S Jayakumar
Singapore
“It is well and good for countries to announce various targets and emissions. But one vexing issue ultimately is: what will be the method for verifying compliance with each country's announced measures? Another vexing issue, of course, is the issue of financing.”
“I would appreciate it if she were to give me some specifics of the negative feedback. But the general feedback I have had about our judiciary, both of the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts, has been nothing but positive.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the information that I have is that there is always medical advice present when caning is administered and that if the medical opinion is that caning cannot proceed beyond a certain point, that medical opinion will be observed and the caning will not proceed.”
“Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport in view of the recent announcement to make immediate improvements to the public transport system (a) whether the Ministry has set a timeline for the increase in frequency of feeder bus services; and (b) whether the Ministry can immediately target such services that are currently running at…”
“SCDF will continue to work with HDB and other relevant agencies to ensure that such older buildings with one exit staircase meet the prevailing fire safety requirements when they undergo major renovation or upgrading works. CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONERS 3.”
“The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mr Teo Ser Luck) (for the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I would like to take Mrs Jessie Phua's and Dr Lim Wee Kiak's questions together as they both relate to the same issues.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,291 lines we hold for S Jayakumar, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 43 of 66.
“I believe here was an article in the Straits Times recently which quoted the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, as saying that when you have a contingency fee system unscrupulous lawyers may be tempted to cut deals behind the scenes in order to get their cut quickly. In other words, there are pros and cons, and I would like to tread in this area cautiously without having precluded any option or answer to Mr Davinder Singh's question. But it will be helpful if this matter was debated amongst the lawyers in the first place. If I may go on to Dr Ho Tat Kin's proposal. I agree with him partly and I disagree with him partly. Let me explain. I fully agree with him when he presents, as a desirable objective, that the legal infrastructure must be such that it strongly supports the overall national objective of making Singapore a sound, effective financial centre, and that when you have the infrastructural legal services that promote that objective, it makes it more attractive for multi-national investors and regional investors to come here. I fully agree with him and I think that we should try to see in what ways this can be improved. Where I disagree with him is his conclusion in his speech that such infrastructure does not exist at the moment and such expertise is not available here for the regional investor. Perhaps more can be done but I do not agree with him that there is no such expertise now. How do you go about getting the legal infrastructure? There are two aspects to it. One, there is a certain amount that the Government itself can do to bring about the infrastructure and the rest is really up to the lawyers themselves. The Government has for some time now recognized the importance of this and has done considerably to bring about the infrastructure.”
“First, we should have this debated amongst the lawyers themselves in the Law Society of Singapore, and I would like to have their views. Secondly, it would be also useful, if not prudent, to see what are the eventual solutions which are arrived at in the United Kingdom as a result of the Green Paper proposals. As I understand it, the contingency fee system where the lawyer's remuneration depends on the outcome of the case. It is well practised in the United States. But I also understand that in the United States the contingency fee system applies in the context of lawyers representing the clients in litigation. The difference in r Davinder Singh's proposal is that the outside practitioners would be deployed not necessarily for representing clients but for investigative purposes, which casts a slightly different complexion on the matter. Whether it is practical or not is something that has to be weighed very carefully. I do not want, to prejudge the question of contingency fees except to point out that this would be a departure from well established professional norms here. I guess there must have been some good reasons why the contingency fee system which is practised in the United States was never adopted here, although we should not be averse to change. Some have pointed out that if you have a contingency fee system there is a danger that cases may be compromised because the lawyers are anxious to get their remuneration as quickly as possible. There is also a possibility that the introduction of a contingency fee system may also result in more litigation and therefore overloading the system with even more cases.”
