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 51 of 66.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may just have a moment to look through my notes. Suffice it for me to say, Sir, that a copy of the Bill was sent to the President of the Law Society either on or before the date of introduction in this House.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I have the correspondence with me here. But if what the Member for Anson says is that the Law Society received the communication only on 15th September, then I think this is not quite correct although ---”
“Of course, that person cannot be barred from holding any job, he has a right to employment. But would you appoint him in charge of a childcare creche? If a member, an individual, has been convicted of criminal breach of trust or corruption, would it be all right to appoint him as your Accountant-General? This is the issue, the issue of integrity and the issue of responsibility.”
“When the Council elects a person with such a flaw as President, is it a question of their right to elect whosoever without intervention by us? Or is it not also a question of responsibility, having in mind the interests of the public? We are not saying that such a person should never be allowed to practise his profession, although the Member for Whampoa has made a forceful point. The issue is not whether he can continue to practise, the issue is whether such persons ought to be in a leadership position of the governing body of a profession which so many members of the public resort to and must have confidence in facing. I would like to ask the Member for Potong Pasir and the Member for Anson: If there is a child molester, convicted child molester or rapist, ---”
“This is not allowed by the Act. He can only intervene if a formal application is made by the individual complainant. He did not tell us that. He gave us the impression when he said that the Chief Justice can at any time step in and therefore everything is in the control of the Chief Justice. It is because of that inadequacy that we are seeking to amend section 97 to provide that a finding of the Disciplinary Committee can be reviewed not only at the instance of the individual complainant but also at the instance of the Judge and, we have also added, at the instance of the Law Society. The Member for Anson says there is no need for the Act. The public is adequately protected. Does he really expect the public to believe that? Does he expect the public to believe that their interests are adequately protected when the Council elects as its No.1 leader a man who has been disciplined on three occasions and a man whom the courts, the Chief Justice, had to say, and I quote: 'Was guilty of grossly improper conduct in discharge of duties, whose conduct was wholly deplorable, as being dishonourable of him as a man and dishonourable of his profession.' And the Member for Anson expects us and the public to believe that their interests are adequately protected. The Member for Anson, and to some extent the Member for Potong Pasir, made the point that this has something to do with the rights of advocates and solicitors. The Member for Anson made much ado about the fact that all members enjoy the same privileges and rights. Once he has been convicted and punished, thereafter he has a right, presumably a right to be elected President. This shows a complete lack of regard to the interests of the public and a lack of regard for responsibility. Whose rights are we talking about?”
“Perhaps the Members for Potong Pasir and Anson will applaud when it spreads even to the Legislature and persons convicted of fraud or dishonesty are elected to the Legislature. Probably they will applaud because they have not in their speeches shown any regard for honesty and integrity as a criterion, not for practice, for leadership positions in the Law Society. But the Member for Whampoa made a point which I think the Government also will have to consider. He said: should we not also consider whether such persons with such records even ought to practise? That is a very good point, and indeed it is a point which the Government will have to consider. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would now like to say that the Member for Anson in his speech has clearly given a very false and misleading representation of the provisions of the present Act. First of all, he says that it is not true that the Law Society Council shares the disciplinary function with the Judges of the Supreme Court. He says everything lies in the hands of the Chief Justice. This is totally untrue and totally false. The Law Society must deal with complaints at the Inquiry Committee level before it goes to the Disciplinary Committee and thereafter to the Judges of the Supreme Court. If the Inquiry Committee finds that there is no cause for formal investigation and the Council agrees, then it cannot go on to the Disciplinary Committee and to the courts. The second instance where he has misled is when he told us that the Chief Justice can at any time intervene if he disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Committee or disagrees with the findings of the Disciplinary Committee. This is false. The Chief Justice or a Judge of the Supreme Court, under the present Act, cannot intervene and cannot step in on his own volition.”
“It must be that they condone and they approve the idea that a person, who has been convicted of an offence of fraud or dishonesty, can be elected to the leadership position in the professional organization. This must be the irresistible conclusion. Both of them are in support of that idea that such a person with such tainted record can be elected to the Council of the Law Society, leave alone the No.1 post of President. What does this show of the importance that they place on integrity? Don't they attach any importance to the element of integrity? Don't they have the slightest regard for safeguarding the interests of the public? Don't they have any priority placed on responsibility, while they talk about rights of individual advocates and solicitors? By what they have said, they are therefore placing themselves on record that they condone and approve of the Law Society electing a person, who had been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty or fraud, into office. I think that speaks for itself and therein lies the difference between the Members of the Opposition for Potong Pasir and Anson and the Government. Because the Government places highest priority to integrity. The Government places highest priority in safeguarding the interests of the public who have no choice but to use lawyers. The Member for Anson asked: why bring this Bill suddenly? Because this situation has never happened before. That is why. And it is not just the legal profession. If the Government did not act now to make it clear that there must be this disqualification, then this disease will spread to the other professions.”
