Ling How Doong
Singapore
“If you have six single member constituencies, the opposition has to find six candidates of equal or greater merit than the PAP, and I think it is not an easy task in Singapore to find six people that the electorate will consider to be equal or better than the PAP candidates put against them.”
“You have noticed that when I talked of GRCs, it goes against the very basic and fundamental right of the voters. It is the inability to vote for their own candidate, not so much on the minority. It is only a side issue, a supplement to the whole thing.”
“I am not changing my mind. This is to allay the fear of the minority groups, ie, the Malays, the Indians and the minorities, that they are not represented. When I suggested NCMP, what I mean is that the system should work this way.”
“As I said, in substitution of this, you can surely modify and ensure that they also come in a more representative way. At least, we know how many percent of the people support them. Alternatively, you can hold another election and confine it to all the minorities, ie, the Indians and the Malays, and decide who should represent them.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. Before I start, can I just briefly mention this. Dr John Chen earlier on has mentioned the fact that the advantage of a GRC is that you have more MPs in the same group. I thought this has been in practice by the PAP Town Councils.”
“If you stand in single constituencies you will be guaranteed. It is better than the GRCs. What I mean is that you come in on your own steam and you can be assured. A more equitable aspect is that you ensure both the ruling as well as the Opposition parties.”
The complete record
Every one of 367 lines we hold for Ling How Doong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 8.
“Yes. But we have not supported. How can we deplore ourselves for supporting? Let me make it very clear. We have never supported Francis Seow's utterances. We have never supported. How could we support? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I really think it is Mr Cheo's turn to speak. Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Democratic Party has never raised any doubt about the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Therefore, my stand is very clear. That being the case, the SDP and I will not support Francis Seow or anybody who hurls any baseless attack on our judicial system. But we must vote against the motion moved by Dr Ow. Otherwise, it would amount to saying that SDP supports and is in favour of Francis Seow's baseless attacks on our judicial system. That is not the stand of the SDP. We must reiterate, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we have always been in support of the independence and integrity of the judicial system. There will be no change about that.”
“Let me read it to you. You are going to deplore. It says: `This House ... deplores the SDP's support ...'. So if I vote in favour, I am saying that I support the baseless attack, which is not the case. An hon. Member: No.”
“No. I did not say that the SDP was totally wrong. Mr Speaker, Sir, with your indulgence, I explained earlier that I cannot vote for the motion. If you look at the motion, it is very clear. If we vote for the motion, we are admitting that we are supporting what Francis Seow said. An hon. Member: No.”
“No, no. But you have cited me as if I said that SDP was totally wrong. BG Lee Hsien Loong: You said that.”
“Sir, in fact, I have already explained that I cannot vote for the motion. BG Lee Hsien Loong: I am asking Mr Cheo.”
“When I used the term "grave mistake", I referred to Francis Seow, not to Dr Chee. As I said, Dr Chee's only mistake was that he failed to rebut. If silence is a grave mistake, I do not know how you interpret it. You interpret for yourself. If silence is a grave mistake, so be it. BG Lee Hsien Loong: I do not know whether silence was a grave mistake for Mr Ling earlier. But I think Mr Cheo should not remain silent and be mistaken as having sided with Dr Chee on this position. I think it is necessary for Mr Cheo to state quite clearly where he stands on this matter, and whether he agrees with Mr Ling that what Francis Seow said was totally wrong and what the SDP did was also completely wrong.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, he was talking of funds. I am not going to tolerate a chap who does that. He should seek your permission first before he speaks to me. When he is unparliamentary, why should I be parliamentary to him? [Interruptions].”
“--- before he left. I have no idea. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid I took the SDP ... [Interruptions].”
“I suppose he said so. I am in no position to know. I do not know whether he prepared the speech --- An hon. Member: What kind of chairman are you?”
“Sir, this is a special edition which is supposed to cover whatever happened at Williams College.”