“And one of the areas which will be looked into is the desirability of including provisions on wrongful trading modelled, say, on the changes that have been made in the United Kingdom. So I can assure him that that will also be looked into. Then he made an interesting suggestion that the Official Assignee and Public Trustee's Office should consider a device of employing outside practitioners on a contingency basis. I think this has two aspects. The first aspect is employing outside lawyers. There may be merit in this, not just for the Official Assignee and Public Trustee, but perhaps in other areas where legal work is involved. And I am prepared to look into this suggestion. In other words, what he has in mind is, I take it, not very different from the legal aid situation where the Director of Legal Aid has a panel of some 200 practitioners and certain cases, which are not handled by the lawyers on the Legal Aid Bureau staff, can be assigned out to practitioners. We can examine the merits of this idea. I can see some advantage in this and if there is no conflict of interest situations, it may be an idea worth pursuing. The second point, which was connected to the first, was that such outside practitioners be paid on a contingency fee basis. Of course, the idea of a contingency fee basis would be incorporating into our legal system something new. I know that in the United Kingdom, the Green Paper, which has been tabled recently, has proposed a contingency fee system to be introduced in the United Kingdom. It has given rise to considerable controversy amongst the legal circles there. Whether we should introduce it here, in part or in whole, has to be considered very carefully. I would not like to take a position at the moment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may take on Mr Davinder Singh's point first. His first point was whether we would review the adequacy and effectiveness of our bankruptcy and insolvency laws. I would like to assure him that I will ask the Attorney-General's Chambers to look into this and to see whether we should review and reform our insolvency laws in the light, as he said, of the revised insolvency laws in the United Kingdom. Having said that, I should also add that, as I recall, the revisions which were made in the United Kingdom on the insolvency laws was after considerable discussions. I believe it was based on a report known as the Cork Committee Report which showed that the matter was considerably complex and complicated. I think it took the Committee some seven years to produce its report. And when the Bill was tabled in the United Kingdom Parliament, just to give an idea of the complexity, I think there were more than a thousand amendments to that Bill. The point I am making is that I agree with him that we should look into this and this will be done. But we must also bear in mind that the matter is quite complex and complicated. In a sense, we can benefit from the United Kingdom having gone through this complexity but we need to see how it can be adapted to our own circumstances and situation. As to this other point about amending the Companies legislation on wrongful trading, although the Companies Act comes under the portfolio of my colleague, the Minister for Finance, I think he would not mind if I were to say that in a discussion with the Attorney-General not long ago, I was informed that the Companies Act is being looked at with a view to amending parts which require updating and revision.”
“6,988 and 8,823 foreigners were granted permanent residence in Singapore in 1987 and 1988 respectively. For the corresponding years, 4,607 and 6,298 persons were granted Singapore citizenship. table - ANOMALIES IN TAXES FOR TAXIS AND CARS (Cols. 739 - 740)”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in our long term plan for the building of civil defence shelters, priority will be given to residential areas. The extent to which there should be civil defence shelters beyond residential areas, including Changi Airport, is being studied. JIM II (Report) 3. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will report on the outcome of 'JIM II' and comment on the prospects for a peaceful settlement in Cambodia.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Kampong Glam Constituency is scheduled to have a Neighbourhood Police Post (NPP) in 1989. However, there is a problem in finding a permanent site because of the built-up nature of the area and the non-availability of HDB ground floor void decks. Until a permanent site is found, a temporary NPP will be set up at the vacant land next to Block 17, Beach Road, during the course of this year. As for the second part of the question, the Police have studied whether the Constituency requires more than one NPP and they have assessed that the area can be covered by one NPP. CIVIL DEFENCE SHELTERS AT CHANGI AIRPORT 2. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether Civil Defence Shelters will be provided at Changi Airport.”
“Sir, I will ask the Police to see if that is possible. INSTITUTE OF HEALTH (Resiting) 7. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Acting Minister for Health whether there is any plan to resite the Institute of Health.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Neighbourhood Police Post in Changi Constituency should be in operation by the end of this year.”
“As I have said, it is irrelevant. DONOR KIDNEYS FOR TRANSPLANTATION 4. Dr Koh Lam Son asked the Acting Minister for Health whether there is an improvement in the availability of donor kidneys for transplantation since the implementation of the opt-out policy in January 1988. The Acting Minister for Health (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been an improvement in the availability of donor kidneys for transplant since the Human Organ Transplant Act was brought into operation in January 1988. A total of 23 cadaveric kidneys were transplanted in 1988 as compared to 16 in 1987. Of the 23 cadaveric kidneys in 1988, 16 were obtained under the Human Organ Transplant Act, whilst seven were obtained under the Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) Act. Although the Human Organ Transplant Act has greatly facilitated kidney donation by people who died from accidents, donation by those dying from non-accidental causes under the Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) Act is still important.”
“If the Member has some special inside information that he may be in Taiwan, I shall be most pleased to have it and I will pass it on to the authorities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Lee knows and we know that all this is a smokescreen to hide and cover up the fact that Mr Francis Seow pulled off a big con job on the Prosecution and on the courts. He is repeating what Mr Francis Seow said in his press statement, "Well, so much money has been spent, on recovering his tax charges and a fine of $6,000." As I have stated in my answer, this has got nothing to do with the tax charges. He failed to turn up for trial on the 5th. On the 6th the Attorney-General asked for observations to be kept and the surveillance started on the 8th. It has got nothing to do with the tax charges. The exact amount is irrelevant. What is relevant is that our investigations are thorough and all crooks, criminals and evaders of justice know that no efforts will be spared to bring them to book. So Mr Francis Seow, as a former Solicitor-General, should have known. But if he did not know, he now knows the meaning of the phrase "the long arm of the law."”