“After some foot-dragging, the Council informed the Ministry of Law that it was "unable to accede to your request." The Ministry of Law (its Permanent Secretary) then wrote to the President of the Law Society and said, "What conceivable basis could there be not to cooperate and give information on a survey which the Law Society itself had made reference to in public?" The Permanent Secretary even suggested to the President of Law Society that if they were worried about confidentiality, then they could either seek the consent of whosoever had been surveyed, for disclosure, or the Law Society need not supply to the Permanent Secretary (Law) the identity of whoever was surveyed. So the confidentiality can be preserved. Back came the final reply: 'I am directed to inform you that since the relevant information was obtained on a confidential basis, the Council regrets that it is unable to accede to your request.' A survey where public reference was made. As I said, this is a Council which claims, and on whose behalf it is now claimed, that they have a right to prior consultation. I say that that Council, this present Council, by that action, has forfeited its right to prior consultation. Mr Speaker, Sir, nevertheless we sent them the Bill the moment it was published, even before hon. Members received them. Mr Speaker, Sir, I was really astounded to see the Member for Potong Pasir and the Member for Anson opposing this Bill. What is the conclusion that we must draw from their total opposition to this Bill? The Member for Anson was prepared to support the lay representation part but the Member for Potong Pasir found there was no part in it at all which he could support. Both of them oppose this Bill. What is the implication of their opposition?”
“Secondly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has already indicated that it is the intention to send this Bill to Select Committee where the views of all concerned, and particularly the Law Society, can be made known, discussed and deliberated. I would like to make a third point. That point is this: that, in my view, the present leadership of the Law Society has forfeited its right to prior consultation. Let me explain, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have made it a point, a practice with the previous Council, of sending them Bills on areas where they would have an interest - legal profession, administration of criminal justice, even amendments to the Constitution. I have gone out of my way to inform the Council that I would send them Bills in advance and, in fact, I have sent them Bills even before hon. Members receive them. I think there was a basis to do so. I conveyed this also to the present Council. But consultation by its very essence must be a two-way process. Sometimes the Government may have a reasonable basis to seek information from the Law Society Council. Let me mention, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when the President of the Law Society issued a statement on the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill and, in that statement, made the claim, and I quote, "A brief survey was conducted by the Law Society which showed that the effects of the Bill would be minimal", we were very interested to know what were the findings of the survey. The Permanent Secretary (Law), on the direction of the Minister, wrote to the President of the Law Society and asked if the Council could make available to the Ministry of Law the dates, raw data and analyzed results of the brief survey which shows that the Bill would have only minimal effects.”
“The Member has a propensity to interrupt when he himself is not interrupted.”
“Members had seen the text of the Bill. Secondly, I have mentioned ---”
“And I take the point with regard to, for example, the provision for lay representation. If I may turn to the views expressed by the Members for Potong Pasir and Anson. First, they have made the point that this whole Bill is connected with the Law Society's pronouncements on the amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, and therefore the Member for Anson develops his theory that there is some hidden motive. I would like to make it clear that had the Law Society not come out with any statement on the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Bill, this Bill would still be moved in Parliament today. Because what was never envisaged has happened. A person with a tainted record has been first elected to the Council, and the Council then has elected him as President of the Society, a high office which sets the tone and standards for the rest of the profession. Something unprecedented has happened. Members have read the Bill. We have not made any provision in the Bill to restrict the kind of statements which the Law Society can make. Members of Parliament as well as Ministers, including the First Deputy Prime Minister, have already stated what the Government's position is, on a group of persons taking over the Law Society leadership for purposes of venturing into political pronouncements. That has already been made clear. This Bill deals with a different matter, but the fact that the Council did elect a person with such a record to the Presidency does indeed reveal their motives. Mr Speaker, Sir, the next point which both Members from the Opposition gave a lot of emphasis was that there was no prior consultation. Mr Speaker, Sir, in reply to that, let me say the following. First of all, a copy of this Bill was sent to the Law Society even before hon.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members for having spoken on the Bill. I would like to remind Members that, as I have said, it is the intention to refer this Bill to the Select Committee. I therefore will confine myself, in reply, to broad points and not go into the detailed drafting of the specific provisions which will be the job of the Select Committee to look into. I have noted the comments made by the Member for MacPherson, the Member for Punggol, the Member for Chong Boon and the Member for Whampoa. With regard to the specific points that they have raised, the Member for Punggol asked whether clauses 2 and 3 raise an ambiguity, whether it refers to a period of six months or more, or whether there can be an aggregate of periods. My reading of the Bill suggests that there is no ambiguity and it refers to a period. Otherwise a different wording "period or periods in the aggregate" might have been used. But this is a point which can be looked into by the Select Committee. If there is ambiguity, it can be tightened up. Some of the Members whilst supporting the Bill referred to the fact that perhaps it should not only be the legal profession but other professions should also be reviewed. This point is noted, although I might add that the problem has arisen with regard to the Law Society. With regard to most of the other professions, as far as I know, the appointment of the Council members is either at the nomination or approval of the Government or at least, for example, with regard to the Medical Council, the President or the Chairman is appointed by the Government. Nonetheless, I have noted the Member's suggestion that the questions of principles which arise may call for a review of the other provisions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first move a procedural motion. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion and the remaining item on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion and the remaining item on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. LEGAL PROFESSION (AMENDMENT) BILL Debate resumed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. If the Member for Potong Pasir has a point in reply to the Member for Chong Boon, he can have his say later.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I think we must have some decorum in the House. The Member for Anson spoke for one hour and he was not interrupted. Why cannot he give the same courtesy to other Members of this House? Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."”
