Hansard, 1986-07-29

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah) - from 9th to 26th May, 1986. Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Geylang Serai) - from 18th May to 1st June and from 16th to 25th June, 1986. Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon) - on 21st May, from 23rd May to 30th June and from 18th July to 1st August, 1986. Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Jalan Kayu) - from 21st to 25th May and from 31st May to 22nd June, 1986. Mr Ong Teng Cheong (Kim Keat), Second Deputy Prime Minister - from 23rd May to 4th June and from 18th to 21st July, 1986. Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol) - from 25th May to 13th June, 1986 and from 30th to 31st July, 1986. Mr Ong Pang Boon (Telok Ayer) - from 29th May to 28th June, 1986. Dr Aline K. Wong (Changkat) - from 30th May to 20th June, 1986. Dr Koh Lip Lin (Nee Soon) - from 31st May to 28th June, from 5th to 12th July and from 18th August to 12th September, 1986. Mr Lee Yock Suan (Cheng San), Acting Minister for Labour - from 31st May to 21st June, 1986. Mr Chua Sian Chin (MacPherson) - from 31st May to 1st July, 1986. Mr Eric Cheong Yuen Chee (Toa Payoh) - from 1st to 14th June, 1986. Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens) - from 2nd to 12th June, from 20th June to 3rd July and from 22nd to 26th July, 1986. Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa) - from 2nd to 7th June, 1986. Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru) - from 2nd to 12th June, 1986. Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein) - from 2nd to 8th June and from 19th to 28th June, 1986. Mr Chng Hee Kok (Radin Mas) - from 3rd to 14th June and from 22nd to 28th June, 1986. Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon (Tiong Bahru), Minister of State, Ministry of Community Development - from 4th to 29th June, 1986. Mr Wong Kan Seng (Kuo Chuan), Acting Minister for Community Development - from 7th to 20th June and from 24th to 29th June, 1986. Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay) - from 7th to 27th June, 1986. Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong (Paya Lebar) - from 8th to 26th June and from 22nd to 28th July, 1986. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua) - from 9th to 20th June and from 23rd to 28th June, 1986. Dr Yeo Ning Hong (Kim Seng), Minister for Communications and Information and Second Minister for Defence - from 10th to 16th June, 1986. Mr Yeo Toon Chia (Ang Mo Kio) - from 10th to 18th June, 1986. Dr Tay Eng Soon, PBM (River Valley), Minister of State, Ministry of Education - from 13th to 20th June, 1986. Dr Toh Chin Chye (Rochore) - from 13th to 21st June, 1986. Mr Teh Cheang Wan (Geylang West), Minister for National Development - from 14th to 28th June, 1986. Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah) - from 15th to 20th June, from 24th June to 18th July and from 28th to 31st July, 1986. Dr Wan Soon Bee (West Coast) - from 15th to 28th June and from 27th July to 3rd August, 1986. Encik Abbas Abu Amin, PPA (Pasir Panjang) - from 16th to 20th June and from 19th to 28th July, 1986. Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra), Deputy Speaker - from 16th to 30th June, 1986. Encik Ibrahim Othman (Tanah Merah) - from 16th to 28th June, 1986. Mr S. Vasoo (Bo Wen) - from 16th to 19th June, 1986. Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs - from 19th to 21st June, 1986. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong, PBM (Cairnhill) - from 21st to 29th June and from 8th to 10th September, 1986. Mr S. Dhanabalan (Kallang), Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the House - from 22nd to 29th June, 1986. Encik Yatiman Yusof (Kampong Kembangan), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs - from 22nd to 29th June and from 22nd to 26th July, 1986. BG Lee Hsien Loong (Teck Ghee), Acting Minister for Trade and Industry - from 22nd June to 4th July, 1986. Mr Yeo Cheow Tong (Hong Kah), Minister of State, Ministry of Health and Ministry of Foreign Affairs - from 22nd June to 3rd July and from 22nd to 26th July, 1986. Dr Hu Tsu Tau, Richard (Kreta Ayer), Minister for Finance and Minister for Health - from 23rd to 26th June, 1986. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam (Sembawang), Minister for Education - from 23rd June to 1st July, 1986. Mr Goh Chok Tong (Marine Parade), First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence - from 24th to 29th June, 1986. Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights) - from 24th June to 20th July, 1986. Dr Ahmad Mattar (Brickworks), Minister for the Environment - from 24th to 28th June, 1986. Mr E.W. Barker (Tanglin), Minister for Law - from 25th June to 3rd July and from 21st to 23rd July, 1986. Dr Lee Boon Yang (Jalan Besar), Minister of State, Ministry of Trade and Industry and Ministry of Home Affairs - from 25th to 30th June and from 22nd to 26th July, 1986. Mr S. Rajaratnam (Kampong Glam), Senior Minister, Prime Minister's Office - from 27th June to 3rd July, 1986. Mr Chai Chong Yii (Bukit Batok) - from 17th July to 2nd August, 1986. Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee) - from 22nd to 26th July, 1986. Dr Dixie Tan (Ulu Pandan) - from 24th to 25th July, 1986. Maj Fong Sip Chee (Kampong Chai Chee) - from 24th July to 3rd August, 1986. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bill was assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 4th June, 1986 Singapore Family Planning and Population Board (Repeal) Bill. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Prime Minister if he will explain his statement to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that our children are "so well-dressed, so well shod, well-combed hair, watches. Worse of all, over-fed. Such good food and masses of it".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am replying on behalf of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Television was in clear and simple English and it required no explanation for those who saw or heard it.

Sir, will the Minister of State, speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, be able to tell this House which children was the Prime Minister speaking of when he said, "our children are so well-dressed, so well shod, well-combed hair, watches. Worse of all, over-fed. Such good food and masses of it"? Was the Prime Minister speaking of his own children? Was he speaking of the children of the wealthy, or was he speaking of the children of our citizens who live mainly in 1-room, 2-room and 3-room HDB flats?

Sir, I think it is quite clear from the Prime Minister's interview that he was referring to the children of Singapore.

I regret that the Prime Minister is not here to answer the Question. Does the Minister not concede that this is a complete distortion of the truth about Singapore's children?