“Surely, if someone in the world makes a statement against Singapore and if we do not come out against it, you will say that we have failed in our duty. You do not expect us to do that sort of thing. BG Lee Hsien Loong: But, Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Chee specifically made a point when he was in Williams College of rebutting Mr William Safire in graphic detail, explaining specifically what he did not agree with. And also when he was present at the alternative panel, he explained to the alternative panel that he was going to make this very important speech the next day and asked them to listen to him. If you will read what Dr Chee said in the speech which was published in The New Democrat, he went to some considerable length, about 200 words, to explain exactly what he did not agree with in the case of William Safire. He said: `Singapore is not like Burma or China or the erstwhile Soviet Union. ... Although I maybe under surveilance, I travel freely in and out of the country. Although the national newspapers are government-controlled, ... chewing gum ... fine.' Dr Chee said all these things. Mr Ling has it in the The New Democrat in his hand. Why, from this long list of rebuttals of what William Safire said, was there not a single mention of William Safire's mistakes apropos the Singapore judiciary?”
“No, no. It is not my issue. It is the Straits Times of Saturday. I can well understand that Dr Chee attended the Williams College panel. This was not a talk. This was not expounded during the panel in his presence. How do we go around and ask everyone who makes a speech, "Why didn't you rebut this?" "Why didn't you attack this as wrong?" We cannot be doing that. Of course, I understand that he went to Williams College. That is a different matter entirely. He was present there. He had the opportunity to do it. But he was silent, no endorsement. You cannot draw the conclusion that he endorsed it. As I mentioned earlier, the only mistake was that he failed to rebut them. But I do not know about William Safire. Was it a statement made by him in New York? I do not know. An hon. Member: New York Times.”
“Honestly, I did not even read this. I have only browsed through the whole speech. So I am in no position to answer this because I have just browsed through it. An hon. Member: This is your issue.”
“I thought we are talking about Francis Seow's speech. Now, suddenly, you switch over to William Safire. I really do not follow you. We are talking about Francis Seow, and the next thing you mentioned William Safire. I am confused. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very sorry if Mr Ling is confused. But if he had listened to Dr Ow yesterday, he would probably have been a little bit less confused. The connection is quite simple. All three made calumnious, unjustified, scurrilous attacks on our judiciary. In all three cases, the SDP and Dr Chee Soon Juan failed to rebut them. In the case of Francis Seow, he is now looking for a fig leaf. He says he wants the transcript. He asked for a bikini, we had given him eight pages to cover himself up in his shame. What does he need to cover himself up in the case of Mr William Safire?”
“" Your ears are not sufficient? Mr Ling How Doong: Mr Speaker, Sir, at any rate, he asked for a full transcript of the speech. Do you not think you should give him the benefit of the doubt? Let him have a look at the whole speech. Let him reply. I thought it is very fair. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Can I ask Mr Ling then what transcript he would request in order to clarify his position on the statements made by Mr William Safire?”
“As I said earlier, he said a lot of things. In fact, the cyclostyled speech clearly clarified the whole thing. There were eight pages. So is it unreasonable to ask for the full text before we respond? If you have supplied us with the full text and we still ignore you, then you can say, "There you are, you are not prepared to come out." You did not supply us the full text. You stopped there. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, these were not new issues. I do not believe that Mr Ling understands the gravity of his position. These issues were first raised at the beginning of May when we debated them in the context of Flor Contemplacion and the SDP had already equivocated. They claimed that they were taking a neutral position between Singapore and the Philippine critics of Singapore but, nevertheless, had a high opinion of the Singapore judiciary. That was the equivocation which Mr Ling now cites in his defence explaining why Dr Chee did not clarify his position properly in Williams College. At the beginning of August, after Dr Chee got involved with the Goverment's debate against William Safire, Dr Ow Chin Hock cited the items which William Safire wrote against us, talking about the Chief Justice, talking about the Judges, talking about miscarriage of justice and official cover-up in Flor Contemplacion, and asked for the SDP's position. There was no transcript to speak about, because these were William Safire's published columns in the public record reproduced in full in the Straits Times. Why was there no response? Then Dr Chee went to Williams College. Francis Seow repeated the same. Why was there no response? Dr Ow asked him again after he came back. No reply. Mr Chan Heng Wing finally said, "Please give me a transcript of Francis Seow's speech.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the party replied to the Prime Minister's Press Secretary asking him to produce the full text of the speech. There was no response. If you had supplied the full text of his speech, we would have gone through with you to say whether we agree with this or we do not agree with that. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister's Press Secretary had already quoted the relevant parts of what Mr Francis Seow had said. Indeed so did Dr Ow. Were these not sufficient in addition to the presence of Dr Chee at the meeting when these words were spoken for the SDP to make its position completely clear?”