“The question is, Mr Speaker, Sir, whether in implementing the decision of this House there is a prior condition for right to counsel, and I have already stated what the position is.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson must know that the law of privileges in Parliament is not codified in the Constitution or statutory enactment, and I have mentioned to him and to the House that in the law in the United Kingdom, in the implementation of any decision of the House of Commons on contempt, there is no prior right or inherent right to counsel ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have made it clear that we are following the practice in the United Kingdom. If he now asks why we should follow the practice in the United Kingdom, perhaps he should ask his colleague, the Member for Potong Pasir who not long ago said, "Sir, if we cannot find a precedent here, we should look to the English precedent."”
“'The Constitution makers could never have intended that an empty formality should be gone through which would serve no useful purpose.' The provision of the Indian Constitution which was invoked in that case, according to the court, was not intended to apply to a case of detention following conviction and sentence by the Legislative Assembly. The court accordingly held that to be the case. Mr Speaker, Sir, when Parliament exercises its prerogative and inherent rights of punishing persons for contempt, what is important is that the punishment of this Chamber must be implemented speedily and expeditiously to give effect to the decision of this House that there has been contempt.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to finish what I have to say.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in replying to the Member for Anson, much as I would like to avoid it, I would have to repeat some of the points which I mentioned in my statement, for the reasons were given. First of all, Article 9, clauses (3) and (4) envisage cases of arrest by the Police in the normal arrest cases. Secondly, we are following the position which applies in the United Kingdom. Thirdly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the court will not be in a position to determine if the person should or should not be detained because Parliament, in exercise of its inherent powers, would have decided to punish a person for contempt. As to the point made by the Member for Anson that this is a basic right which applies in all countries, I think he should do his homework. I would only refer him to the position in India where they also have a written Constitution. They also have a Parliament based on Westminster traditions, and I quote from a judicial decision in India which says: 'Where a person has been convicted and sentenced for contempt by the Legislative Assembly, his production before a Magistrate would be absolutely futile. The Magistrate would have no power either to release such a person on bail or to make any other order or provision regarding his custody. The Constitution makers ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is so absurd that really one ought not to reply. Of course, section 4 of the Act does not refer because this is an amendment which we are asking Parliament to adopt, and that is precisely the answer to his question. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."”
“Repeat all those allegations. He doesn't repeat them.”
“The proposition is so ludicrous that I do not see why we must inflict this on the rest of Singapore. But since he has mentioned that he wants to repeat this outside, let me ask him now, again, in addition to all the requests made, will he repeat outside the Chamber (a) his defamatory allegations made under privilege about Mr S.R. Nathan; (b) his defamatory allegations made here under the cloak of privilege concerning the Howe family, and (c) what he was asked to repeat outside by the Chief Justice who made the request to the Prime Minister that he repeat the allegations. Will he repeat all these allegations outside?”
“My clarification is this. That the terms cover the points that were agreed. What he wants, as he has said, is that the Commission should have looked into the proposal to establish a whole new system of Subordinate Court Judiciary and then look into the allegation. In other words, to take the analogy again, we should first inquire and decide on the establishment of a new Parliament building and then later find whether there were reasons - negligence, and that the building is unsafe - to come as the secondary item of investigation. It is so absurd, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we should have no hesitation in rejecting the motion.”
“Yes, clarification. Mr Jeyaretnam: Is this clarification or another go?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, by way of clarification, all I want to say is that every item that had been agreed to in the debate is to be found in the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry. What the Member for Anson wanted is in the terms of the Commission of Inquiry. Allegations about Mr Michael Khoo is here. His suggestion for improvement is here. But what he wants is, as he said, that the whole system of improving the Judiciary ---”
“Point of order. Did he not also say that he will appear before whosoever is appointed?”