The distortion is only in the Member's mind, Mr Speaker, Sir. Even a tailor - I think he is a very perceptive tailor - has made the observation not too long ago, and this was reported in the Straits Times of 9th June 1986. May I ask the Clerk to distribute copies of the report in the Straits Times dated 9th June? [Copies of report distributed to hon. Members.] He said: 'Unlike the old days when one had to buy the cloth and hurry to the tailor to be measured, at the shop, from just $9, one can be suitably attired in readiness for the new school term. 'But for special orders, that is, if the student is fatter than the average sizes we have in stock, we can sew it in two to three days," said tailor Chiang Sow Tien. 'But most will find the sizes fitting because since three years ago, we have sewn larger uniforms as today's students seem to be fatter or bigger," he said. 'Besides sizes, it is not only the junior college students who are fashion-conscious; even the lower secondary school students want trendy baggy-look shirts with narrow ankle-width pants. 'In the past, it was different. Even the uniforms were not that varied in colour and design - just the simple white top with the standard blue, brown or khaki pants and pinafore.' These are his words, Sir. I think the tailor has been very perceptive. He has seen that our children in Singapore have actually put on a lot of weight.

Is the Minister or the Prime Minister not aware that there have been reports of surveys done in Singapore which show that quite a number of our children go to school hungry and that a good proportion of them suffer from malnutrition?

Sir, if the Member for Anson would like to tell me where these reports were made, I would like to have them looked into. Again, let me show some statistics to the Member for Anson since he is so imperceptive compared to our tailor friend. Here is a study made by the Health Ministry on the average height and weight of school children between the years 1970-73 and 1983. May I request the Clerk to distribute these tables (Cols. 211 - 212) to hon. Members. tables - AVERAGE HEIGHT/WEIGHT OF SCHOOL CHILDREN 1970-73 and 1983 (Cols. 211 - 212) [Copies of tables distributed to hon. Members.] This survey of school children showed that for children of the ages of 7, 12 and 16 - these are the ages of primary 1, primary 6 and secondary 4 students - the average increase in height ranged from 2.2% to 5.7%. And the average increase in weight ranged from 3.6% to 21.3%. I think these tables are very clear. They are objectively done. They are measured among this cohort of students who were in schools in the years 1973 and 1983. A further point, Mr Speaker, Sir. There is another table (Cols. 213 - 214) which I would like the Clerk to distribute. It shows the percentage prevalence of obesity among Singapore school children from 1976 to 1985 and of primary 1, primary 6 and secondary 4 students. table - PERCENTAGE PREVALENCE OF OBESITY AMONG SINGAPORE SCHOOL CHILDREN OF YEAR, SEX AND LEVEL OF EDUCATION 1976 TO 1985 (Cols. 213 - 214) [Copies of table distributed to hon. Members.] This table, Sir, shows that for primary 1 boys in the year 1976, the percentage of obesity occurred in 1.57% of the cohort. In 1985, it rose to 7.77%. This is an increase of five times between the years 1976 and 1985. Similarly, you can see an increasing trend among the primary 1, primary 6 and secondary 4 students.

Would the Minister like to do a survey in my constituency of children living in the 1-room and 2-room blocks and find out from them what they have to say about this?

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Anson is so concerned about his constituents, I think he can do the survey for us.

asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence if he will say (a) how many of the 102 national servicemen who suffered injuries whilst under training in 1985 suffered them as a result of being compelled to continue with the exercises after they had complained that they were unable to continue; (b) how many such cases have come to light so far this year; and (c) how many cases of suicide were there in the army in 1985 and so far this year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. In 1985, 102 servicemen suffered injuries in training which led to varying degrees of permanent disability. There is no report that any of them have been compelled to continue with their training despite their being unable to do so. So far this year, there has also been no such case reported of any national serviceman suffering injuries resulting in permanent disability as a result of such compulsion. Mindef does not condone ill-treatment of servicemen. If any Member of Parliament is aware of any ill-treatment case, I would urge him to inform Mindef about it as soon as possible, giving details of the case, so that Mindef can trace and investigate it promptly. If the Member for Anson wishes to seek further clarification on a specific case, he should table a question giving the particulars of the serviceman involved so that a proper answer can be given based on the facts of the case. Coming to suicides, there were six cases of suicide in the SAF in 1985. None of them were found to be service related. So far, there have been three cases of suicide in the Armed Forces this year. Two of them were not service related while the reasons for the third case have not yet been established as investigations are still in progress. Members will, of course, be aware that in suicide cases, in addition to Mindef's own investigations, Coroner's inquiries are also conducted.

Would the Minister of State be able to tell us a little bit about why or how they came to suffer these injuries whilst under training?

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are training related injuries. Soldiers fall down, soldiers break bones, soldiers sometimes suffer heat exhaustion, soldiers meet all kinds of mishaps despite all the precautions which are taken in the process of giving them realistic and tough training.

asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence what is the rationale, taking into account the current economic situation in Singapore, for spending so heavily on defence when Vietnam is not in a position to launch any attack on any other country in the next decade and China has abandoned its policy of exporting revolutions abroad.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Mindef budget for financial year 1986 was thoroughly discussed in this House in the Committee of Supply during the Budget debates. Both the amount to be spent and the need to maintain our defence expenditure in a recession were explicitly covered. There were no dissenting views. It is a long-standing policy of the Government to put aside 6% of the GDP each year for Mindef. As the economy has grown over the years, the amount we can afford has gone up. This has enabled us to build up the SAF and equip our national servicemen with better modern equipment. Last year, because of the recession, the economy contracted. This year again, growth was expected to be negative. 6% of the estimated 1986 GDP therefore represents a smaller absolute amount than 6% of the estimated 1985 GDP. As a result, there is a reduction of $172 million in the Mindef budget this year. The Services will have to strive hard to maintain their readiness and accomplish their missions with fewer resources. The Member for Potong Pasir has mentioned what he considers to be two possible threats to our security. He has dismissed them as being inconsequential. He implies that no other mishaps need to be prepared for. A responsible government must take a more cautious view. The Government does not publicly discuss possible threats to Singapore because to name a possible threat is to make a definite enemy. But it is no secret that Singapore is situated in an unsettled part of the world. No matter how carefully we may try to predict trends in the region, surprises are bound to happen. Tumultuous dramatic events, whose outcome cannot possibly be foreseen, may unfold at any time, without warning. But while dire threats can materialize suddenly, the SAF takes years, if not decades, to build up. We ignore these facts and lower our guard at our peril.

Sir, may I refer to the Acting Minister to the $2 billion spent on the surveillance aeroplanes. Why is there a need for that large amount when the two possible threats mentioned in my question are not foreseeable in the near future? These surveillance planes apparently can go beyond our neighbours. So what is the purpose? Is that not over-reacting?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would make three points. (1) The aeroplanes do not cost $2 billion. They cost less than $1 billion and the amount has been discussed in this House. (2) The need for these aeroplanes has also been discussed in this House. Perhaps it was before the Member for Potong Pasir became a Member. (3) The Member asked me if the aeroplanes are not needed to deal with what he feels to be threats. To quote him, "Vietnam is not in a position to launch any attack" and "China has abandoned its policy of exporting revolutions abroad", therefore why do we need the aeroplanes at all? Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there are other threats which perhaps have not been encompassed in the Member for Potong Pasir's formulation. I would remind him of another threat which was discussed in this House and which was pointed out by the Member for Anson, again before the last General Elections, and that is, the possibility of aircraft carriers sailing into our harbour and "what can we do about it", in the words of the Member for Anson. I am not saying that that is a plausible threat. I am merely reminding the Member for Potong Pasir that there are more possibilities than those that he has considered.

