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 53 of 66.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it will take five minutes for the run of the tape. It starts off with the morning session and later in the afternoon session.”
“We can play it on tape. Shall we play it on tape, Mr Speaker, Sir? Some hon. Members: Yes.”
“From the quotations that the Member for Anson -”
“And no wonder the Chief Justice, as reported by the Prime Minister, col. 913 on 21st March, said: 'The Prime Minister: ...He asked me to have the matter disposed of expeditiously, and to put it to the Member for Anson whether he would not state, without the benefit of privilege, what he has stated here - that the Chief Justice's note and the minute from the Legal Service Commission is not the last word...' The Chief Justice was astounded, asked the Prime Minister whether he would put it to the Member for Anson whether he would repeat it outside. The Prime Minister put the request on two occasions. The press asked him after he left the House and he did not repeat it. Yesterday, he denied that this was a scurrilous attack. What happened today? Today, he made an even more atrocious remark that the Chief Justice, because he was reappointed, "is beholden to the Prime Minister." If there is any attack on the integrity of the Chief Justice, this surely must be it. Wriggling-out No. 3. He now says that he never claimed parliamentary privilege and that the one and only reason why he did not go into the witness box was because the Commissioner had not given the assurance that he sought. I read out the quotations yesterday. They were clear. If he wants, I can read out the quotations again: that the Member for Anson had in the morning claimed qualified privilege, that he would waive privilege; in the afternoon he made a 180-degree turnaround, said that "this is an absolute prohibition, it is not a privilege that can be waived."”
“Precisely. By asking who is the originator, the Member is in fact impugning the integrity of the Chief Justice.”
“I am not going to repeat again. We can wait for the Hansard. Wriggling-out No. 2. He said yesterday that he never made any scurrilous attacks on the Chief Justice. I pointed out that the Chief Justice had given a handwritten note to the Prime Minister stating that it was he who made the decision. The Member for Anson did not accept that statement.”
“These are attacks on the Judiciary. These are serious attacks on Subordinate Court Judiciary who have taken an oath to give decisions according to right and justice and not out of fear and favour. Wriggling-out No. 2. The Member for Anson said ---”
“He wanted to amend paragraph (2) but he did not want to amend paragraph (1) of the motion and therefore he was in agreement with the motion to accept the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. Such an absurd amendment moved --- [The Member for Potong Pasir entered the Chamber.]. Yes, I will repeat it for the benefit of the Member for Potong Pasir - that it is ludicrous for the Member for Potong Pasir to move an amendment, no doubt at the behest of the Member for Anson, to delete paragraph (2) and substitute certain words and at the same time to accept paragraph (1), and paragraph (1) of my motion seeks the House to accept the Report of the Commission of Inquiry. That means the Member for Potong Pasir accepts the Report which also includes the findings. So we have an absurd situation where the Member for Potong Pasir, in fact, is telling us that he accepts the Report. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said that in the two days the Government made it very clear. We have nothing to hide. The Member for Anson claims that he was shut out. Very well, he will be given full opportunity to adduce the evidence from the witnesses. He will still be given the opportunity. What about the Member for Anson? What has his position been? I think the best way to describe his position is that it has been a convoluted attempt to wriggle out. Yes, to wriggle out. Wriggling-out No. 1. He says he never made any attack on the Judges and he denies it, and he says all he wanted to do was to raise the question of public disquiet. "Never made any attack on Judges", and I referred to the passages yesterday, passages where he expressly said that members of the Judiciary were afraid when making decisions, looking over their shoulder, in other words, alleging that they were not true to their oath.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in summing up, I can be brief because the issues have been canvassed fully in the two days' debate. Let me remind ourselves of the points that I made at the beginning of my statement yesterday that the issues are grave and serious, that it concerns attacks on fundamental institutions, in this case, the Judiciary. The second point which I made was that such serious allegations, which bring into total disrepute our Judiciary, will have to be scrutinized, facts established, truth determined. As far as the Government side is concerned, it has been made clear by our statements here that we really have nothing to hide. Members have heard the Prime Minister offering as many opportunities to have all that the Member for Anson claims he was shut out from being heard. The Member for Anson was offered another Commission of Inquiry or reappointment of the Commission of Inquiry. Today, he referred to the letter he wrote to the Prime Minister where it is clear he is not in favour of any High Court Judge being Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry. But if the Member for Anson insists, as he has insisted, that he was shut out, as we have made it clear on the Government side and as the Prime Minister has made it clear, he will be given every opportunity in Parliament, in a Committee. The Leader of the House will make a suitable statement later. He will be given every opportunity in this House to call the witnesses to adduce the evidence that he wants. Mr Speaker, Sir, before I proceed further I see that the Member for Potong Pasir has left. His amendment, acting as a proxy for the Member for Anson, is truly ludicrous.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order, which we need to know. I have said before that he has been using Privilege to cast doubts on persons outside this Chamber. He has made a very serious point - that the Chief Justice was re-appointed, and because he was re-appointed, he is beholden to the Prime Minister. I am asking: is he saying that the Chief Justice thereafter will not be, and has not been, impartial? He must answer the question. Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Minister, I am not saying that. Get it quite clear. I am simply pointing out what are the facts. For goodness sake. Now, the superficiality of the whole Report. May I just point to one thing?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a very serious, scurrilous allegation. He is, in fact, saying that the Chief Justice after his re-appointment is beholden to the Executive and therefore his implication is that the Chief Justice will not make decisions impartially. Is he alleging that? We must know.”