“Was he transferred because the decision was not acceptable? Is he alleging now?”
“Is he saying that Mr Jeffrey Chan was transferred because Mr Jeffrey Chan's decision was also not acceptable?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, would he explain whether this is not a specific allegation of Executive interference, "These decisions were not acceptable."? Is he now at this late hour telling us that he wants to withdraw these allegations, unreservedly? Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these allegations are before the Committee of Privileges.”
“Does that not mean that the Executive interfered in their transfer?”
“Can he explain what is meant by "These decisions were not acceptable"?”
“'These decisions were not acceptable.' Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes. I am not trying to hide it, Mr Minister, please. Look at that again: 'That, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry to have to say this, that was not the first time. There were at least two other instances, and I know this personally.' Now you know why I know it personally because I appeared on behalf of the two accused persons. So I am talking from personal knowledge. There was one case where, after the decision was given, the man was transferred. That was about four or five years ago. And there was one case much earlier than that. These decisions were not acceptable. Yes, I repeat, they were not acceptable. And from there, the Minister tries to construe that there was Executive interference. I am merely saying that these persons were transferred and there was public disquiet, just as there was public disquiet ---”
“This is what he said, and he was paraphrasing it. This is what it actually reads: 'There were at least two other instances, and I know this personally.'”
“You are not quoting the Hansard correctly.”
“Would the Member give me the Floor to clarify?”
“Absolute prohibition. From going into the witness box, however anxious he was, however eager he was, to voluntarily - mind you, not being forced, but voluntarily - go into the witness box; there was this rule of absolute parliamentary privilege which absolutely prohibited him. So I say it is sheer hypocrisy to come to this House to cry like a spoilt child about the terms of reference when whatever the terms of reference, whatever conditions, whatever requests are met, his position was that he is absolutely prohibited by an absolute parliamentary privilege. My second point is, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that the terms of reference, in fact, arose and are based on what the Member for Anson said in this House on the 21st of March when there was a discussion on the Commission of Inquiry. The Member went through the debates but conveniently glossed over the fact that when the Prime Minister repeatedly asked him to draft the terms, he pleaded that he was not capable, not competent, to draft the terms on the spot. Hansard, 21st March, col. 899 [Vol. 47, No. 12]: '”
“But he wants a different standard for Opposition Members because he said, for Backbenchers, particularly for Opposition Backbenchers, there should be a different latitude. He is laying the groundwork for bringing more Lim Poh Huat allegations into this House. So much for preliminaries. Now, we go to the substance of his motion. Let us look at the substance of his motion. What he says is "that the terms of reference ... for the Commission of Inquiry ... depart significantly in their purpose and object from the purpose and object of the commission that was proposed." So the critical question is: what was the purpose and object of the Commission of Inquiry? I do not intend to speak at length, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because this motion is really irrelevant, it is a farce and it is hypocritical. It is hypocritical because the position taken by the Member for Anson at the closing session of the Commission of Inquiry which I demonstrated, and which we saw on the tapes the other day, was that he claimed absolute privilege, that he was prevented even voluntarily from going into ---”
“'And the other thing I said [according to him on 19th March, col. 696] was we were acquitted on three of those charges by the Senior District Judge [and these are the important words] and after he had written his judgment, because an appeal was filed by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal, he was transferred.' Again, a specific allegation that the reason for his transfer was because an appeal had been filed. So no attempts to wriggle out. These were specific allegations. Other preliminary questions, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. He started off by laying a very interesting proposition that Ministers are accountable - which we accept, and I have already said that the Government stands by everything it says.”
“Not only should he not interrupt, I think he should pay attention.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is what he said on 10th January in cols. 711-2: 'I am sorry to have to say this, that was not the first time. There were at least two other instances, and I know this personally. There was one case where, after a decision was given, the man was transferred. That was about four or five years ago, and there was one case much earlier than that. These decisions were not acceptable. So what independence of the Subordinate Judiciary is there if the public see these things happening?' Further down: 'The public see that the District Judges are not immune and that they may suffer the displeasure of the Executive.' What clear statement, what clearer allegation of Executive interference in the transfer of Judges. Then with regard to Mr Michael Khoo, 19th March, col. 696 [Vol. 47, No 10]: 'And the other thing I said ...'.”
“--- and not to make these rude interruptions after he has had one full hour.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has had one full hour. Presumably, he will use another full hour which he is entitled to. I did not interrupt but once on a point of order. He talks about courtesy. May he practise what he preaches ---”
“My point of order is that the rule of relevance ought to be enforced in this debate on the motion. If he wants to bring up other matters, I am perfectly willing, ready and able to take him on on other matters.”
“He not only suppresses the truth but he is afraid of the facts.”
“We have now reached such pitiful standards of debate on the part of the Member for Anson.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the facts condemn the Member for Anson.”