you have ruled. I accept the ruling. MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1986 TO 31ST MARCH, 1987 [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Debate in Committee of Supply resumed. Head U (cont.) -”
“Yes, it is a motion. What else is it? Mr Dhanabalan: But it has to be referred to the Committee. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is quite clear here in the Standing Orders that when I make a complaint, that matter is referred to the Privileges Committee without any further discussion. And I have done so at the earliest opportunity and that such a motion can be made without notice. I do not see what further discussion there need be, Mr Speaker.”
“That is a motion, that the complaint be referred.”
“But it is a motion moved, that it would be referred to the Privileges Committee.”
“If you so please. But you can see from the wording of the motion that it is completely misconceived.”
“I am going to show that the motion is erroneous. Will you allow me to speak, Mr Speaker?”
“But I am going to show that the motion is out of order because the motion, as framed, is completely erroneous.”
“I wish to speak on it. First of all, Mr Speaker, Sir, now that you are back in the Chair of Parliament -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I point out that you are sitting as Chairman of the Committee of the House at the moment. You are not sitting as Speaker of Parliament, the whole House. We are in Committee.”
“I have nothing to apologize for. I keep telling you. It is because I asked for an explanation and now you give us this explanation. It was never given last year. Why was it not given last year? And what is wrong in asking a question on the transfer? Every time I ask a question in this House, I am told that I am making an insinuation or I am making an allegation. We heard this yesterday from the Finance Minister. We heard it this morning. If you have got nothing to be ashamed about, you reveal everything. Why was it not revealed last year?”
“That is the Chief Justice's note. It is quite evident, is it not?”
“I accept what the Chief Justice says in his letter. But you are alleging a number of things.”
“It was not brought out. Was there a meeting of the Legal Service Commission? Let us have the minutes. Was there a discussion on this?”
“What is it that I have lied about? I have said that the transfer should be explained. Now, you come out with a note from the Chief Justice. It was not brought at the last discussion in this House.”
“What apology do I owe? What is it that I have said?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have nothing to apologize. I am asking how did it come about, and I raised the disquiet that was felt outside this House when they saw about the transfer.”
“I said the Chairman and two other members of the Public Service Commission. Let us not quibble over that. If the Prime Minister says that there is nothing in it for the Governmnet to be ashamed of, I say produce the transcript of what took place when this transfer was discussed. He says the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General were responsible. Who initiated it? How did it come about? Well, come clean.”
“If you want to argue this for the next seven days, I am saying that we are now sidetracked completely from the amendment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it looks as though we are never going to get to my substantive motion in this amendment. We can go on for the next seven days arguing this if the Prime Minister so wishes. I am prepared.”
“I did not say that they were instrumental. What I did say, and I stand by it, is that the Legal Service Commission - get the Hansard - consists of the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General as No. 2, then another High Court Judge, and two others from the Public Service Commission. And I said the Attorney-General and the other two form the majority in the Legal Service Commission. Those are all facts and you cannot dispute those facts. If the Prime Minister wishes to justify this, the only way is to get the minutes of the Legal Service Commission when this transfer was considered, and let us see what discussion took place.”
“Yes, you may. What is it that you want to know?”
“And he was not promoted there. He was transferred to an appointment in the same scale. May I say that the appointment he was transferred to was lower in prestige and in status than that of a Senior District Judge. The post of Senior District Judge carries a prestige and a status. The only other instance that I do know of where the head of the Subordinate Courts, at one time known as District Judge and First Magistrate and now known as Senior District Judge was transferred to the AG's Chambers, was when he was promoted to the post of Acting Solicitor-General. That is the gravamen of my point - that it was not a promotion for this man. It was just a transfer, and we all know that.”
“Of course, I was aware, as I said in last year's debate because it is provided in the Constitution. Transfers, promotions, discipline of Legal Officers are entrusted to the Legal Service Commission. I do not need to be told that. It is in the Constitution. What I did say, and this is where the Prime Minister gets me wrong time and time again, is that I did not say that he should have been promoted to the High Court Bench. That was not my plea in this House last year. My question was: he was transferred from a post that he had held with honour and credit after having been several years in this post, to the Attorney-General's Chambers. An hon. Member: What is wrong?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought the Prime Minister was going to respond to all the other questions.”
“I will deal with that this afternoon. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“Give your figures of Ministers' salaries.”
“Why did you not bring the case to the court to test it?”
“I will show you why it is politically motivated.”
“But you are making false statements and I will tell you why.”
“Because you are making false statements.”
“Because you are making scandalous statements.”
“I was not asking that he should have been made a High Court Judge. I am asking why was he transferred. The Prime Minister: Therefore it was politically motivated. That the Attorney-General took up the appeal was politically motivated. That the appeal was allowed and the case sent for re-trial was politically motivated. That a man who is a lawyer, a solicitor and advocate of the court, let there be no mistake as to the ultimate gravity of the charge against him, he falsified accounts. He is in a cleft stick. I sympathize with him because he falsified the accounts and swore on it.”
“It is not a scandalous allegation, Mr Prime Minister. Just try and think clearly. It is not a scandalous allegation. What I said was - and you can look at Hansard - was that prior to this there were two people who had held the post, who were translated to the High Court Bench. Oh, no, there were three, going back to 1963 days. That is right. Mr Choor Singh, you know. Mr Choor Singh went up from being Senior District Judge (in those days it was District Judge and First Magistrate). He went up to the High Court Bench. Then there was another man, as you have just mentioned. Then there was yet another man, who is now dead, who went up to the High Court Bench. And there was another man, who was a Senior District Judge, who was promoted.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister should know that there is no constitutional provision that a Senior District Judge becomes a High Court Judge. Of course, there is not. In which country do you find it?”
“He came from the Attorney-General's Chambers.”
“Sir, the Prime Minister should be aware, as I explained last year, that the Legal Service Commission consist of the Chief Justice as Head of the Legal Service Commission, the Attorney-General who is not a Judicial Officer (he is the Government's No. 1 Legal Officer), and then a High Court Judge and three others, or something like that. And I pointed out that they exceeded in number, the Judges, on the Legal Service Commission.”
“The Attorney-General is the No. 2 man there, and I said there were three administrative men there.”
“Not on the Judiciary, Mr Prime Minister, if you will listen. The allegation that I made was that the prosecution was politically motivated. That was the allegation - that the prosecution of me and my Chairman was politically motivated. And the other thing I said was we were acquitted on three of those charges by the Senior District Judge and after he had written his judgment, because an appeal was filed by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal, he was transferred. He was transferred from being a Senior District Judge - a man who had been there for years and, as I said then and I repeat now, who would in the normal course have been translated to the High Court Bench because that is where people who held the post of Senior District Judge had gone in the past. You have got one man now who was a Senior District Judge. But this man was sent to the AG's Chambers and it was not a promotion. I said, speaking last year, that there were eyebrows raised in public about this transfer of the man, and I asked for an explanation. So there were no scandalous allegations about the Judges or about the courts. I think the Prime Minister must understand what I said last year. I said the prosecution was politically motivated and I stand by it, and I wanted to know why this man was transferred.”
“No, it is not going to become reckless, Mr Prime Minister. The allegation that I made when discussing the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill - that was the main Bill that was being discussed last year -”
“Where did I make these scandalous allegations?”
“Startling revelation. The Prime Minister knows the outcome of the appeal.”
“By way of clarification, how many writs have we issued?”