“Is he now alleging that the holder of the office of Chief Justice is holding it unconstitutionally?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, does he find any reference in the Constitution that the agreement must be gazetted?”
“I have asked a question: Is he alleging that? Because that is a serious complaint.”
“The question is: Is he alleging that the holder of the office of Attorney-General now is holding it unconstitutionally?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I request clarification? Is the Member alleging that the Attorney -General's appointment and current position is unconstitutional?”
“I would like to ask whether the Member wants this proceeding to be interrupted so that we can, in fact, watch the video recording of what the Member said, before he proceeds to deny that he claimed privilege.”
“Can I seek clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir?”
“My point of order is that if the Member wants to quote the Prime Minister, surely he must quote correctly because Members will recall that that is not what the Prime Minister said.”
“Ah, Members will no doubt make the connection. This is the journalist who writes (a) glowing accounts of a Member of Parliament in a foreign press; and (b) writes damaging and embarrassing articles about Singapore. REPORT OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS OF EXECUTIVE INTERFERENCE IN THE SUBORDINATE COURTS (Paper Cmd. 12 of 1986) 11.28 am Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [29th July, 1986], "That this Parliament: (1) accepts the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into allegations of Executive interference in the Subordinate Courts as contained in Cmd. Paper 12 of 1986; and (2) deplores as dishonourable the conduct of the Member for Anson in pleading Parliamentary Privilege to evade having to give evidence on his allegations of Executive interference, allegations he had made on several occasions in this House, all of which were calculated to undermine confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the Subordinate Courts Judiciary.". - [Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law]. Question again proposed.”
“Is he the gentleman who is a journalist by the name of Percy Seneviratne?”
“So that I will be absolutely sure, Mr Speaker, Sir, that no statement is going to be fabricated after this meeting, may I know the name of the person who had given him the signed statement?”
“(a) In the last three years ending 30 June 1986, there were 75 reported accidents with casualties along Changi Coast Road. (b) The major cause of most of these accidents was speeding. Most of the accidents took place during off-peak hours and hours of darkness. (c) During the period, eight persons were killed along that stretch. Records of the number of persons injured in these accidents are not available. (d) Since 1982, the Traffic Police has mounted numerous enforcement operations along this stretch of road to apprehend hell-riders and other traffic offenders. The Traffic Police will step up enforcement and conduct more speed check operations along this road. CLOSURE OF MULTI-REVENUE COLLECTION CENTRES 19. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Finance if he will say what savings have resulted to the revenue by the closing down of Multi-Revenue Collection Centres and whether the savings more than balance the inconvenience and hardship that have been caused to many people by the closing down of such centres.”
“The breakdown of figures as requested by the Member is not available. From April 1985 to March 1986, the Immigration Department issued a total of 15,479 Employment Passes to all categories of foreigners. During the same period, 7,688 Employment Passes were returned for cancellation. As at 31 March 1986, there were 21,745 foreigners on Employment Pass compared to 24,212 as at 31 March 1985. ACCIDENTS ALONG CHANGI COAST ROAD 18. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many accidents occurred along Changi Coast Road during the last three years ending 30th June, 1986; (b) what were the likely causes of those accidents; (c) how many people were killed or injured in those accidents; and (d) what measures he proposes to take to minimize such accidents.”