Sir, can I ask the Acting Minister, in view of the reduced amount available to the Ministry of Defence this year, can he assure us that our defence capability has not diminished in any way?

Mr Speaker, Sir, our defence capability has to be built up over many years, and each year that we are able to afford to, we add to our strength and our preparedness. Having $172 million less, inevitably means that preparations which we would like to do now have to be postponed. However, within those constraints, the Member for Serangoon Gardens can rest assured that Mindef is doing everything possible, and our defence as of today is not seriously compromised.

What about the pirates?

Sir, I am no military man. The Acting Minister is a General.

Brigadier-General.

Now he says something which astonishes me. He sees the possibility of an aircraft carrier sailing towards Singapore.

Mr Chiam, can I have your supplementary question?

Yes. The supplementary question is, from which country would this aircraft carrier be coming from? China? Vietnam? Russia? He cannot just put something and frighten us out of the blue.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may respond to that question. First of all, I am not the Acting Minister for Defence. Secondly, it is not my aircraft carrier. Thirdly, the possibility of such an aircraft carrier was raised not by the Government Members of Parliament, but by the Member for Anson. And if he wants to know which country the ship sails from, he should look up the Hansard.

Sir, defence I would imagine is a serious topic, but the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry takes this whole thing like a joke. There is a large sum of money spent on defence of Singapore.

Can I have your supplementary question, Mr Chiam?

Yes, but he has not answered my question. Which country does he foresee this aircraft carrier coming from? If there is no such country, then do not put it up in this House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I commend the Member for Potong Pasir to have some private conversation with his neighbour. I do not put forward the aircraft carrier as a serious threat. I put it forward as an illustration that there are many possibilities which may threaten our security. There are many developments which may be totally unexpected, which may result ---

Do you really see the possibility of an aircraft carrier steaming into Singapore? Do you really seriously think that?

I put forward an example deliberately frivolous as an illustration that there are other possibilities, perhaps as yet unbeknown to the Member, and I commend to him that he consider all possible threats seriously and in such a way as will not compromise the security and the well-being of this nation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in asking Question No. 4, I would like to declare that I have no pecuniary interest.

asked the Minister for National Development whether he will positively review downwards the high season parking fee charged at $65 by the Urban Redevelopment Authority for cars parked at Car Park B at Changi Airport so as to enable more shift workers at the Airport to make full use of it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the URA acts as the agent for the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore in operating the car parks at Changi Airport. The car park fees are set in consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore. Both authorities have agreed to reduce the season parking fee at Car Park B to $50 per month.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many Housing and Development Board flat owners have requested to extend their loan repayments as at the latest available date; and (b) what follow-up actions are taken by the HDB Area Offices to refer those households with problems for assistance.

Mr Speaker, Sir, following the announcement in Parliament on 7th March, 1986, 778 HDB flat owners have requested to extend their loan repayment period. Of these, 552 and 161 flat owners requested to extend their loan repayment to 25 years and 20 years respectively. The Area Offices will follow up by referring HDB households with family problems to the Ministry of Community Development, Ministry of Labour, or voluntary social organizations for appropriate assistance as follows: (1) families in financial difficulties are referred to the Public Assistance Section, Ministry of Community Development, or voluntary social agencies; (2) families whose breadwinners have lost employment are referred to the Employment Services Department, Ministry of Labour; (3) families with domestic problems and requiring counselling and advice are referred to the Ministry of Community Development. The HDB Area Offices also maintain close liaison with the departments and agencies concerned on the outcome of the cases referred to them.

Sir, could the Minister look into ways of allaying loan repayment problems of families without CPF savings and those who have lost their jobs?

Mr Speaker, Sir, any family with financial difficulties can go to the Area Office and discuss with my officers. And as usual, HDB will do its best to help.

asked the Minister for National Development what are the redevelopment projects being planned for all the resettlement areas in Changi Constituency which are currently under active clearance by the Housing and Development Board and the Jurong Town Corporation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are seven areas under active clearance within Changi Constituency. Parcel 1 at Koh Sek Lim Road and Siak Kuan Road and Parcel 2 at the junction of Bedok Road and Upper East Coast Road are earmarked for industrial and warehouse development by HDB. As there is currently low demand for such facilities, timing for the implementation of these developments has not been decided. Parcel 3 at Upper Changi Road and Tanah Merah Kechil Road is proposed for commercial and residential development by HDB. Development work will only commence after the Changi MRT Station is completed in 1989/90. Parcel 4 at Somapah Road and on both sides of the PIE and Parcel 5 between Upper Changi Road and New Upper Changi Road are being cleared for industrial development by JTC. Parcel 6 at Jalan Chempaka Kuning adjoining Sungei Bedok is being cleared for nursery development by the Parks and Recreation Department. Pulau Tekong will be used by the Ministry of Defence.

Sir, may I ask of the Hon. Minister whether or not it is the resettlement authority which should maintain the resettlement site vacated by residents before any redevelopment takes place on the site?

Mr Speaker, Sir, usually after clearance is completed, the site will be handed over to the development authority. It is for this authority to maintain the site.

asked the Minister for Education what steps the Government has taken so far, or proposes to take, to make Singapore the regional centre for education as recommended by the Services Sub-Committee of the Economic Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am replying on behalf of my Minister. The Ministry has formed a Working Group to look into specific measures to develop Singapore as a regional centre for education. When the recommendations of the Working Group have been approved by Government, the measures to be adopted will be made public at an appropriate time.

May I ask a supplementary question, Sir? This Working Group has been formed. Could the Minister of State please tell the House what measures have they looked into so far, and have they touched on the private schools in Singapore?