“He was at the College. He was the one who responded. I do not know the circumstances and the situation how he had gone into the whole thing. As I said earlier, the only mistake he made was that he did not rebut. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I then request Mr Ling to explain why this mistake was repeated after Dr Chee returned to Singapore, when Dr Ow Chin Hock asked him to clarify his position and, subsequently, when Mr Chan Heng Wing asked him to clarify his position, and he had full opportunity to consult with all the members of the SDP CEC, including Mr Ling and Mr Cheo in Singapore?”
“As I mentioned earlier, I expressed my view that what Mr Francis Seow said was wrong. I also mentioned much earlier that the mistake he made was that he did not rebut there and then. He did not rebut him on those salient points there and then. That is our view. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I just be quite clear? Does Mr Ling consider this a forgiveable mistake by Dr Chee or something fundamentally wrong which Dr Chee should not have done?”
“Our party will issue a press statement making our position unambiguous. That is what we are going to do. We will issue a press statement making our position unambiguous. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Can I request the Member to make a statement now and tell us what he means by "unambiguous"? What exactly is he going to say? Mr Ling How Doong: I think Members of Parliament will have to wait until a press statement is being issued. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I then confirm Mr Ling's personal position once more that he considers it wrong what Francis Seow had said, he considers it wrong what Dr Chee Soon Juan did not say, and if the party does not make this clear, he will make this clear himself?”
“I do not even have the opportunity to refer to the CEC. If you give me time, I will be back here straightaway. BG Lee Hsien Loong: We will adjourn again. Mr Ling How Doong: Yes. Give us 15 minutes of adjournment, and then I will state my view right here.”
“We need the CEC's approval for all these things. As I said, our party is based on collective leadership. We need the CEC's approval. I cannot just say "yes" or "no". I personally, on my part, will do that. But we have to go through the process of the party. Surely you can wait for a couple of days for these things to be done. Then you can draw your conclusion in any way you want. BG Lee Hsien Loong: We will have to wait to see what the CEC of the SDP decides in the fullness of time in due course. What I want to know is, if the CEC does not do so, will Mr Ling and Mr Cheo have the honour to stand up, as Mr Chiam has done in this House, and state his personal conviction and his disagreement with his party's position?”
“I am prepared to get the CEC and then --- BG Lee Hsien Loong: You have two CEC members here, and you also have Mr Chiam See Tong who is already of this view. Some hon. Members: Mr Cheo. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Yes, that is right. Mr Cheo is the other CEC member. So, is the SDP prepared to do this over the Secretary-General's signature? In other words, to state all these which I listed out just now, signed: "Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the SDP, on behalf of the SDP".”
“I, on my part, am quite prepared to do all these things, but bear in mind I am only one official of the CEC. BG Lee Hsien Loong: No.”
“If I heard you correctly, earlier on I believe one of the reasons you said was that we must apologise for impugning the judge. This, we cannot do, because we have not done so. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, let us be quite clear. I am not asking you to apologise for impugning the judge. I am asking you to state, firstly, that there was no basis whatsoever for any of Francis Seow's scurrilous attacks on the judiciary. Secondly, that the SDP regrets that its Secretary-General and his delegation failed to stand up and make quite clear its stand there and then at the alternative panel. And thirdly, to remedy this fault, the SDP now unreservedly states quite clearly that it has full confidence in the integrity and the competence of the judges and the judiciary in Singapore and that it apologises to the judges, the Government, and the people of Singapore for what it has done.”
“Perhaps you can elucidate what you want us to do. BG Lee Hsien Loong: If Mr Ling likes, we will draft the apology and the statement and clear it with him.”
“We will put in a repudiation to say that we have got nothing to do with whatever he said and we are not--- BG Lee Hsien Loong: That is not the same.”
“It is a very simple proposition. Give us the assurance. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, on the basis that the Attorney-General will give an immunity, which is not for us to give, but the Attorney-General to give, but we will put this to the Attorney-General, will you publish it if such an immunity is granted to you?”
“I need your assurance. You give us the assurance that we will not be sued we will publish it. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Will The New Democrat publish it together with a clarification which I ask for, that they consider it totally wrong, they consider it unfortunate, to say the least, that the Secretary-General failed to clarify this and rebut this vigorously and immediately, and that they now do so and make amends? I am quite sure that if you do that, there will be no cause whatsoever for any suit or any citation for contempt.”