“It is not quotations from the Report because there are very few quotations in the Report. The truth can be seen on videotape.”
“--- all viewers saw it, and it is on record.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, what better evidence can there be of the correctness of my quotations than the actual sound and video picture recording of the Member for Anson saying those quotations. And I am prepared to bring that into the House, if challenged.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, of course, it is scurrilous. The Head of our Judiciary, one of the longest serving Chief Justices in the Commonwealth, presents a handwritten note to the Prime Minister categorically stating that the decision to transfer Mr Michael Khoo was his (the Chief Justice) own decision, and the Member for Anson does not accept the Chief Justice's word and persist in his allegations of Executive interference. Surely that is scurrilous. Mr Speaker, Sir, his third question concerns the quotations I read out, statements he had made in the Commission of Inquiry. No, I do not have the official transcript of the Commission of Inquiry but every quotation that I read is on video tape, it is available and, if challenged, we can bring it at five minutes' notice, television and videotape, into this House and you can re-play it and check whether every quotation was or was not, were or were not, words uttered by the Member for Anson in the Commission's sittings. If challenged, we can bring it at five minutes' notice, Mr Speaker, Sir.”
“It is very simple. If it is not scurrilous, if it is not defamatory, why did the Member for Anson not repeat it outside the House when the press asked him?”
“Col. 916. The Member for Anson should not think that I quote without basis. Col. 916: 'The Prime Minister: I asked specifically on behalf of the Chief Justice, whether the Member is prepared to have what he said in this House re-stated without privilege.' This is what the Prime Minister asked on behalf of the Chief Justice. The Member for Anson obviously has forgotten all this. The third question he wants to know is whether the quotations that I gave in this House ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson should surely do his own homework.”
“Let me first refer to what the Prime Minister said [21st March 1986]: 'Mr Speaker, Sir, at the luncheon break I got in touch with the Chief Justice in order to acquaint him of the proceedings this morning. He was astounded that his written note to me and the file minutes of the Legal Service Commission have not been accepted without question. He asked if it could be so, and I said, repeating the Member for Anson, "that he wanted the circumstances of the transfer to be examined." The Chief Justice, reluctant though he is to lose the services of another High Court Judge, since one already has to look into the circumstances of the collapse of the hotel at Serangoon Road, has reluctantly agreed to make another Judge available.' Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister also reported that the Chief Justice asked if the Member for Anson would repeat what the Member for Anson had repeated. Mr Jeyaretnam: Where is that?”
“The Member for Anson's scurrilous statement is that ---”
“All right. I will give it to him. Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will bear with me. Col. 913. The scurrilous statement of the Member for Anson is ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson, it will be recalled, was shown a letter, a handwritten note, from the Chief Justice on the question as to who made the decision. The Chief Justice's note was produced here and the letter clearly stated that it was the Chief Justice who made the decision. The Member for Anson was not satisfied and he wanted to ask who was the originator. The Prime Minister then reported that he had further conversation with the Chief Justice and the ChiefJustice was astounded by ---”
“Starting with 10th January. This is what he said, in col. 702: 'So there will be a tendency ... for the District Judges to look over their shoulders and to worry whether they will be, in the discharge of their functions, incurring the displeasure of the Attorney-General or the Government.' That is an attack on our Judiciary because they take an Oath of Office to discharge their functions without fear and favour. To suggest that they are discharging their functions inconsistent with their oath is surely a gross attack on the Judiciary. Then we have, later on, his specific allegation, in col. 710, where he said that there was a notion amongst the District Judges for "fear being felt among District Judges about displeasing the Executive." In col. 712: 'The District Judges are under threat or fear of being transferred from their posts when they administer justice.' All these are attacks on the Judiciary that they do not carry out their duties without fear and favour. Then he asked, where is the scurrilous attack on the Chief Justice? I thought he should have known this. Because it was scurrilous, the Leader of the House lodged a complaint on the Member for Anson's refusal to --- Mr Jeyaretnam: Refer me to the passage ---”
“Attacks on the Judiciary were contained in the quotations, which I mentioned, on the 10th January.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going to repeat because he should have heard me when I spoke. I gave quotations in my presentation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has asked what are the passages where it can be said that his comments are an attack on the Judiciary. I would say all the passages that I quoted just now are an effrontery and an attack on the Judiciary.”