Sir, the Working Group is still at work over its details and I am not ready at the present time to discuss any of them.

asked the Minister for Education how many pre-primary classes his Ministry will have by 1987; and how many more places will be available in 1987.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. In 1987, 176 pre-primary classes will be available in 44 schools. The estimated enrolment would be 4,900, about the same as for 1986. The Ministry is carrying out a comprehensive study of the pre-primary programme. The study is still in progress but it is already clear that no significant expansion of the programme can take place before 1989. This is because the new trainee teachers, who have been admitted to the Institute of Education this year, will require two years of training before they graduate.

asked the Minister for the Environment what measures are being taken to ensure that all food imports from Europe are free from radioactive contaminants.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. Since the Chernobyl nuclear incident on 25th April 1986, the Ministry of the Environment has checked all food consignments from Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union for radioactive contaminants. Checks are also being made on all consignments of fresh vegetables, fruits, milk and dairy products from Western European countries. Similar checks are being made by the Primary Production Department of the Ministry of National Development on all meat and fish imported from European countries. In 1985, Singapore imported 870,000 tonnes of fresh vegetables, fruits, milk, dairy products, meat and fish from all over the world. Of these, 7.8% came from Western European countries and 1.1% from Eastern European countries. From the occurrence of the incident, up till today, 2,051 food consignments have been checked. Of these, 74 consignments or 3.6% were found to contain radioactive contaminants. They were mainly cheese, milk and milk powder and yoghurt. Initially, the main radioactive contaminant was iodine 131 which has a half-life of eight days. It has now largely disappeared and the main contaminants now found are Caesium 134 and Caesium 137 which have longer half-life of two years and 30 years respectively. Consignments found to contain radioactive contaminants are returned to their country of origin. No contaminated foods are allowed for sale in Singapore. My Ministry will continue to monitor food imports from the European countries and Soviet Union until we are satisfied that the problem no longer exists.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether a North-East Mass Rapid Transit route from Outram Park to Punggol is being planned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is expected that the North-East sector of Singapore will be developed for public housing after the year 2000. In line with long term land transport planning, the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation has commissioned a consultant study in December 1984 to evaluate the engineering and financial feasibility of extending the MRT system to service that sector when public housing development begins. The study, which is being finalized by the MRTC at the moment, has evaluated a number of possible routes. The final report will be submitted in due course to the Government for consideration.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information what measures are being taken to ensure that all planes, which overflew European airspace, will not, on landing in Singapore, bring in radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in May, shortly after the Chernobyl accident, the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, together with Singapore Airlines and the Radiation Protection Inspectorate of the Ministry of Health, carried out measurements for radioactivity on aircraft, overflying Europe, arriving in Singapore. There was no indication of radioactive emissions from these aircraft.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information if he will ascertain from the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation (a) for the year 1985, what was (i) the total number of radio and TV licences issued, (ii) the amount of fees collected from such licences, and (iii) the cost incurred for the collection of such fees; and (b) whether it will consider replacing the annual licence fees with one-time payments.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am replying on behalf of my Minister. In 1985 -

asked the Minister for Home Affairs if the Police have given up all hope of finding Mr Phey Yew Kok.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall answer on behalf of my Minister. I would like to inform the Member for Anson that the warrant of arrest against Phey Yew Kok is still in force and he remains on the wanted list of all the Interpol member countries.

May I ask the Minister of State that in view of the great speed and efficiency in which the Singapore Police have been able to track others who have left Singapore, there are doubts now being raised in the public mind of the efficiency of the Singapore Police when they seem unable to track down Mr Phey Yew Kok. Is he aware of that?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the speed at which the Police Force has been able to trace other fugitives from justice in Singapore is, to a large extent, dependent on the good and reliable information that the Police Force has obtained in those cases. There had been cases where Interpol had provided timely information which resulted in the apprehending of these fugitives. In the case of Phey Yew Kok, unfortunately, such information has not been forthcoming.

Is the Minister of State aware of the answer that was given, I think, in the last Parliament by the then Minister for Home Affairs that this man was somewhere in a neighbouring country and I asked for this country to be named and that was not divulged? Is he also aware that this House was then told that the Police were anxiously keeping surveillance to see whether he was moving out of that country to anywhere else? Would the Minister of State tell us something more? Is that man still hiding in one of the neighbouring countries?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson mentioned that he was informed at the last Parliament that Phey Yew Kok was still in a neighbouring country. I would like to point out to him that the House was actually informed that, as far as the Police investigation was concerned, he was traced to have left Singapore on 31st December 1979, proceeding to Kuala Lumpur, and from there on he was understood to have left for Thailand. And from there on the trail disappeared. The Police does not have any information at the present moment on the whereabouts of Phey Yew Kok. But if the Member for Anson has any information which he thinks might be relevant to the case, he is welcome to assist the Police by supplying this information so that a detailed investigation and apprehension of Phey Yew Kok can be carried out.

Will the Minister of State tell us whether the family of this man, Mr Phey Yew Kok, is still living in Singapore?

Yes, the family of the man is still in Singapore.

Will the Minister tell us whether the Police are aware if the man is in contact with members of his family or have they lost all contact with him?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said, the Police have no knowledge of the whereabouts of this man. The Police does not know if he has been in contact with his family.

Have the Police interviewed members of the family recently? Have they seen or censored any post coming to the family from abroad?

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Member for Anson suggesting that we conduct a Police investigation on the members of the family? There has been no information as to whether he has been in contact with the family or not. Does he now propose that the Police launch a surveillance and a persecution of the family?

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I assure the Minister of State that I am not suggesting that the family should be put under third degree treatment. But is the Minister saying that the Police are averse to interviewing the family and averse to keeping watch on any correspondence received by this family from abroad because I know that is done in other cases?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not aware of what has been done in other cases in terms of surveillance of the letters and correspondence. I do not know what the Member for Anson is suggesting. If he has any facts in regard to such surveillance, he should bring these to the House. The Police will do whatever is necessary to trace the whereabout of Phey Yew Kok. I do not think it is necessary or relevant at this point of time to inform the House of all the Police procedures in this case. Sir, the Member for Anson has a penchant for raising this case regularly.

Ask the public.

By his frequent raising of this subject, he is serving notice to the fugitive that he should make himself scarce.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether he will seriously consider allowing the setting up of a casino in one of the top leading hotels or tourist spots in order to promote tourism in view of the present decline in tourist arrivals in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I shall answer on behalf of my Minister. Sir, it is doubtful that the setting up of a casino will bring visitors in such a large number as to make a significant impact on our tourist trade. Even if there were desirable commercial benefits from such a project, these may not offset the long-term adverse social consequences.

Sir, in view of the fact that other public forms of legalized gaming are already in existence, will the Minister consider issuing limited licences to casinos which will admit patrons on a limited basis?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be very difficult, and in practical terms not feasible, to enforce such a casino operation, ie, restricting it to only a certain category of people. It would create more unhappiness among the rest of the people who are not allowed to patronize such an establishment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister of State aware of a reported interview in the Business Times, today's date, page 8? The interview was conducted with a Mr Stanley Ho, better known to many as Macau's casino king, and I quote Mr Stanley Ho: 'Tourists generally travel on a budget and are unlikely to spend much time in the casinos. You need the support of the locals to survive. Casino and industry do not mix, said Mr Ho.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have also read the article. The answer itself is evident from what Mr Stanley Ho has said, that a casino does not necessarily lead to a great enhancement or improvement of the tourist trade. When they travel on a limited budget, they have already made their plans for the travel, and it is not necessary for us to look towards a casino as a means of boosting our tourism.