“First, we have to settle the question of immunity because if we publish it, we can be sued. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Let me address this point. The Straits Times has published all of William Safire's pieces, repeating all the injurious things which William Safire has said about the Singapore judiciary. But because the Straits Times published it in such a way as to make it totally clear that it disagreed with this and that they considered this completely unfounded criticism, what it published did not constitute contempt of court, and therefore the Straits Times has not been sued or cited for contempt of court. There is no reason why The New Democrat should be treated in any different way.”
“Of course, it is wrong. If it is not wrong, we will publish it. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Is that also the reason why The New Democrat did not publish the transcript of Dr Chee Soon Juan's remarks at the alternative panel, that it was wrong and that he knew that it was wrong, and he was ashamed of it? Mr Ling How Doong: As I mentioned earlier, the speeches of Francis Seow and Dr Lingle were not even in the Special Edition of The New Democrat. If you do not publish the speeches of the speakers, you cannot put in the comments from nowhere. That was why it was also not published. It is because you need to have the speeches first and the comments will follow. Otherwise, people looking at it would wonder what it is all about. It is natural. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Will The New Democrat, in view of the clarifications offered this afternoon, now publish in full Francis Seow's speech, the transcript of what Dr Chee said at the alternative panel following Francis Seow's speech and a further full clarification that the Secretary-General of the SDP and the whole CEC of the SDP are now completely convinced that all these statements were, without reservation, unjustified and defamatory, that the SDP was wrong not to have made this clear at Williams College at the occasion immediately the matter was raised, and that they now clearly state their stand that they have full confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, and that they apologise to the judges, the Government and the people of Singapore for what they have done?”
“We have generally discussed this among the CEC members and that, I believe, is the reason why The New Democrat never published it because it is defamatory. It is contempt of court of the highest degree. That is why when we printed The New Democrat we never even mentioned this because it is not worthy of publication. We are not prepared to extend the lie of somebody. That is why you questioned us why it was not in our Special Edition. It is simply because we do not believe in it. We do not want to be charged for contempt of court. So we have never published it. An hon. Member: It is wrong.”
“Yes. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I confirm absolutely explicitly, because the SDP has been very general in its statements on this issue. Does the Secretary-General of the SDP, Dr Chee Soon Juan, confirm that the statement that the judiciary is neither independent nor free, compliant, corrupt and so on, is totally wrong, unjustified and in contempt of court, and he personally believes that this is an upright, honest judiciary with integrity and ability and efficiency and which does Singapore proud?”
“As I said earlier, the SDP has never questioned the integrity. With that first remark, I will come to your point. As I mentioned earlier, we have never questioned the independence and integrity of the judiciary. This is the view of the CEC. BG Lee Hsien Loong: That is wrong?”
“It is wrong. I do not think there is any ground or foundation to make such serious charges against the independence of the judiciary. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Do you speak on behalf of the CEC, and particularly of your Secretary-General, or are you expressing a personal view?”
“Yes, I agree with what you have just said. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me just take it all the way. Let us read the parts where they scolded us, not the parts where they gave us faint praise. Mr Francis Seow said: `The judiciary in Singapore is neither independent nor free. It is pliant. It is corrupt. It is beholden to the Prime Minister and the establishment, judges in Singapore are invariably leaning over backwards in favour of the Government and of the establishment and award them grotesque sums in damages for so-called defamation.' Was this wrong?”
“Yes, it is wrong, evil. An hon. Member: And totally wrong!”
“Is the Deputy Prime Minister asking for my view? BG Lee Hsien Loong: I am asking for the SDP's view, as he is the Chairman of the SDP.”
“You will note, Mr Speaker, Sir, that even now, with the text in front of him, he has preferred to just identify the frivolous items which he agreed with and blandly say, "Well, the rest we have no view." I want to know whether he has no view or whether he repudiates them as false, unjustified, evil and totally wrong.”