“Of course, there are special rules of law giving Members of Parliament special immunity from prosecution and punishment outside Parliament for what they say in this Chamber. But there is, and there surely must be, a corresponding duty not to abuse this privilege. And when a Member makes a scurrilous, unfounded allegation, about the Judiciary as the Member for Anson has done, then the facts must be determined for either he is proved correct, in which case the Government is crooked, or he must own up, admit that he made a false allegation and apologize to the Government and the Judiciary. Mr Speaker, Sir, what do we make of the conduct of such a Member? I say that it is irresponsible. It is dishonourable because it brings both the institution of Parliament and all of us Members into disrepute, and it is also misleading both the House as well as the people of Singapore. Sir, the House is duty bound to deplore his conduct as dishonourable. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“And if the Government sets up a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the evidence, according to him, that is not allowed; that is an illegality. Mr Speaker, Sir, at the end of the day, what do we have? We have a spectacle, a spectacle of an honourable Member who (a) makes serious allegations about the Judiciary; (b) who initiated the idea of an inquiry; (c) accepted the proposal for a Commission of Inquiry by a Judge; (d) said he would appear before whosoever is appointed; (e) describes himself as a person who never resiles from what he says. In the end, he chickens out, turns tail and does not back up his allegations. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Commission proceeded and came to its findings. Members have read the Report. The key findings are (1) that there is no truth to the Member's allegations of Executive interference in the Subordinate Courts. (2) that the Member clearly never had the intention to give evidence, as he did not have the evidence to substantiate his allegations. (3) that there was no doubt that at no time had any member of the Executive interfered with the delegated functions of the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General. (4) that it follows that there was nothing improper in the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo. Mr Speaker, Sir, we would, of course, like to know whether the Member is maintaining his allegations in persisting in them. He did not cry "privilege" when the Prime Minister proposed the Commission of Inquiry headed by a Judge. More than 1(r) months passed between the announcement of the Commission of Inquiry and its sitting, he did not raise the question of privilege then. Mr Speaker, Sir, in closing, let me say that, of course, there is freedom of speech in Parliament.”
“What does "absolute prohibition" mean? It means that whatever conditions of his are met, whatever requests made by him are met, whatever terms of reference and so on that he raises are met, he is absolutely prohibited even if he voluntarily wanted to give evidence from doing so. Mr Speaker, Sir, no one can force or compel the Member or any Member of this House to repeat or to explain what he said in Parliament. And indeed no one forced him. The Commissioner made it clear that he was not being forced and he would not be forced. Counsel also made it clear that the Member was not being compelled. But what the Member was saying is that, even if he voluntarily wanted to give evidence, there is a rule of law in the Privileges Act which prohibited him. Mr Speaker, Sir, is there such a basis in law? It is unheard of. Does not the Member for Anson know, as a lawyer, that the very concept of privilege means it is a special benefit conferred on Members of this House, giving immunity from prosecution and punishment for things said here, which immunity is not given to other members or strangers. Does he not know that privilege by its very nature is a shield for a defence which one can waive. And privilege is certainly not a disadvantage to the Member of the House. His concept of absolute privilege simply means that a Member can come to this House, say the most wild and blatant lies, regardless of its impact and the Government is prohibited from inquiring into the evidence. He can, for example, according to his thesis, allege that all our defence and security secrets are being passed on to a foreign country and that our country's security is in jeopardy. People, of course, will be alarmed.”
“He is willing to abet the Commission of this crime. "I have realized I make myself liable to abetting a contravention of this Act, but I am quite prepared to abet if you decide. I would answer the questions which amounts to my waiving the privilege" and so on. His position was that he was ever ready to get into the witness box provided certain conditions are met. What are these conditions? He said that he would go into the witness box, give evidence only if he was given prior assurance that certain persons he named would be called as witnesses, and be given the right to cross-examine. He is a lawyer. He knew that such pre-conditions could not be agreed to because of the rule of relevance. This is spelt out in the Commission's Report. The Member can read it. He is a lawyer. Mr Speaker, Sir, the well-known rule is known as the Rule of Evidence and if the Member for Anson refers to pages 32 and 33 of the Report he will note that this is the practice in many Commissions of Inquiry. What happened in the afternoon? In the afternoon, it was no longer a question of waiver of privilege on certain conditions. Now, he was no longer itching to go into the witness box. It was no longer a waiver of conditions. He said that there was absolute privilege. Parliamentary privilege, according to him, absolutely prohibited him from going into the witness box. Let us recall what he said in the afternoon session. 'This is an absolute prohibition.' 'It is not a privilege that can be waived. Now, this, as I see it, is an absolute prohibition, and I pointed out the penal sanctions that attach to anyone who violates any provision of this Act. I will not answer any questions or give any evidence about what I said in Parliament because there is an absolute prohibition.' A 180-degree turnaround.”