“I thought it would have been evident from my answer that the moment Mr Francis Seow did not turn up for the trial, produced his bogus medical certificates, (the trial was on the 5th) on the 6th the Attorney-General immediately asked for his observations on the ground that he had grave doubts and suspected immediately that Mr Francis Seow was evading the course of justice and perpetrating a fraud on the courts.”
“His Queen's Counsel tendered two medical certificates from a Human Rights physician, Dr Jonathan Fine, claiming he is a New York doctor. The Public Prosecutor had such grave doubts as to the veracity of these medical certificates that he asked for observations to be kept on Seow's movements. The purpose of these observations was not to obtain evidence on the tax charges. There was no need for that because the Prosecution already had the evidence and they were ready for trial. The purpose was to investigate far graver offences such as perpetrating a fraud on our courts.”
“Sir, I do not have the precise figures but it is my impression that the overall situation is under control. But if the Member would like a more detailed answer, I would invite him to put in a question and I assure him that the answer will be given. MR FRANCIS SEOW AND MR PHEY YEW KOK (Expenditure on surveillance) 3. Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will inform the House how much of the taxpayers' monies have been spent on (i) maintaining surveillance on the movements of Mr Francis T Seow in the United States and (ii) attempts to find Mr Phey Yew Kok. Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, the amount spent on observing Seow's movements are well within the budget allocation for such investigations requested by the Public Prosecutor. The amount is modest compared to the gravity of the crimes being committed, namely, deceiving the court, suborning the process of justice, and fabricating false evidence. These are far graver offences than the income tax charges. The cost of the investigations has been repaid many times over by the value of the deterrence on others like Francis Seow, who believed that, once out of jurisdiction, when in the States, they are at liberty to suborn the course of justice by concocting false medical certificates by unregistered so-called Human Rights physicians and by feigning illness. Indeed, if Francis Seow were still the Solicitor-General today, I am sure he would have commended the Senior State Counsel, Mr Lawrence Ang, for the initiative and resourcefulness that he showed. In Phey Yew Kok's case, we do not know his whereabouts. But in Francis Seow's case we knew his whereabouts. He did not return to Singapore in time for his trial, claiming that he had a heart condition which prevented him from travelling by air.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the police have indeed given talks to school students on crime prevention and the dangers of being involved in secret society and criminal activities. There is also a Crime Prevention Education Programme in the school curriculum and textbooks on Crime Prevention are given to school teachers to educate students from Primary 4 to Secondary 2. Crime Prevention talks are given as and when requested by school principals. Talks on secret society and criminal activities are also given to students, in particular to those in the Primary School Extended Classes and Secondary Schools. In 1988, for instance, Senior Police Officers gave more than 200 talks to schools, VITB and other educational institutions. That figure, Sir, is in addition to talks given to some 68 groups of students who visited the CID.”
“So we will have to look into whether his objective can be attained by different types of Judicial Commissioners or whether it is necessary to create yet another category of judicial appointments. Whether we should do that or whether we should have in future some Judicial Commissioners to be appointed on a temporary ad hoc basis to do the specific category of cases, of course, will have to take into account,first, whether it is desirable that Judicial Commissioners should be appointed on a temporary basis or is it more desirable to try to get judicial appointments on permanent basis so that there will be continuity. Second, we will also have to consider whether,in making the kind of appointments that is envisaged, it would still overcome the problem of lawyers willing to take up such appointments. I think Mr Davinder Singh assumes that with that kind of appointment there may be a greater number of lawyers willing to take it up. The third consideration we will have to bear in mind is whether if we have such appointments of a temporary ad hoc nature, would it instil public confidence in these types of judges and whether they would have the as judges were appointed on a permanent basis. I do not know same degree of commitment to the judicial task the answers to these questions. I just mention these as initial considerations which come to my mind but I would like to assure him that this will be taken up and the views of the Judiciary will also be sought and I thank him for his suggestion.”
“The point made by Mr Davinder Singh is to me a novel but interesting proposal which, like all other constructive proposals, I am willing to study and give consideration. Of course, the views of the Judiciary should also be consulted and their views taken into account. As I see it, his proposal is, in fact, a proposal for another category of judicial appointments, shall I say, of an ad hoc nature to deal with specific categories of cases with the intention of clearing up the backlog as well as the other advantages that he mentioned. While his proposal will be considered, at this stage let me say that my first impression is that perhaps the objective that he mentioned might be capable of implementation without having to introduce yet another category of judicial appointments. As I see it, the concept of a Judicial Commissioner may itself meet some of the points that he mentioned. If the Member were to look at Article 94(4) of the Constitution, it provides for Judicial Commissioners. A Judicial Commissioner can be appointed in order to facilitate the business of the Supreme Court. And such a Judicial Commissioner can be appointed for such period or periods as the President thinks fit. In other words, it need not be a permanent appointment. It can be for such period or periods as specified. It is also provided in the Constitution that the Judicial Commissioner can be appointed "in respect of such class or classes of cases as the Chief Justice may specify." Although so far Judicial Commissioners, I understand, have been appointed to perform all the functions that a judge of the Supreme Court would perform, there is provision which contemplates some of what the Member has proposed.”
