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 52 of 66.
“Why did he not tell us that that signed statement (a) was undated, (b) that he had it, as he now says, in July, a few days before Parliamentary sitting presumably, conveniently?”
“Mr Speaker, the Member never said on 29th July that he did not have a signed statement at the time he made the complaint. He told us, and I am prepared to have television and the video set brought in again to play the quotation, he told us the basis on which he made the statement was that he had a signed statement.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the investigation will continue. There are many contridictions in the stories given by the parties concerned. We will get to the bottom of it. When the Committee of Privileges meets, we will find out who has fabricated in this conspiracy to hoodwink Parliament.”
“Yes. My question then is: why did the Member mislead us? Because on the 29th July, when I raised this matter, the Member for Anson told us that he had raised this matter in this House. Why? And he said: 'I have a signed statement given to me by a person whose integrity I respect, who says in his signed statement that he had an appointment with this man and this man never turned up that Sunday morning and, in front of him and two others, told this man that he had been arrested by Joo Chiat Police Station after midnight. So I have a signed statement from a man, as I said, whose integrity I respect.' He told us that the basis for his having made that statement when he made the complaint was because he had a signed statement, and now it is clear that the signed statement was well after the Parliamentary sitting. So he has misled. So in sum, Mr Speaker, he has suppressed the truth on Wednesday, he has misled us on 29th July.”
“Towards the end. Whichever date we take it, it is clear that it was after the sitting of 18th March when the Member for Anson ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I now want to make my second point. He has made it clear that the undated signed statement of Mr Percy Seneviratne was given, according to him, in July. According to Mr Seneviratne, end of March. Whichever date we take it, it is after ---”
“What I said was that there was a contradiction between the date mentioned by Mr Percy Seneviratne and the date mentioned by the Member for Anson in this House. And I then said that such contradictions will arise when persons are involved in fabrication. That is what I said. The Member for Anson jumps up to make further statements. It may be a psychological quirk of mind.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I proceed without interruption?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, these are desperate efforts of a man who is sinking into quicksands of falsehood and untruth. [Interruptions] Mr Jeyaretnam: Let the public decide. See you at the end of 1988, whether you get elected or not.”
“I do not relish looking at people who tell untruths.”
“Can you ask him to sit down, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can you ask him to sit down?”
“Can you ask him to sit down, Mr Speaker, Sir?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, that interesting question will be answered in the Committee of Privileges. What I said --- Mr Jeyaretnam rose -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to proceed. Can I ask the Member to sit down?”
“These are the desperate efforts of a man who is sinking deeper and deeper into the quicksands of falsehood, lies and untruth. Mr Jeyaretnam rose -”
“He has shown that he has suppressed the truth in this House. And any Member who has suppressed the truth really has done the most dishonourable conduct.”
“I don't want to look at him. Why should I look at him?”
“Will the Member for Anson please keep his cool and sit down?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the truth will come out in the Committee of Privileges.”
“Can I speak without his rude interruptions, Mr Speaker, Sir?”
“I never withdraw anything that I said and I never said what he claims I have said.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have just established that the Member suppressed the truth. Let me proceed, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“A world of difference between the end of March and July. Well, contradictions will always arise when people are engaged in fabrication.”
“In the statement given to the Ministry of Home Affairs, he says that this undated statement was given to Mr Jeyaretnam towards the end of March. He forgot to date the letter. I think I want to establish this fact also, which is a fact subsequent to our sitting on 29th. Can I ask the Member for Anson whether he confirms that this undated statement was handed to him towards the end of March?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson says it was not for him to investigate the truth of the confession. This is incredible. Let us review the whole thing in perspective. In March, Mr Seneviratne comes running to the Member for Anson and said, "Look. I have got a big scoop. A person was arrested 15 hours." The Member for Anson does not contact Lim Poh Huat, does not ask for a statement, does not ask for a Police report, comes running to Parliament, makes a fantastic accusation without verifying the facts. Now, when we have the opposite that Mr Lim Poh Huat sends a signed confession, he says, "No, no. I am not going to raise this in Parliament." In other words, he is telling the whole world, "Please. False allegations, lies, come to me. I will raise it in Parliament." Truth, keep it in his pocket, do not reveal it." So that is my first point, Mr Speaker: suppression of truth and facts in this Parliament. On his own, he raised a matter of the address but the most important thing, he suppressed. The next point I want to make, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that, if Members will look at the document which I have circulated, Members will recall that on the 29th when the Member for Anson told us that he had a signed statement I asked more than once, on at least two occasions, when was that statement signed, when did he get that statement. I had my suspicions. I asked: was it before the Member for Anson raised the complaint in Parliament on 18th March or after? The Member for Anson did not reply. If Members will look at the longer signed statement of Mr Seneviratne which the Member has given me you will notice the curious fact that it is not dated. Most curious.”
“Let us take this in perspective. In March ---”
“The Member for Anson, on his own volition, spoke around 11.30 am and all he did was to give me the address of Mr Lim Poh Huat which was a false address, asking the Police to go and investigate. But he was in possession of very vital information at 9.00 am that morning, that there was a signed confession and the whole thing was a fabrication. If he was an honourable gentleman, why did he not also tell us that important fact, that he was in possession of the information, that it was a complete lie? He could have come clean if he had no part in this fabrication and said, "Look. I know it is a complete lie. I tell you now why Lim Poh Huat did it. Please go and investigate." But he suppressed the truth. Does he not admit that he, in fact, suppressed material facts, suppressed the truth, in the same way on the previous day when, talking about Mr Jeffrey Chan, he also suppressed information? Does he not admit that that is very important information that he ought to have divulged in this House, more important than the address of Mr Lim Poh Huat?”