“Before going through the speech of Dr Lingle, I do not think we are in a position to answer that simply because you are now covering speeches by two persons, not one only. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Ling must state his position honestly, and I know the dilemma he is in, but let us be honest about this. Mr Chiam has been honest about it. His Secretary-General has taken a position in Williams College which is untenable. He knows it is untenable. He is now saying that he repudiates nearly everything which Francis Seow has said. Maybe something in Christopher Lingle's speech he will find not embarrassing to agree with now, but if he wants, we can give him time. I very much doubt he will find anything. What I want to know is whether he was honest and sincere when he said earlier that the only mistake Dr Chee made in Williams College was to say that he did agree very much with many of the things which Christopher Lingle and Francis Seow said. Did he say that and does he stand by that? Mr Ling How Doong: Mr Speaker, Sir, that is my observation. I believe that is the mistake he made in that he did not specifically refute all the specific points I mentioned. What I said was that he did not specifically rebut those points mentioned by Francis Seow. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Would Mr Ling now say that his Secretary-General should have stood up at the alternative panel and specifically refuted all these points which we have listed down, which we have challenged him on, and which after repeated challenges, the SDP has refused to come clean and say that they repudiate these following specific statements of Francis Seow?”
“This is a 9-page speech. It is even longer than Francis Seow's speech. I cannot go through this speech at this stage. Anyway, in reply to the Deputy Prime Minister's question, I am in no position to answer simply because it is a remark passed by Dr Chee. I was not there. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Can I confirm with Mr Ling that he meant what he said just now in his main speech? He said that the only mistake his Secretary-General made in Williams College was to say that "I do agree very much with many of the things Dr Lingle and Mr Francis Seow have said." Can I just confirm that?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is only the speech of Francis Seow. I believe there is also the speech of Dr Lingle. BG Lee Hsien Loong: You want to see that too? Mr Ling How Doong: No. My understanding is that his comment, "I agree with many of the things" is not confined to the speech of Francis Seow. It also referred to Dr Lingle. That is what I am given to understand. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Would you like to go through that? [A copy of the speech was handed to Mr Ling How Doong].”
“Yes. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, Francis Seow made an 8-page damning indictment of the Singapore system. Mr Ling How Doong, after some effort, has produced four short passages which he says he agrees with and has repudiated the rest.”
“All right. `A truism which has resounded thru the veil of years ... the elite are nervous about speaking out.' We have deleted some of them, because I do not think we are in a position to comment. I do not know who is this chap and whether he had made the comments. We are in no position to comment. Then we go further down, somewhere in the middle, which reads: `Thru'out the web of S'pore's history under Lee and his PAP Government one dark thread is always to be seen and that is the long sinister line of arbitrary detention under the ISA which enables Lee to imprison a person indefinitely without trial.' We agree to that. On page 3, in the middle of the first paragraph: `A physics lecturer, an opposition Barisan Socialist MP - his is a classic case of the gross misuse of the ISA which also exemplifies the unparallel vindictiveness of the PM.' Then in the next paragraph: `In 1987 22 young men and women were arrested under the ISA accused of being involved in a dangerous Marxist conspiracy to overthrow the Government by violence and replace it with a Marxist state. They were no more Marxist than Lee Kuan Yew is a Communist. In any event how 22 young social activists without a single rifle between them let alone an army were going to achieve this violent transformation was never explained.' No more. That is all. BG Lee Hsien Loong: That is all? You repudiate everything?”
“How can it be, because we do not have the CEC here, unless you give us a longer adjournment. We do not have the whole CEC here. When you say "whole", I suppose you mean the CEC. On the next page, in the ninth line, the sentence which reads: `A truism which has resounded thru the veil of years ...' and those portions we cancelled out because we are not going to comment about Henry Kamp's observation. We do not know this. Then we go down to "elite are nervous about speaking out." We agree with that.”
“We only agreed with that. As for the rest of the page, we do not agree. We have gone through it. [Interruptions]. An hon. Member: "We" means who?”
“The print is very small. I cannot see very clearly. I am going to read out the passages that we agreed. Take a look at this, it is voluminous. I will just read out the portions that we agreed. At page 1, second paragraph, which says: `Overarching them all is its spectacular promotion to the status of a developed nation by the OECD ... Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, for having attained a gross national product of US$19 thousand ...' I agree with this, up to " ... understandable pride." Let us turn to the next page. An hon. Member: No.”
“Sir, this copy of Mr Seow's speech is in small print. In fact, I have sidelined those portions which we agreed. The Minister can take a look, and that is it.”
“I have made my position very clear that we have never questioned the integrity and independence of the judiciary. What does he want? Reiteration or keep on repeating? I want to know what he wants me to speak. The whole motion before this House is the question of the integrity of the judiciary. I have made my stand very clear before the House earlier on. Must I come again and keep on repeating?”
“No, of course, not. I do not doubt the quotation.”