“One indication is that, as he would have found out from the budget provisions, more provisions are being allocated for increasing the number of judges. In fact, before the City Hall was allocated to the Judiciary and the courts were only confined to the Supreme Court building, there is a total of only about 11 courts. The Government allocated this pretigious City Hall for the use of the Judiciary and the Academy of Law. When new court rooms are constructed, I think there will be about 16 to 17 new courts this year and by 1990 there should be a total of 23 courts. So the facilities are made available. May I also mention that we are going to amend the Legal Profession Act to remove one of the obstacles which inhibits persons from accepting judgeship and that is a provision which restricts the retired judges from practising. We will amend it because we think that it is not reasonable to prevent a retired judge from going into practice, at least as a solicitor. So these two points are connected. If we have the required number of judges and I think we should strive to get the required number of judges, then the Permanent Court of Appeal may become a reality and perhaps other things can also be done. We can have a special court for commercial cases or family law and other things can be done. I am also an optimist like the Chairman of the GPC and I hope that, with the infrastructure which is being provided, the more able and the more talented of our legal profession will be able and will be willing to accept judgeships to the Supreme Court. And if that is done and we have the required number then I think the Permanent Court of Appeal will be a reality before long.”
“So this brings us back to all the discussions that have taken place in this House on the difficulties of getting the ablest, the best and the most talented of our legal profession to take up judicial appointments, and I need not go over the problems that have already been outlined in the House, the wide gap between the private sector and the terms for salaries for judges. It is not only a question of salaries. The question of salaries was touched by the Chairman of the GPC. The Government is attending to the problem and in a statement which will be made next week by the First Deputy Prime Minister, he will also refer to the revision of salaries. But whatever revisions are made the gap will still be there between the salaries of judges and the private sector. It is not just monetary constraints. There are other constraints. If a practising lawyer is to accept judgeship, his lifestyle will change in the sense that people expect a judge to have a certain amount of decorum and conduct himself with propriety. Then you may have very good lawyers, skilled and able lawyers but they may not want to take up judicial appointments because some of them may consider the judicial tasks rather awesome or unpleasant. You have to take decisions and apply the law. In criminal cases it means taking a decision which will make the accused person go to jail or even in capital cases suffer the death penalty. But these are decisions which have to be taken. Not all lawyers would want to do that. So there are not only monetary considerations but also non-monetary considerations. Mr Loh Meng See asked whether the Government is doing enough to ensure that we get more judges. I would like to assure him that this is uppermost in the minds of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.”
“May I first take up the points of the Chairman of the GPC, Dr Arthur Beng, as well as Mr Loh Meng See on the Permanent Court of Appeal. In principle, the idea is good and we should strive towards achieving that objective. The advantages that they outlined are certainly correct. I also see other advantages in that it overcomes some of the problems that are presently faced. For instance, each time under the present system when a Court of Appeal is convened to hear cases it means that three Judges are tied up for hearing the appeal case, and they are not available to hear cases in the first instance. It also means that the staff of the Registry of the Supreme Court have got to keep a careful monitoring to ensure that no judge is put on the appellate panel which would hear a case that he had decided some years ago in the court of first instance. It also means under the present system that it is not possible to muster three judges to hear an appeal at short notice to hear urgent applications. So there are these disadvantages which will be overcome if we have a Permanent Court of Appeal. It will be desirable because certain judges will be designated to hear appeals all the time or most of the time, although I think we should not foreclose the possibility of them, as the occasion requires, sitting in the first instance. But the problem really is that for this to materialize there must be available the number of judges. The two are connected and we cannot get away from it.”
“Sir, in response to Mr Chandra Das, let me say that I am as surprised as he is that the British government should take that stand, because the action taken by the Singapore Government really has got nothing to do with the British government. It has got nothing to do with any policy of the British government or with any decision or any depart- ment of the British government. In fact, it has got nothing to do with the British government whatsoever. That the British government may have a high esteem of him in his activities in United Kingdom and elsewhere is totally irrelevant for the case at hand, because the action that we have taken against him is in relationship to his conduct vis-a-vis a case which involves him in Singapore. And it is for that that we have taken action. In other words, the action against Mr Lester has to do with our policy, which is a liberal policy of admitting QCs. But if any one QC, whoever he may be, whatever his connections may be with the British establishment, however high and esteemed others may have of him, if we conclude that he has abused the privilege, then we will take action. And that is what we have done, Sir.”