Can the Minister of State explain what is the difference in the social consequences between the Government running the mini-turf clubs and giving a licence for a casino?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government does not run mini-turf clubs. Sir, the Government realizes that it is not possible or practical to totally eradicate all forms of gambling. Certain opportunities must be made available to those who want to indulge in an occasional flutter. To compare buying of a lottery ticket or going to the turf club with casino gambling is to make comparison at two different levels which is not entirely appropriate. Casinos promote a different form of gambling, a more impulsive form of gambling and it has a totally different consequence.

asked the Minister for Health whether his Ministry has obtained sufficient feedback on the proposed automatic organ donation law; if so, what sort of public support has been obtained; and, if not, whether he intends to get public opinion support before introducing the law.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will answer on behalf of my Minister. There has been extensive coverage in the mass media on the proposed legislation on organ donation since it was first mentioned in Parliament during the Budget Debate of 25th March 1986. The National Kidney Foundation has also organized many talks and seminars to explain the subject to the public. The majority of letters in the English and vernacular press have been in support of the proposed legislation. The National Kidney Foundation has also received more than 49,000 petitions in support of the proposed legislation. Eight organizations comprising medical and religious associations have given their support. The Muslim Religious Council has also endorsed the concept of organ donation to save lives. Those who objected were not unsympathetic to the plight of kidney failure victims. They wanted to be assured that safeguards would be provided to ensure that organs would not be improperly removed.

asked the Minister for Health whether his Ministry has any plans to set up a polyclinic in Jurong East.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry will be building a polyclinic at Jurong East Avenue 1. Construction work is scheduled to commence next month and is targetted to be completed by September 1987.

asked the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what active steps are being undertaken to promote professional services overseas; and (b) what is the Government's role in helping to promote such services.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1985, the Trade Development Board set up new divisions specifically to promote the export of professional services. It recruited a team of foreign language speaking professionals to help. It has organized missions to China, India, the Middle East, Burma and Papua New Guinea, to help local companies to sell construction, engineering and plant and machinery upgrading services. It has supported local companies in overseas sales promotion, for example, by helping them participate in fairs and exhibitions, by disseminating information on opportunities to them through seminars and through the Market Development Assistance Scheme. The Government's role in promoting such services is three-fold. Firstly, to develop the right fiscal incentives and infrastructure to encourage companies to export their services. Companies can then form consortium to export joint package services or seek joint ventures with well known international companies to gain experience and track record. Secondly, to assist in market development. This means not only financial assistance but also governmental efforts to open doors for companies. Thirdly, to develop ties with international funding agencies, such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. This makes it easier for our companies to register and tender for projects funded by these agencies.

asked the Minister for National Development what criteria are being used to decide whether a shophouse, which is affected by Mass Rapid Transit construction work, should be given a 15% or a 30% reduction in shop rental.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the quantum of rent rebate granted to shop tenants depends on the extent the business is affected by the MRT construction works. A 30% rent rebate is given to shop tenants whose premises are adversely affected by MRT works. In these instances, the MRT works and hoardings block the frontages or the access to the shops. Shop tenants whose premises are less adversely affected are granted a 15% rent rebate. In such instances, MRT works may cause some inconvenience, but they do not directly block the frontages or the access to the shops.

Sir, is the Minister willing to consider back-dating the reduction in shop rental to the time when construction work began at the worksite?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is no.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there is an increasing number of HUDC flat owners opting to return their flats to the Housing and Development Board; and (b) whether the HDB will commit itself to accepting the flats at their original purchase prices.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past 11 months (July 85 to June 86) 216 HUDC lessees have either written in to sell their flats to the HDB or have made enquiries regarding the sale of their HUDC flats. Under the lease, the HDB is under no obligation to buy back the HUDC flats at their original sale prices. The HDB did buy back some flats in the past because it was then considered possible to find ready buyers from applicants on the waiting list to purchase the returned HUDC flats. Presently, this is no longer possible as the waiting list is very small, following the withdrawal of many HUDC applications. The HDB has decided not to buy back any more HUDC flats except those which the Board has committed in writing to buy back. HUDC lessees are now permitted to sell their flats to their own buyers approved by HDB. The resale levy would be waived in these instances.

Sir, could the Hon. Minister reconsider the appeals made by those residents who have committed themselves to purchasing private housing and who have been given indications by the HDB earlier that they could sell back their flats to HDB? I believe the number is not that big.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not possible for HDB to buy back the flats. As I have explained quite clearly earlier, HDB only buys back those flats which HDB has committed in writing to buy back.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Minister, out of the 216 who had opted to return their flats to the HDB, how many were successful; how many belong to the category just mentioned by my colleague, that is, those who had indicated earlier that they have committed themselves to purchasing some other property and have had the permission of HDB to sell the HUDC flat?

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB bought back 40 units of HUDC flats, and HDB has committed in writing to buy back another 26 units of HUDC flats. So HDB will abide by this undertaking. As for those people, ie, the 216 HUDC lessees less 66, that means the remaining 150 cases, HDB will not be able to buy back their flats. However, HDB has offered them various assistance. Under the HDB rules, anybody who purchases an HDB flat is not allowed to sell his flat in the first five years. In this instance, HDB has waived this restriction to allow these HUDC owners, who want to sell their HUDC flats, to sell their HUDC flats in the first five years of ownership. On top of that, HDB has also waived the levy. Under the HDB rules, HUDC owners who sell their flats to buyers of their own choice have to pay 30% of the selling price to HDB as a levy. But HDB has waived the levy. In other words, HDB has made it easier, very much easier, for these owners to sell their HUDC flats in the first five years.

Sir, may I ask the Hon. Minister whether the policy of not buying back HUDC flats would be extended to HDB flats, considering that there are quite a lot of flats unsold and not wanted at this moment in estates like Yishun, for example?

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB made a press release earlier to say that HDB will continue to buy back the HDB flats from those who want to give up HDB flats in the first five years after purchase. The reason is a rational one. HDB buys back HUDC flats because, as I have explained earlier, at that time HDB considered that there was a large waiting list of HUDC flats and the applicants were prepared to buy the old flats which are in a better locality. But at present owing to the large number of withdrawal of HUDC applicants, the waiting list has been reduced to a very small one, and also the people on the waiting list are not prepared to buy old HUDC flats. Therefore, HDB cannot assist the HUDC owners in buying back the old flats and selling them to the applicants on the waiting list. But, as far as HDB flats are concerned, that is, from 1-room flats to executive flats, HDB has a large waiting list of people who want to buy these flats. Therefore, HDB can continue to buy back HDB flats from owners who want to give up their HDB flats within the first five years of their purchase. In fact, this number is very very small, and the waiting list to buy HDB flats is very large. Therefore, this policy will not affect HDB flats from 1-room up to executive flats.

Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he personally was aware, before his announcement of the "no buy-back policy", that there were HUDC owners who had committed themselves to buying property in the private sector not based on written consent from the Ministry but based on verbal assurance, which was the standard practice before his announcement? If this is the case, would he not at least feel partly responsible for the plight that these people have found themselves in today?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's policy is based on the written undertaking. It is not possible for Government to ---

You don't honour your oral statements.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for all HDB dealings on the buying back of flats, if the owners go to the HDB Area Office to make enquiry about the procedures, the HDB officer will inform them about the procedure adopted by HDB. And if they want to sell their flats back to HDB, what they should do is to get a written undertaking by HDB to buy back their flats. And as I have mentioned earlier, there are 26 cases where HDB has given the written undertaking to buy back these flats, and HDB will abide by that written undertaking.

Sir, I declare my interest in that I have an HUDC flat. Can the Minister explain why HDB adopts a separate practice for HUDC which is governed and restricted under the same rules as the HDB flats?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have explained earlier, under the HDB rules HDB has no obligation to buy back any flat. In fact, anybody who looks at the HDB Sales lease will understand that. There is no provision for HDB to buy back the flat. HDB is only buying back the flat as an assistance to the HDB owners. As usual, this is the Government's policy to assist --- 12 noon

Order. End of Question Time*, Mr Teh. *Pursuant to Standing Order 21(2), Questions Nos. 20 and 21 remaining on the Order Paper accordingly stood over to the next sitting of Parliament, as signified by the Members concerned.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise on a point of order.

What is your point of order? Mr Jeyaretenam: The point of order concerns Standing Order No. 20 and it arises in this way, Mr Speaker, Sir. I had on the 15th of July tabled a Question for Written Answer in this House, and the question was whether the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry would tell the House of the countries to which arms are supplied by Singapore and the types of arms that are being supplied. That was given within the time allowed, and I had a letter on your behalf written by the Clerk of Parliament to say that you have ruled the question inadmissible. And the reason given was that the policy is not to disclose information which would jeopardize essential defence interests and this included arms sales. Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot find any such reason for disallowing a question in Standing Order 20. I do find, however, one reason, ie, a question shall not seek information about any matter which is of its nature secret. This information is far from secret. The foreign newspapers pick up the countries to which Singapore supplies arms. So it cannot be a secret matter, and I wanted to know from the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry if he will tell this House all the countries to which Singapore supplies arms. May I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, Sir, on why this question was disallowed?