“That is right. In other words, the Prime Minister made it clear that the Commission will be headed by a High Court Judge, that it will inquire into all the allegations he had made about the Judiciary, that he will be one of the prime suppliers of evidence. The Member for Anson was the next person to speak after the Prime Minister sat. Did he reject what was proposed? Did he reject the idea of it being chaired by a High Court Judge? Did he reject the proposal that the Commission look into all the allegations? Did he allege that there was some grave illegality about the Commission? Did he allege that the Commission proposed by the Prime Minister would be violating privilege? No. Immediately after the Prime Minister spoke, this is what the Member had to say, and I quote [col. 915]: 'Now he proposes that a High Court Judge be appointed. Well, so be it. So it is for the Prime Minister, and if he thinks that is what it should be, well, fine. I will, [this is the Member for Anson] if invited, certainly make representations to whoever is appointed.' In other words, not only did he not reject, he assured the House that he would appear before whoever is appointed. Mr Speaker, Sir, Members have the Report of the Commission. They have read it. Let me only highlight certain features of the session in the morning and the afternoon of the first day. The facts speak for themselves. In the morning the Member for Anson claimed that he was ready, willing, able and anxious to get into the witness box. Well, Members have seen it on television, and I will quote at random what the Member said: 'Don't let it be imagined for a minute that I do not wish to give evidence. I am quite happy to give evidence.' He said that the Commission might be violating the Privileges Act. He said, Never mind!”
“47, col. 914]: 'the basis for all the allegations made, all the statements made by the Member in this Chamber concerning the Judiciary and the administration of the law, and to look specifically into the two items he has made.' I need to underline, Mr Speaker, that the Prime Minister made it clear that the Inquiry will look into all the statements made by the Member in this House concerning the Judiciary. Did the Member for Anson challenge this? He did not. The Prime Minister also said: 'There will be someone appointed to conduct it and the Member for Anson will be one of the prime suppliers of evidence to this High Court Judge.' I am reading from col. 914 of the Hansard of 21st March, 1986.”
“I mentioned those dates because the Member in his statement on the 19th March had said that the Senior District Judge had been transferred because an appeal was filed by the Public Prosecutor. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the sitting of 21st March 1986, the Prime Minister produced his account of a conversation with the Chairman of the Public Service Commission. The Chairman of the Public Service Commission reported that these transfers were done in the ordinary course of the Legal Service Commission's affairs by the Chief Justice in consultation with the Attorney-General. Then a written note from the Chief Justice was produced by the Prime Minister where the Chief Justice stated categorically that the decision to transfer was his own decision. The Member for Anson persisted and did not apologize. The following day, the Prime Minister produced internal Legal Service Commission documents and minutes, also suggesting quite clearly that these transfers were done by the Chief Justice in consultation with the Attorney-General and that power had been delegated to them. Then what happened? Let us recall that when the Member for Anson refused to accept all this evidence, the Member for Anson then suggested the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into how it came about that the man was transferred. Members will note that it was the Member for Anson who initiated the idea of an inquiry. It was he who suggested that there should be an inquiry. Then there was a debate as to the nature of the inquiry, form terms of reference, and so on. Eventually, the Prime Minister suggested that, instead of a Parliamentary inquiry, there be established a Commission of Inquiry headed by a Judge of the High Court. The Prime Minister said that the Inquiry will look into, and I quote [Vol.”
“That was not a promotion.' Then he went on to say: '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.' Members will note that these are not general innuendoes but specific allegations that he had personal knowledge of Judges being transferred because their decisions were unacceptable. Then on the 19th of March, in the exchange that he had with the Prime Minister, he alleged that the prosecution against him had been politically motivated, and he said: [Vol. 47, col. 696] 'The other thing I said was we were acquitted on three of those charges by the Senior District Judge and after he had written his judgment, because an appeal was filed by the Public Prosecutor against the acquittal, he was transferred.' Again, a specific allegation, that the Senior District Judge had been transferred. Why? Because an appeal had been filed by the Public Prosecutor. After he had written his judgment, because an appeal was filed by the Public Prosecutor against acquittal, he was transferred. Specific allegation, giving the reason why he was transferred. Incidentally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I must inform the Members of the House that the Senior District Judge gave oral judgment on 14th January 1984. The hearing of the appeal before the Chief Justice took place in May 1984. In August 1984, the Senior District Judge was transferred. The Chief Justice's decision was given in April 1985.”