“QCs are supposed to be part of the whole judicial system, since the Privy Council is today supposed to be the highest court in Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I will be enlightened if the Member can point out where in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is provided that, first, a country must allow foreign lawyers to come. It is a privilege we have given. They have no right to come here. Secondly, where in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does it say that a foreign lawyer who is granted the rare and unique privilege to appear in a foreign court can then abuse the privilege? Sir, he seems to think that Mr Lester has done nothing wrong. He should read the Government press statement again. Mr Lester, according to the account of the FCO itself, was in the forefront of legal circles exerting and mounting pressure in the United Kingdom. Secondly, he should read the references in the press statement to what Mr Lester said, not only to Ambassador Marshall but also to Mr Tiwari, Senior State Counsel - that he would take the matter up with the British Bar Council, with the British Foreign Secretary, and even the British Prime Minister. These are all threats and intimidation. And he thought that the Government would succumb to these threats and intimidation. He was wrong. Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sir, if anyone should try to pressurize the Government through any form of activity, that does not mean that he is going to intimidate the Government. If that is how it is interpreted, then I suppose all those who are lobbying for the MNCs in Congress in the United States, could be said to be intimidating the US government. Similarly, there are also pressure groups in Britain. It may be a privilege for foreign QCs to work in Singapore, I suppose. But this has been going on for a long, long time.”
“The Member is entitled to his view if he thinks it is proper for a lawyer who is representing a client in a court to also act as a propagandist and a campaigner and as a crusader beyond the confines of the court. That principle certainly is not the principle on which we have operated in Singapore. That is not the principle which the British allow in their system, and certainly it is not a principle which we are going to change now, just because the Member feels that it is expedient.”
“Sir, on his first point as to the precise details of expenditure involved in the services of QC engaged by the Government, obviously Ministers do not carry these details in the head and if the Member were to file a Question on this specific point the information will be supplied to him. May I turn to his second point. He has not read the Government press statement correctly. Mr Lester has not been allowed any more professional visit passes to come to Singapore to work as a QC, not for the reasons that he stated, but because he has abused his privilege, ie, the privilege which we grant to British QCs of appearing in our courts. He has abused his privilege in that he has carried out a crusade and campaign for his client beyond the confines of the court. Dr Lee Siew-Choh argued that what the Government had done was to say that the lawyer cannot be a politician. This has never been the position of the Government. The sole reason why Mr Lester has been denied a professional visit pass is that he has abused the privilege. He has mounted a campaign on behalf of Teo Soh Lung and others abroad, agitated against the Singapore Government, has threatened and intimidated the Government and, by the account of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of England itself who told our High Commissioner, he is in the forefront of the legal circles mounting pressure on the British government. These are the reasons, Sir. It is highly improper for a lawyer who is appearing in a case on behalf of a client to crusade and campaign for the client beyond the confines of the court. It has nothing to do with whether the lawyer in a separate capacity wants to be a politician, but he cannot abuse his role as a lawyer to mount a campaign for his client beyond the courts.”
“It was not a case of the Attorney-General giving a contrary view. The Attorney-General advised us and his advice is very clear. The judgment affected two parties, the Law Society and Mr Jeyaretnam. The Privy Council itself admitted that it had no jurisdiction to decide on the convictions. The convictions still stood. That is all there is to it, Mr Speaker. PRIVY COUNCIL'S JUDGMENT IN APPEAL BY MR J B JEYARETNAM (Review of Report of Committee of Privileges) 3. Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development and Leader of the House whether he will table a motion that this Parliament should review the report of the then Committee of Privileges (Paper Parl. 3 of 1987) and its acceptance by the last Parliament in the light of the decision of the Privy Council in the appeal of the former MP for Anson. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development and Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): The answer is "No". This is because the motion adopted by Parliament on 30th July 1986 has nothing whatsoever to do with the decision of the Privy Council. The Committee of Privileges was convened to investigate the complaints by the Leader of the House against Mr Jeyaretnam for making unfounded allegations of Executive interference of the Judiciary. The Committee of Privileges, after a full and public hearing, found Mr Jeyaretnam's allegations to be totally baseless and that Mr Jeyaretnam had breached his privileges as an MP. The Privy Council's decision, on the other hand, dealt with Mr Jeyaretnam's appeal against his disqualification following disciplinary action taken against him by the Law Society. It is totally unconnected with the motion adopted by the Parliament.”