I think the hon. Member for Anson is an expert on Erskine May. It is clearly stated in Erskine May, 20th Edition, on page 342: 'That questions are not in order which renew or repeat in substance questions ... to which an answer has been refused or which fall within a class of questions which a Minister has refused to answer.' That is the reason why I have disallowed the question and my ruling still stands.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to inform Members that the Member for Anson has seriously misled the House when he made a complaint recently in the House of wrongful arrest and detention. As the Minister in charge of the Police Force, I have a duty to put the record straight. Sir, his allegation is totally false. Such allegations undermine the integrity of the Police Force. Sir, Members will recall that at our sitting on 18th March, the Member for Anson made the specific allegation that a person was arrested on 1st March at around midnight for not possessing an identity card and that he was locked up at the Police Station for about 15 hours, that is to say, into the following day, March 2nd. He also said that during this period, the person arrested had been prevented from contacting any member of his family. He repeated this allegation in the House nine days later on 27th March. On the first occasion, I asked for particulars and I added that I would then cause an investigation. No particulars were given. When he repeated the allegation, my colleague, the Minister of State, again asked for particulars. Again, the Member did not give any particulars but did say that he, the Member for Anson, had made a report at Joo Chiat Police Station. Nearly four weeks after the debate in this House, the Member for Anson finally wrote to me on 22nd April to provide the name of the person whom he claimed was arrested by the Police. He now alleged that his name was one Lim Poh Huat. In his letter, the Member for Anson repeated the allegation, namely, that Mr Lim Poh Huat had been arrested past midnight on 1st March, held in detention for 15 hours and released at about 3.00 pm the following day on 2nd March and he had not been allowed to contact any member of his family. Sir, I asked the Police to let me see the report made by the Member for Anson at the Joo Chiat Police Station and I ordered a thorough investigation. I ordered a thorough investigation because I assumed that the Member would not have raised such an allegation without first satisfying himself that there was some credence to the claim. I assumed that he as a Member of Parliament would have at least established that it was a bona fide claim. I assumed, for example, that he would have spoken to Mr Lim Poh Huat or members of his family. If Mr Lim was married, then I assumed he would have spoken to his wife and children. If he was single, to his parents, brothers or sisters. The investigation into the allegation continued. Records of the Joo Chiat Police Station were scrutinized. The officers were interviewed. Even the officers' pocket books were examined. I personally met with Ministry officials and Police officials to satisfy myself that the investigation had been thorough and that every possible record, document and lead had been examined. I also directed that all relevant documents relating to Joo Chiat Police Station's operations during the few days before and after 1st March 1986 be kept in safe custody. All these records are available for further official examination if this proves necessary should the Member maintain his allegations. Sir, what have these exhaustive investigations established? They have established two things. First, they have established that there was not a shred of evidence to suggest that a Lim Poh Huat had been arrested or detained at Joo Chiat Police Station, or for that matter, at any other Police Station in Singapore, for any length of time, leave alone 15 hours, on the dates and times alleged by the Member. The second point which the inquiry has established is that the Member for Anson did not make any report whatsoever at the Joo Chiat Police Station as claimed by him. May I on this point, Mr Speaker, Sir, digress to say that when my colleague, the Minister of State, wrote to the Member for Anson asking for details as to which officer he saw in the Joo Chiat Police Station, he responded by saying that, well, if he said that, he probably made a slip (of the tongue, I guess) and that he had sent a correction to the Clerk of Parliament. Whereupon we wrote to the Clerk of Parliament to ask what was the correction. And to our utter astonishment, we found that the Member tried to make a correction to change the words "I made a report at Joo Chiat Police Station" to "There should be a report at Joo Chiat Police Station." There is a world of difference between the two. The Clerk of Parliament informed us that the change had not been accepted. It is not surprising because it is a material change. And we would like to know why the Member for Anson tried to doctor the report in this manner. Sir, coming back to the substance of the allegations. On three occasions the Minister of State replied to the Member's letters, stating categorically that there was no basis to his allegations. In his letter of 25th June, the Minister of State asked the Member for Anson: 'Will you therefore agree to produce details of your allegations and evidence supplied to you by the said Lim Poh Huat so that these can be examined by my Ministry's officials and the Police? Will you also agree to produce the said Lim Poh Huat for interview by my Ministry's officials and the Police? (You can, if you wish, be present during this interview.) In view of the seriousness of your allegations, I trust you will give affirmative answers to these questions.' Sir, after more than one month, the Member has still not produced any evidence to support his allegations. Indeed, he has not even offered to produce this mysterious Lim Poh Huat. Indeed, Members may want to know what was his response to the Minister of State's request for cooperation by producing the said Lim Poh Huat for interview with him being present. This is what he said in his most recent letter of 23rd July: '... I am under no obligation to account to anybody for any question that I raise in Parliament and that a Member can only be questioned in Parliament on anything said by him in Parliament.' Several pertinent questions arise. First, why does he refuse to provide information on an alleged Police wrongdoing which he has brought up in Parliament? Secondly, why is he so defensive, pleading privilege and saying that he cannot be questioned for things said in Parliament? Has he forgotten that he has actually already made these allegations outside Parliament and without the benefit of privilege when he repeated all these allegations in writing to me and my Minister of State? Sir, as I have said, after an exhaustive investigation, my Ministry has established that the allegation of wrongful arrest was totally unfounded. There is no person by the name of Lim Poh Huat arrested or detained at the dates and times as alleged by the Member, ie, from past midnight 1st March to 3.00 pm on 2nd March. Everyone knows that serious disciplinary action is always taken against any Police officer who contravenes procedures or abuses powers. If any officer has committed an offence as alleged by the Member, we shall prosecute him and discipline him including dismissal from the Force. But what the Member has done is to tarnish the image of the entire Police Force, and attempt to undermine public confidence in the Police without any excusable reason for so doing. The Member, as I have said, has not agreed to produce this Lim Poh Huat. I ask him now, can he and will he produce him? May I also ask the Member if he took any steps to ensure that there was indeed such a person, let alone one who suffered from unlawful detention. Sir, these are very important questions and I hope the Member for Anson will respond.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not raise this by way of a question. The Minister should be aware of this. I raised this in the debate on the Budget for the Ministry of Home Affairs, particularly on the Budget for the Police. I started my speech by asking: Is Singapore a Police state? Perhaps the Minister may recall that. And I said there were several instances of which I had personal knowledge or of which I had gathered - perhaps I should say I act for accused persons, Mr Speaker, Sir - where the Police had prevented accused persons from getting in touch with their families for 24 hours or even more than 24 hours. Does the Minister say that that practice never obtains in the Singapore Police Force? Then in the course of my debate I mentioned that I had information or heard about the man who was arrested after midnight on the 1st March. And I said, "You could inquire about this from Joo Chiat Police station and tell us whether this is true or not true." How did I get that information? 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 says it was not just him but there were two others. So I asked that question whether the Minister would like to investigate that. What is wrong about that? Unless the Minister now says it is never the case in the Singapore Police Force to prevent accused persons, arrested persons, from contacting their families as soon as they are arrested. And also if the Minister states that it is never the practice of the Singapore Police Force to arrest anyone not in possession of an identity card. As regards my statement here that I made a report at Joo Chiat Police Station, I know it does appear in the Official Report but, as I explained in the letter to the Minister of State, if I said it - and I suppose I must accept that I said it because it is in the verbatim report - it was a slip of the tongue. What I meant to say is that I am aware from my experience as an advocate and solicitor from my practice that there should be a report at every police station of every person arrested and brought to the police station. That is what I meant to say - that there should be a report at Joo Chiat Police Station, because I do know that whenever any person is arrested and brought, a report will be entered in the Charge book. Unfortunately it came out that I made a report. I explained that to the Minister of State. Perhaps Members forget that even Ministers make slips and they have had pointed out to them that they have made a slip. So what is very wrong about that? That is all that it amounts to and he wants to know whether I can produce Mr Lim Poh Huat. I have asked this man who gave me this information and from whom I have a signed statement to try and get Mr Lim Poh Huat to come and see me. And if Mr Lim Poh Huat does come, and this man brings him, the Minister can certainly interview him. I have nothing to hide. I have the signed statement from this man who gave me this information, and it is not just him but there were two others to whom Lim Poh Huat is supposed to have related this story.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what the Member for Anson has said is truly disturbing. He has attempted to wriggle out ---

Wriggle out!

And all that he has said is that he has a signed statement from someone whose integrity he respects. I would like to ask, first, whether the Member for Anson can tell us if this signed statement, if not from Mr Lim Poh Huat, which is what I take it to be, was from a member of Mr Lim Poh Huat's family?

It is not from a member of Lim Poh Huat's family, but a man who has known Lim Poh Huat all his life, he says. He says Lim Poh Huat had been known to him and his family for many, many years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson did not make a casual accusation, a casual complaint. The complaint was made on two different occasions and, to know the gravity of his charges, let me very quickly point out what is it that the Member for Anson is saying. This is what he said, on the first occasion, giving an example of Police misuse of powers. "Does the Minister know that someone was arrested on the 1st March in the early hours of the morning and because he did not happen to have his identity card on him he was hauled off to the police station and he was locked up till 3.00 pm that afternoon? What was the reason for that? What was the reason for preventing him from getting in touch with his family?" Not a general inquiry, but a specific accusation. On 27th March he repeated. This is a case of a worker returning home at midnight after he had finished his work. Unfortunately he did not have on him his identity card. He "was stopped by the Police and was hauled off to the police station. For what offence? Because he did not have his identity card. And he says this man was taken off to the police station, put into a cell and was there for 15 hours or so till 3.00 pm. Then he was released without any charge preferred against him. During this time he was not allowed to telephone members of his family because a telephone call would have brought his identity card to the station. This is one instance." Such grave, serious accusations, when raised by hon. Members, surely must mean that the hon. Member must have taken some steps to verify the veracity of the claim before raising it here. I would like to know from the Member for Anson what steps did he take to ascertain the credibility and veracity of the complaint. Did he, for example, during these few months which have lapsed, speak to Mr Lim Poh Huat, speak to members of his family? Did he write to him? Did he telephone him? We want to know what are the steps he took to ascertain the veracity of the statement, apart from the so-called signed statement. And may I also ask whether the signed statement was made before or after the Member raised this question in this House? Because if he had the statement before he raised it, he could have very well informed us. I would like to know what is the date of that signed statement, and is he prepared to let the Police have that signed statement?