“First, is the Member for Anson able, willing, to back up his allegations? Is he truthful? Is he honest? Or is he a cowardly man who only makes such allegations when protected by parliamentary privilege? Or is he fabricating these allegations for political purposes? The second thing that the public wants to know is what is the position of the Government? Is the Government ready, and willing, to have such serious allegations investigated, scrutinized, to determine the truth? The Government's position on this, Members will recall, was stated by the Prime Minister in this House on 22nd December 1981 in reply to the Member for Anson's allegations about corruption. I quote from the Prime Minister [Hansard, Vol. 41 col. 332]: 'If there is any allegation of misconduct by any Member of this House or any Member of the Government, or official of the Government, there will be a full inquiry, a full prosecution, and every facility for the facts to be unravelled. That is the strength of this Government.' Mr Speaker, Sir, Members are familiar with the sequence of events which led to the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry. I will not repeat all of them but let me refresh and recapitulate the salient events. These are the sittings of 10th January, and of 19th and 21st March. Sir, on the 10th of January, there was the Second Reading of the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill and the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill. In the course of these debates, the Member made allegations about the Subordinate Courts Judiciary. Let me quote from Hansard [Vol. 46, cols. 710-2]. On the 10th January, the Member said: '.... a Senior District Judge .... delivered judgment in a criminal case. Some months later, he was removed and he was transferred to the Attorney-General's Chambers.”
“We remember his defamatory words about the Howe Yoon Chong family and, more recently, his scurrilous comments made about the Chief Justice. And when the Chief Justice, through the Prime Minister, asked that the Member for Anson repeat it outside, he did not do so. Mr Speaker, Sir, this then is his habit. This then is the pattern of conduct of the Member of the House, a pattern of making wild, reckless, scandalous statements under the cover of parliamentary privilege. But of all the allegations that he has made, of all the statements that he has made, this is the worst and the most serious: to suggest that the Government is suborning the Judiciary, that the Government has manipulated the Judiciary and transferred officers. For what reason? Because the Government, according to his words, was displeased with the Judges' decisions. To suggest that one Judge, Mr Michael Khoo, was transferred because of his decision on a case concerning the Member and he was transferred because an appeal had been filed by the Deputy Public Prosecutor. The question, Sir, is this. When politicians, Members of the House, make such scurrilous statements about the Judiciary, should they be allowed to do so freely? We say no. Such scurrilous, scandalous, contemptible, statements must never be allowed to pass without the closest scrutiny. Once made, such serious allegations about the Judiciary must be scrutinized. The facts must be proven and the truth established. Why? Because, Mr Speaker, Sir, either the Member for Anson is dishonest and is lying or he, the accuser, is right which means that the Government is crooked. It is one or the other. It cannot be otherwise. The public therefore needs to know two things when such allegations are made about the Judiciary.”
“And for persons abroad, it will undermine the confidence of investors who have multi -million-dollar investments and contracts in Singapore and who expect and who have a right to expect that disputes will be settled in accordance with the law, facts and evidence. There is no shortage of foreign critics who want to join the Member for Anson in bringing such scurrilous accusations. Members will recall one foreign journal was in fact made to appear before the court for contempt of court and they apologized. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson's attack on the Judiciary is not the first or isolated instance. Ever since he became a Member of this House, he has embarked on a systematic strategy of maligning our basic fundamental values and institutions. (a) When he first came into this House, he made allegations of corruption against the Government. And when confronted and challenged, he quickly backed away and said that these were rumours. (b) He insinuated that there was some cover-up concerning Mr Phey Yew Kok. He wanted a commission of inquiry and was offered a commission of inquiry provided it did not prejudge mat- ters before the courts, and he did not come back on the offer. (c) He has made totally unfounded allegations about the Police, abuse of powers, and this morning we showed that he fabricated the whole story and he withdrew the allegation. Not only that, he has also in this House persistently defamed the character of innocent persons outside this House, persons who are unable to defend themselves. And when challenged to repeat these allegations outside, he declined to do so. We remember his defamatory words about Mr S.R. Nathan.”