“If the decision binds the Government, the Government will be bound. The Attorney-General has advised us that legally the decision does not bind us. That is all there is to it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the position is very clear.”
“This judgment, Sir, is a judgment in a case which binds the parties before it, namely, the Law Society of Singapore and Mr Jeyaretnam. I, as Minister for Law, asked the Attorney-General whether there are any legal implications for the Government. He has advised that the Privy Council's comments do not bind the Government. Therefore, there is nothing really for the Government to take a position. If the Member or the Workers Party or the Secretary-General of the Workers Party feels there is something grievously wrong, unethical or morally wrong on the part of the Government, in not taking a position when it is not obliged to take a position, then the morality of it or the ethics of it can be made an issue by the Workers Party or by the Member in the next General Election if he wishes to. But since the Member has raised the question of morality and ethics, can I ask him or the Member for Potong Pasir to comment whether they think it is ethically right or morally right for Mr Wong Hong Toy and Mr Jeyaretnam to have asked Mr Willie Lim, after the Official Receiver was appointed, to alter a crossed cheque to a cash cheque and asked him to uncross it? Was it right for them to have told Mr Willie Lim that this had to be done to prevent the Official Receiver from obtaining it? Was it right, ethically right, morally right, that by their action neither the Official Receiver nor the Workers Party's creditors received the cheque or its proceeds? We are talking about ethics and morality. Can either of the two Members comment whether it is ethically or morally right?”
“I take it that both he and the Member therefore concede that the judgment ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I refresh the Member's memory on what the Attorney-General stated in his advice and I quote. He said that he is "unable to agree that the convictions were wrong." He has "reviewed the record of the criminal proceedings." He is "satisfied there has been no miscarriage of Justice." Furthermore, he said that the comments of the Privy Council do not, "in any way remove the element of blameworthiness in the conduct of Mr Jeyaretnam." Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may take the opportunity to ask the Member to also read a very learned, well-researched and scholarly article written by Mr Shanmugam which analyses the Privy Council's judgment and which shows that the Privy Council was wrong in law on a very important and fundamental point of law concerning banking law. For the Member's benefit, I will distribute this critique later in the course of the day.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, that will be redundant. We have gone into the judgment of the Privy Council. We have also gone into the Attorney-General's advice on the judgment. It will be repetitious to do so.”
“Well, then there will be no job for lawyers in the first place! But this is a Bill on principles. Applications of the Bill to specific cases, present or future, is a separate matter to be decided on the facts, the circumstances, on the evidence available of a particular case. I do not think that this House is the proper place to prejudge any such questions. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.”
“As to making the declaration public, it was also touched on by the Prime Minister who explained the problems involved as to making it public-the question of privacy and how it would make the problem of getting good men to stand as candidates even more difficult. But if Mr Chiam is serious and he wants to pursue this, then by all means we can have a full debate on it. He can file a motion and we can debate the matter. But before he does so, I think he should refresh his memory on the debates which have already taken place in this House. He mentioned that this was a novel Bill. It is novel in so far as it is made applicable to corruption. But the principle that a person must not enjoy his ill-gotten gains is to be found in the legislation of quite a number of countries in other contexts, principally seizure of assets in drug trafficking, and the main Bill on which these provisions are based is the Drug Trafficking Bill in the United Kingdom and to some extent the Proceeds of Crime Act in Australia. I believe I have answered the main questions. The fact that this Bill has come after Mr Teh Cheang Wan's death should not give the impression that nothing is done about Mr Teh Cheang Wan. As Members know, civil proceedings have been instituted by the Attorney-General against the estate of Mr Teh Cheang Wan for the recovery of the total sum of $1 million and these proceedings are alive and pending. But as explained last year in this House, because of the principle of retroactivity, the provisions of this Bill cannot be used against Mr Teh Cheang Wan. Notwithstanding that, the provisions in the existing law are enough basis for us to proceed against Mr Teh Cheang Wan's estate.”
“Sir, we are talking about this Act. Under the provisions of this Act, his earlier assertion that the 6-year period applies to Mr Phey Yew Kok is not correct. Whether or not there are other principles of law, as I said, is a legal question which will obviously be taken up. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked about safeguards for banks or financial institutions who have, I guess, an encumbrance over a certain property. I would like to assure him that this matter is taken care of in the Bill. I would like to refer him specifically to clause 8 subsection (3)(a)(ii) where in computing the value of property (other than cash) any other person who holds an interest in the property, it shall be the market value less the amount required to discharge any encumbrance on the interest. I am advised by the draftsman that that provision would take care of that. I may also refer him to clause 16(4) which says that the powers exercised by the court shall be exercised with a view to allowing any person other than the defendant or the recipient of any gift to retain or recover the value of any property held by him. So a combination of clause 8 (3)(a)(ii) and clause 16(4), I believe, would meet the Member's concern. On Mr Chiam's point about Ministers being required to give an undertaking, this is not a new point. It has been raised in this House before by Mr Jeyaretnam and Mr Chiam and it has been fully discussed and answered by the Prime Minister on two occasions, I recall, in March 1985 and January 1987. And as he said, the Prime Minister made it clear that every Minister has to file a declaration of his assets with him and explain the reasons because when an allegation is made the authencity or veracity of that document is the basis for the investigation.”