“Right. But all of us will recall that on the 30th, the second day, I did not raise the question any more because it has been referred to the Committee of Privileges but, the Member for Anson, after Question time, sought your permission, Mr Speaker, to make a personal explanation and all that he did was to give us the address of Mr Lim Poh Huat. But by that time he already knew that the whole thing was a fabrication. He already had with him a signed confession by Mr Lim Poh Huat. The question is: why did he suppress those facts when he took the opportunity to speak on Wednesday?”
“Let me be very clear. He does not deny that Mr Seneviratne personally delivered Mr Lim Poh Huat's confession.”
“On 29th. After it was revealed on the 29th.”
“Mr Percy Seneviratne's statement that on the morning of Wednesday, 30th July, he had handed to the Member for Anson at 9.00 am Mr Lim Poh Huat's signed confession.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to make a statement with regard to the matter of the complaint concerning Mr Lim Poh Huat. But before I proceed, let me make it clear that I do not intend to debate the question whether there was a breach of privilege or not, as that has been referred to the Committee of Privileges. However, subsequent to our sitting on 29th July, new information has come to light which must be conveyed to Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like the Clerk of Parliament to kindly distribute to Members and to the press the signed statement (Cols. 505 - 506) which Mr Percy Seneviratne gave to the Member for Anson and which the Member for Anson himself gave to me, as well a short statement (Cols. 505 - 506) which Mr Seneviratne gave to my Ministry. statement - FURTHER STATEMENT BY PERCY SENEVIRATNE (Cols. 505 - 506) I would like to refer first, Mr Speaker, Sir, to an article which appeared in the Straits Times yesterday where Mr Seneviratne told the Straits Times that he first learned that Mr Lim Poh Huat had fabricated the story when he watched the telecast of our proceedings on the night of 29th July. Mr Lim Poh Huat then came over to his house and, according to Mr Seneviratne, he advised Mr Lim to give him a statement confessing the lie. The signed statement was handed to Mr Jeyaretnam Wednesday morning. In the short statement given to the Ministry of Home Affairs, paragraph 2, Members will see that, according to Mr Percy Seneviratne, the recorded confession of Mr Lim Poh Huat was delivered by Mr Seneviratne personally to Mr Jeyaretnam at about 9.00 am on 30th July. May I ask the Member for Anson whether he denies this or confirms this?”
“The Member is quoting incorrectly what the Member for Whampoa said.”
“On a point of order. I thought Standing Orders state that when a breach of privilege is claimed, there shall be no debate on this.”
“We can give him a tape. I think that is a good idea. We will do that. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson wants to side-track us from the issue before hand. And the issue before hand concerns his allegations of Executive interference in the Subordinate Court Judiciary. If he wants to bring forth some grave constitutional legal arguments about other matters, he is free to do so. He alleges unconstitutionality in the conferment of powers in the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General to decide on transfers. This is an entirely different issue. I have looked into it and I am satisfied that there is nothing unconstitutional about it. But it is an attempt to side-track.”
“If the Member for Anson wants to watch the whole tape, we can arrange it. We can make a request to the SBC.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, to us and to any reasonable person who has watched the proceedings, the truth is crystal clear.”
“He said this morning, "so be it" does not mean he accepted. But he also went on to say, "I will if invited certainly make representations to whoever is appointed." These are but four attempts to wriggle out.”
“We are not talking about the terms. We are talking about the Judge. And immediately before he spoke, who did the Prime Minister say would head the Commission? A High Court Judge.”
“The only person who has misled this House is the Member for Anson and he himself yesterday withdrew an allegation admitting that he had misled the House. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, the concept of absolute privilege means what it says. It is absolute. In his words, there is absolute prohibition. There is no question of waiving an absolute prohibition. That is Wriggling-out No. 3. Finally, Wriggling-out No. 4. He said that he had never accepted the Prime Minister's proposal of the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry headed by a Judge. It was pointed out to him that he had, in fact, accepted. His rejoinder this morning was that the words he spoke, "So be it", do not mean that he had accepted. I interrupted. He refused to give the Floor. And what I would have asked, and I ask now and all Members must know what the answer is, he went on to say, and I shall quote: 'I will if invited certainly make representations to whoever is appointed.'”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall be grateful if the Member for Anson does not interrupt.”
“The public can judge and there is no better source of judging than the recorded truth. The Member for Anson takes the position that it is absolute prohibition. And you do not have to be a lawyer to know that absolute prohibition means what it says. Mr Jeyaretnam rose -”
“Thank you. I gave quotations yesterday. The Member for Anson challenged the source of the quota- tions. I then said that we could bring these quotations which he challenged and put them on tape. This is exactly what I have done. These are the quotations on tape.”
“Sir, could you request the Member to sit down.”
“We can arrange for the playing of the whole tape. If he wants to spend two hours watching it, we can arrange for a special room where he and the members of the press can sit and watch the whole tape, and point out to me ---”
“Let us listen, Mr Speaker, Sir. [The House watched the relevant portion of the videotape of the Commission of Inquiry.] Prof. Jayakumar: Thank you. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the truth must hurt. The afternoon session was one continuous run. The Member for Anson took the position ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was explaining that the third attempt to wriggle out was when he said yesterday and today that he never claimed privilege, that the only reason for not going to the witness box was that the Commissioner did not give the assurance that certain witnesses be called. I had made it clear in my opening statement that in the morning his position was waiver of privilege, in the afternoon he took the position of absolute prohibition (the emphasis on absolute), a position he never took in the morning. He denies this. Let us see the tape.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Can we take a five minutes' adjournment?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think we adjourn for five minutes and resume so that the technicians can adjust the television. This must be shown because the Member for Anson repeatedly denies that he said this.”