Mr Speaker, Sir, on this my first speech in this House, if it is not inappropriate, may I first of all thank you, Mr Speaker, for the courtesy that I have received at your hands and express the hope that with your able guidance I may be able to contribute to the proceedings of this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that on this, my first speech in this House, I am able to compliment the Government in its efforts and determination to stamp out corruption and I can assure the Government and the Members of this House of my Party's support in all that the Government does to stamp out corruption in this land of ours. Corruption is, as has been said, a cancer on the society and must be ruthlessly rooted out. But what we do not always approve are the methods that are used by the law enforcement agencies when they go about carrying out the task assigned to them, and the CPIB is no exception. I need not remind hon. Members of this House of the need for law enforcement officers to act strictly under and in accordance with the law and to respect the rights of citizens in the investigations they carry out into any offence which they are authorized to carry out. It is, if I may say so, Mr Speaker, absolutely essential that if there is to be respect for law and order among the citizens of our country, then law enforcement officers themselves should respect the laws of the country and act under and in accordance with the law. If law enforcement officers bend the law or abuse the provisions of the law for the object of carrying out their task, however laudable it may be, the result can only be that there will be among the populace of the country a growing disrespect for law and order when they see law enforcement officers not complying with the law of the land. It is not unknown that CPIB officers have very often abused the law in the investigations that they have conducted into offences which they are empowered to investigate. It is not unknown that quite often witnesses are detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act when they are called up to the CPIB headquarters in Stamford Road and they are unable, or refuse perhaps, to give the answers or information requested of them by the CPIB officers. Mr Speaker, Sir, it may be said that these measures are necessary if you want to stamp out corruption because corruption is perhaps the greater evil. But the danger is that if you resort to these measures to achieve however laudable an object, you open the door to innocent persons being convicted, You open the door to fabrication of evidence under pressure by persons who may feel that the only way to get out of the clutches of the CPIB is to say whatever the CPIB wishes them to say and to implicate perhaps innocent officers or innocent members of the public. There was not very long ago the case of a witness who was called up to the CPIB offices for a statement to be given in connection with an offence alleged against another. This man was picked up by the CPIB very early in the morning at about seven o'clock and he was not released by the CPIB till late in the evening. Before he left, there was a statement taken from him which he was asked to sign. After he had left the offices of the CPIB he was asked whether he had read all the statements that he had made to the CPIB and whether he had read them carefully before he acknowledged the correctness of the statements. He then had second thoughts about all this because he said he was in no condition, when it came to the time of his release, to appreciate fully all that had been recorded from him. He then went and saw a solicitor and went back to the offices of the CPIB to ask whether he could re-read the statements that he had made to the CPIB. There was some demur at this request but eventually it was granted, and he read this in the presence of the solicitor who accompanied him and he asked whether he might delete two sentences in his statement because he said they were incorrect. He maintained that he had not said those two statements. He was not allowed to delete those statements, Mr Speaker, Sir. He was told that if he wanted to vary his statements he could be detained in this country for another 12 months: presumably the CPIB officers were referring to the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. He was told that he could not have his passport. He was not a resident of Singapore. The man settled for his passport and, not wanting any risk of detention for 12 months, he agreed to leave his statement as it was and left with his solicitor with the passport. Eventually when the case came up for trial, ho told the Court that those two sentences in that statement were incorrect and he could not on oath repeat those two statements in the witness box. The man was then prosecuted for making a false statement to a CPIB officer, a statement which he had at the earliest opportunity informed the CPIB was not a true statement and which he wanted to retract, Fortunately for him he was acquitted. There was another case which arose recently after allegations were made that our players were bribed in the Malaysia Cup Final in Kuala Lumpur. After the allegations had appeared in the papers, the CPIB were called in to investigate allegations of corruption among the football players. The man I am talking of was not a player. He was a respectable executive of one of the major companies in Singapore. He was summarily picked up from his office about 10 o'clock in the morning and was taken to the CPIB, even though he protested that it was not convenient for him at that time. He was taken there and detained by the CPIB. He was not released till about 11.00 p.m. During that time he was not allowed to leave the room, even to go to the lavatory to answer the call of nature or even to go and get any food. Then at about 11 o'clock at night he was bundled into a car and taken to his house where the house was ransacked by the CPIB officers. The poor wife was woken up and the children too. The CPIB officers ransacked the house and took some documents away. That was not the end. When they left the house he was taken to his office where his table and drawers were again ransacked. He was eventually brought back to the CPIB. He was then told that he would have to bring his son there because the son happened to be with the father in Kuala Lumpur to watch the game. The son was below 18 years of age. He said that his son was staying with his mother-in-law. So off they drove to the mother-in-law's house. The son was picked up in spite of the protest by the father that his son was attending school. He asked whether the CPIB officers could not leave the son till the following morning if they wished to ask him any questions. No. He was picked up and taken to the CPIB. The son was detained for some hours at the CPIB for questioning. I have taken time to mention these cases because it seems to me that if you adopt these tactics, you open the door to fabrication of evidence and that, to me at least, is a greater evil than corruption. The Bill that is before the House now seeks to extend the very wide powers that are now possessed by the Director, the Deputy Director, Assistant Directors, Chief Special Investigator or Senior Special Investigators. It proposes to extend these powers right down to the lowest officer, that is, the Special Investigator. Every officer in the CPIB, right from the Director to the lowest officer, is going to be armed with all these special powers. I would ask this House, or advise this House, to be cautious before we give such extensive powers to the officers unless there is also provided at the same time proper checks on the exercise of these powers by the CPIB officers. I regret that the Act and the Bill do not contain any checks on the exercise of the powers granted to them by the CPIB. I would refer in particular, Mr Speaker, Sir, to clause 8. Clause 8 seeks to amend section 17 of the principal Act which provides that the Public Prosecutor may empower: 'the Director, the Deputy Director, or an assistant director . . . or any senior special investigator [it stops with that] to investigate any bank account, share account, purchase account, expense