“The question as to whether this applies to Phey Yew Kok is obviously a legal question which the CPIB will have to take up with the Attorney-General's Chambers after this Act comes into force. But if I may say so here, Mr Chiam was wrong in thinking that the 6-year cut-off period applies to Mr Phey Yew Kok because my reading of that clause 23 is a specific reference to persons who have died. In other words, the effect of death on proceedings is a provision which applies to persons who have died. Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, may I just clarify? Is there not also in law the presumption of death if after seven years, nothing is known of a person from people who should know of his whereabouts?”
“But if the person has not been convicted, if investigations started before the coming into operation of the Act, and the conviction has not taken place yet, then it will apply. That is how the Select Committee has dealt with this situation.”
“Sir, I thank the hon. Members for their support of the Bill and I will deal with some of the points which have been raised. First, Dr Lee Siew-Choh sought clarification on clause 3 and the explanatory statement. He could not understand the reference "deemed to have been convicted". In order to explain that, I must first explain that there are provisions in the Bill to deal with confiscation of unexplained and disproportionate assets of persons who have absconded or persons who have died after investigations have commenced. And the provisions which Mr Chiam referred to lay down certain conditions which, if fulfilled, would lead to a presumption as set out in clause 21, "a person shall be taken to be convicted" in those circumstances. That is how you have a reference in the explanatory statement to "deemed to have been convicted". Let me explain clause 3. Members will recall that last year in the House as well as in the press and also in the representations made to the Select Committee, considerable concern was expressed over what was felt to be retrospective application of provisions. This has been taken into account to some extent by the Select Committee in clause 3. The effect of clause 3 is that the provisions of this Bill will apply to corruption offences which take place before or after the commencement of this Act. In other words, investigations could have started, the offence could have been committed before the coming into operation of the Act, provided the person has not been convicted before the coming into operation of the Act. If the person has been convicted and because of the presumption provision of "deemed to have been convicted", then that retrospectivity does not reach a person who has been convicted before the coming into operation of this Act.”
“As in practice, banks and other financial institutions retain records for at least this length of time, the personal representatives and next-of-kin should be able to obtain the necessary proof to rebut the presumptions. Clause 24 of the Bill, also recommended by the Select Committee, empowers the court to dispense with service of documents on absconders who cannot be found. In conclusion, Sir, let me reiterate what I said in this House last year, that this Bill will provide us with a new and more effective weapon to combat corruption. Furthermore, the principles in the Bill are not entirely new. As hon. Members will see from the comparative table annexed to the Bill, the provisions, with a few exceptions, are modelled on the provisions of the United Kingdom Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 with appropriate modifications and adaptations for our purpose. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“It incorporates an amendment made by the Select Committee to ensure that any assets of the defendant forfeited, or previously forfeited, under section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act will not be included in the court's computation of the value of benefits of corruption when making a confiscation order. In other words, the quantum will not include whatever was forfeited under section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Another substantive amendment is new clause 23 which was made by the Select Committee. It concerns confiscation proceedings against deceased absconders. Confiscation proceedings against deceased absconder will be instituted or continued against his estate or personal representatives or his beneficiaries but the confiscation order will not be made against them personally; it will be made against the estate. Subsections (3), (4) and (5) of clause 23 have also been inserted to avoid any possible injustice which could result from the application of the presumptions in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill. Clause 4, subsection (4) deems a person to have benefited from corruption if he holds, or has held, any assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and which cannot be satisfactorily accounted for. Under clause 5, these disproportionate and unexplained assets constitute the benefits of corruption. But as there may be situations where the personal representatives or next-of-kin are unable to rebut the presumptions in clause 4, subsections (4) and 5, the scope of a confiscation order is now restricted to only those disproportionate and unexplained assets acquired by a deceased defendant within six years before his death. Thisperiod of six years ties in with the statutory period of limitation for commercial transactions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill was introduced last year as part of the Government's continued fight against corruption. It was referred to a Select Committee which recommended a few amendments after hearing representations. The Bill, however, lapsed as a result of the dissolution of Parliament for the 1988 general elections. The present Bill before the House is a re-introduction of that Bill as amended by the Select Committee. During the Second Reading of the Bill last year, Members will recall that we had a full debate during which I explained the rationale and outlined the provisions of the Bill. I shall therefore not go over the same ground as the provisions of the 1988 Bill, with a few exceptions, have not been amended by the Select Committee. I will only deal with a few of the changes recommended by the Select Committee and which are incorporated in the Bill which we have today. Sir, the Bill empowers the courts to confiscate the disproportionate and unexplained assets of persons who are convicted, or deemed to be convicted, of corruption offences and to restrain the disposal of these assets before the conclusion of proceedings against such persons. However, the Bill will not extend to persons convicted, or deemed to be convicted, of a corruption offence before the Bill becomes law and comes into force. The Select Committee had therefore amended clause 3 of the Bill to make this clear. Another amendment is clause 5 of the Bill.”