account or any other account, or any safe deposit box in any bank, and the order shall be sufficient authority for the disclosure or production by any person of all or any information or accounts or documents or articles as may be required by the officer so authorised.' Mr Speaker, Sir, you will see from that that it is a very wide, far-reaching power. Power is given to officers to open up any bank account of any person - share account, purchase account, expense account or any other account, or any safe deposit box in any bank. The question is: is it not possible that if this power is entrusted to junior officers, for example, the special investigators, is there not a danger that this power may perhaps be abused for whatever reasons, maybe for personal reasons or vendetta or for other reasons, because they have been put up to it by someone who is interested in investigating the accounts? One can think of many reasons why this power can be abused. What is alarming is that subsection (2) of this section renders the person who fails to answer any question or disclose the information liable to be convicted and to suffer a fine of $2,000 or an imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. Then we move on to clause 10. That likewise extends the power which hitherto has only been exercised, on the directions of the Public Prosecutor, by the Deputy Director or any assistant director or any police officer of or above the rank of assistant superintendent or any senior special investigator - it extends this power which has hitherto only been exercised by these senior officers to ordinary special investigators. This section authorises them to inspect banker's books. May I again say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that this is a very wide power and it may be necessary that to fight corruption we have got to give the officers the power to make proper investigation. All I am saying is: let us take care that we do not give wide, very extensive powers to junior officers unless we provide at the same time proper checks on the exercise of these powers and see that they are exercised in accordance with and under the law. Then we come to clause 11 which deals with powers of search. Powers of search are contained in section 21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. What the amendment proposes to do is to put it into a neater form because of the various amendments that had been made to the section. Now, under the proposed amendment and under the law as it stands, any special investigator may enter somebody's house or flat without obtaining any search warrant in the first place, if - and he is made the sole judge of this - he has reason to believe that by the delay the object of the search as it says here, "is likely to be frustrated". If he, first of all, believes that the delay in obtaining a search warrant is likely to frustrate his search, then he can dispense with the necessity of obtaining a search warrant and he can then enter anybody's house and ransack the house from top to bottom in his purported exercise of powers granted under this Act. Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the things that we must accept is that our people do have some rights and it is important that the Government, the law enforcement agencies and Government departments recognize this and respect the rights of our citizens. It is a wrongful act for any person to enter into the house of another person unless he has been invited by that other person, If the law is going to change that, and to make an exception to this, then should not there be proper safeguards in favour of the citizen? And I am surprised, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there is no requirement in this proposed amendment to section 21 that before any CPIB officer conducts a search of any premises, he should produce to the occupant of the place the search warrant if he has obtained a search warrant and hand him a copy of the search warrant if requested so that the occupant may know under what rights the CPIB officer is invading his privacy and, at the same time, show the occupant his certificate of appointment to show that he is a CPIB officer authorized to conduct the search. What often happens is that our citizens are neither shown the search warrant - and it is anybody's guess whether the officer has a search warrant upon him or not - nor is the occupant shown the certificate of appointment. He may say that he comes from the CPIB but the certificate of appointment which every CPIB officer is required to carry under section 4 is not produced. I would ask the Minister if he would consider amending the proposed clause 11 to include provisions requiring CPIB officers, before exercising the power of search given to them under this section, to either produce the search warrant and give a copy to the person whose place is to be searched and at the same time produce the certificate of appointment or, where he does not have a search warrant, requiring the CPIB officer to give a signed statement of the offence he is investigating and stating the reasons why he had not obtained a search warrant before carrying out his search. In my submission, Mr Speaker, these provisions are essential if we are going to enhance respect among our citizens for law and order. Then only will our citizens respect the enforcement officers and those whose task, unpleasant as it is, is to enforce laws in this country. I have dealt with the powers given to the CPIB officers and the need to provide proper checks. There are two other matters on which I would like to speak, Sir, and they are these. I need not remind the Members of this House of the value of precept and example. This Government has a name for being neither corrupt nor corruptible but, Mr Speaker, as the saying goes in regard to the administration of justice, it is not enough that justice is done but must be manifestly seen to be done. I think it is a matter in which Members of this House can set an example, an example which can be followed by all our citizens. What I am going to suggest, Mr Speaker, is that the Minister include a new clause in this Bill requiring all Members of Parliament to file a statutory declaration of all assets and movable and immovable properties belonging to or possessed by the Member, his wife or spouse, sons and daughters, and requiring hereafter every Member elected to Parliament to file a similar declaration before taking his oath and seat in Parliament. We have the example over the Causeway of the Prime Minister there directing his Ministers and his top civil servants to file a similar declaration of assets. It is something which we can follow to our advantage because it is something in which we can give the lead to all our people in Singapore that it is absolutely necessary for us to remain free from this cancer of corruption. I was, Mr Speaker, Sir, indeed going to table a question at this sitting of Parliament for the Hon. Prime Minister to answer whether he would consider making such a direction. But I was prevented from tabling this question because of the provision in the Constitution and in the Standing Orders that until I have taken my oath and taken my seat, I cannot table any questions. So I would commend this provision to the Minister. There is another provision that I would like to see, Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Bill and that is the punishment for the improper use of facilities and services provided and paid for out of public funds by any Member of Parliament or by any civil servant or public officer as defined in the Constitution, whether in his own interest or purpose or in the interest of a party or organization to which he belongs. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is noted that in Singapore today there is close identification of a political party with the Government and I have heard that facilities and services provided for and paid out of public funds are put at the disposal of this party. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is wrong and should be made punishable because it is also corruption - using facilities and services provided for and paid out of public funds.