“The Chairman of the GPC asked me whether more members from the Faculty can be appointed, and I am sure this point will be considered by the Senate when they choose the three additional members. Sir, I beg to move. Amendment agreed to.”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, to leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert - "(c) five advocates and solicitors nominated by the Senate of the Academy after consultation with the Council of the Society; and (d) three other members nominated by the Senate of the Academy.". Let me explain, Sir, that the intention of the original wording of the amendment Bill that eight other members be appointed by the Senate was to give the Senate of the Academy flexibility to appoint eight members. It was always the intention that sizeable, if not majority of these eight members, should be advocates and solicitors. However, concern was expressed by the Law Society that by not mentioning expressly that the Law Society has a role in this, due recognition was not given to the contributions of the Law Society towards the Board of Legal Education; and this point was also raised in the meeting with the First Deputy Prime Minister. Let me say, Sir, that the Board of Legal Education has indeed received considerable assistance from the Law Society, both by way of financial contributions as well as through voluntary service given by a large number of lawyers mentioned by the Chairman of the GPC, who have given off their time in conducting courses or lecturing. Therefore, if there is a doubt on the part of the Law Society, this doubt should be rectified and the purpose of this amendment which I am moving in Committee, Sir, is to make clear that five out of the eight members to be appointed by the Senate will be advocates and solicitors and the Senate shall appoint them after consulting the Council of the Law Society. This means there will be three additional members who will be appointed by the Senate.”
“I thought that at the end of the day everybody knows that the striking off is by a court of 3 judges. So I think Dr Lee Siew-Choh must tell us whether he stands by these words or withdraws these words.”
“Let me read it again: 'Or is the Government admitting by this Bill that Mr Jeyaretnam was struck off the rolls for political reasons?'”
“Then I must ask whether he withdraws these words.”
“And this is from the transcript. He said: 'And it is not desirable that the Privy Council should interfere in political affairs. Is that the Government's position? Or is the Government admitting that by this Bill Mr Jeyaretnam was struck off the rolls for political reasons?' This is a clear insinuation that the court struck off Mr Jeyaretnam for political reasons.”
“So let us not have a distorted perspective of justice when we discuss the Legal Profession Act. The fundamental consideration must be that the legal profession must have in mind as overriding interest the public it serves and that it has a duty, not just the Government, it has a duty to ensure that the delinquent and the errant amongst them must be disciplined, and effectively disciplined, so that the good name of the profession is preserved and that the public who have no choice but to go to the lawyers will always have confidence in the legal profession and the legal system.”
“' That concern was expressed eight years ago about expatriate judges in Singapore. What more of judges sitting thousands of miles away? So he should also look up that quotation. I have not been inconsistent. But let me in any case give advance notice in case he is going to keep this quotation also for future reference and to use it against me. It does not mean that as Minister for Law that I will never advise my Cabinet colleagues against getting expatriate judges under any circumstances. Because if we fail to get our ablest and the best of our own lawyers to serve as judges, it may be the only solution. So the point I am making is a simple one. Yes, at one time we thought the Privy Council was useful but reluctantly we have to sever the links. Yes, we have reservations. I have reservations on expatriate judges. But if we have no choice and the courts are going to be swamped by a backlog of cases and tremendous delays in fixing of dates, we may well have to do that. Nothing is immutable. Overriding interest is the national interest and that is the note on which I would like to end. When we talk about justice, justice for whom? These disciplinary procedures and proceedings are to protect whom? True, there are safeguards for the lawyers, opportunity to be heard, tried and heard by fellow peers, several tiers so that different bodies can address their minds before the final decision is taken which may affect his livelihood. But I would like to suggest to the House that the overriding interest is a public interest and the many people who know nothing about law and whose private lives or public lives or family matters are in the hands of the lawyers. And as Mr Chiam has pointed out, lawyers are stakeholders for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.”