If the Minister wishes to interview this person who gave me the signed statement, he is most welcome. I will send him to the Minister. The Minister keeps saying it was not a casual statement that I made. Of course, it was not a casual statement. I was talking about Police brutality and about Police abuse of their powers. And so I brought up this incident of which I had been told by this man. And so if the Minister wishes to interview this man and the two others who were present when Lim Poh Huat told them the story, I will arrange for them to see the Minister.

Sir, the issue is not whether the Police now can interview because, on the basis of investigations, we know that the whole story has been fabricated. I would like to put the issue as what is the responsibility of any Member of the House when he brings up such serious accusations in Parliament. Have they done the minimum that is to be expected of an hon. Member? I have asked the question, what steps did the Member take to ascertain the veracity of the story before he raised it in Parliament on two occasions. And I have also asked another question, when was the statement signed?

The Minister keeps asking, "What steps did you take?" The step I took was to question the man who gave me that information. I asked him whether he was satisfied, whether he knew Lim Poh Huat personally, whether the other members who listened to him knew Lim Poh Huat personally? Now, I have asked the Minister to investigate. I have not got the powers to investigate. All that I need to do is to ask in Parliament, bring to the notice of Parliament, any abuse of Police powers that comes to my information and ask the Minister concerned to investigate. What is so very wrong about that?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have asked on at least two occasions what are the steps that he took to ascertain the veracity of the story. And all that he can reply is, he kept asking the person who made the statement to him. I asked if he was a member of the family? He was not. The Member for Anson, in other words, is telling us to accept as permissible the practice of any Member coming to this House on the basis of hearsay and third-person report, and on the basis of a rumour, which he has not ascertained or tried to verify, and make a complaint against any Government department of abuse of powers, based solely on that unverified complaint. Of course, he does not have powers of investigation. That is not the issue. The issue is, did he make any attempt to verify that there was indeed such a person called Lim Poh Huat, leave alone whether he was arrested on that particular date, leave alone whether he had been arrested for 15 hours. Did he take any steps, and his answers to my question quite clearly show that he did not. Did he make any attempts to contact members of the family? Presumably, his informant would have informed him of the address of Lim Poh Huat. He would probably say, "Ask the Police to investigate." He might like to know that, according to the National Registration Office, there are at least 62 Lim Poh Huats in Singapore. And if you take into account persons whose names sound similar or spelt almost similar, there are more than 100 persons. The question therefore is, Mr Speaker, Sir, an issue of responsibility. Can a Member come to this House and make such complaints based solely on hearsay and a third-person report? Mr Speaker, Sir, his refusal to cooperate with the Police on a matter which he raised, his inability to produce Mr Lim Poh Huat after all these months, the fact that he did not take steps to ensure the bona fides of the complaint, all these surely condemn him as being irresponsible. Clearly, the complaint is a fabrication. He has clearly misled us, Mr Speaker. I will now ask him: will he admit that he had made an unjust and false allegation? Will he withdraw the allegation, and will he apologize to the House for having misled us?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would not waste any time. In this particular instance, if the Minister says that the Police investigations show that no one by the name of Lim Poh Huat was arrested, then of course I withdraw that allegation about this particular instance. An hon. Member: Apologize.

But a very important question arises, Mr Speaker, Sir. Is it or is it not permitted for Members of this House to come here and ask questions arising on information received by them? Or are they first expected to do a thorough investiga- tion themselves and establish the veracity of that information before they raise it in Parliament? Secondly, I have told the Minister that if he wishes, and he has only got to say yes, he can interview the person who gave me this information. He can interview the other two who he says were present when Lim Poh Huat told them. I will tell the Minister how these persons came to know about this man's arrest. They had an appointment to meet Lim Poh Huat that Sunday morning for a job, and he did not turn up for the appointment. He turned up after 3.00 pm. And when they questioned him, he told them that the reason for his not keeping the appointment was simply what I had told the Police. They knew him. They knew the family and they had no reason at all to doubt the veracity of his story.

Mr Speaker, Sir, he has withdrawn the allegation but I asked if he would apologize to the House for having misled the House.

I do not know in what way I have misled the House when I asked whether the Minister would investigate this particular case.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue is not whether the Police would or would not investigate. I have on previous occasions made it clear. Complaints of wrongdoing will be investigated. Any black sheep in the Police Force will be dealt with. The issue is whether an MP can come to this House and construct a serious complaint against the Police or any other Government department, or make a serious accusation without having taken any reasonable steps to ascertain if there was some grain of truth in the story. The Member for Anson said that all he did was to be satisfied about the third person, not Lim Poh Huat, not any member of his family. In fact, what the Member for Anson is saying is that if I have an appointment with Mr X and Mr X does not turn up and I question him and he tells me a story that actually he had gone to see the Member for Anson (if he was a client of the Member for Anson) and he had gone to see the Member for Anson to charge the Member for Anson for having pocketed his client's money, does that entitle me to come to this House to accuse the Member for Anson for pocketing client's monies? That is what this boils down to, and that is why I have asked the Member for Anson if he would apologize. I will give him one more opportunity as to whether he would apologize for having misled the House.

May I know from the Minister in what respect have I misled the House when I told him that I had information about a man who has been arrested? I agree and I now accept the Police findings that there was no such arrest. But how does that amount to misleading? May I, before I sit down, ask the Minister whether he denies that the Police have on several occasions - I knew at least two or three myself - prevented accused persons, arrested persons, from getting in touch with members of the family? That is what I was complaining about if the Minister will remember in the debate on the Estimates for his Ministry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I can understand the Member for Anson's anxiety to sidetrack the whole issue. But we will not be sidetracked because my Ministry's position on the question of any possible contraventions of procedures have been fully answered and we fully answered his questions on 18th March 1986. He asked in what way does he owe an apology. I thought it would have been very clear. He owes an apology to this House for having misled it, for having misled us into believing that he had a basis for making such a serious complaint when it now turns out that he never met Mr Lim Poh Huat or members of his family, and the whole complaint was fabricated on hearsay and a third-person report. I think I will give him a last opportunity if he will apologize to the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, now I understand what the Minister means when he says that I have misled the House. He says that I have no basis for asking the Minister to investigate. Well, I have just told him - not once but I have told him twice, Mr Speaker, Sir - that the basis for my statement in this House was the statement made to me by this man whom I trust implicitly, and he says there were two others with him when Lim Poh Huat made the statement. So that is the basis. If I have the basis, how could I mislead the House? I can understand the accusation that I have misled the House if I had no basis whatsoever, that nobody ever made a complaint to me or gave me this information and it was from a credible person and that I simply came here, snatched it out of the air, and made a statement. Well, that is not the case.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not see how his source can be credible when I have shown the House that the whole story is a figment of the imagination and totally fabricated. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Members will note that I have given an opportunity to the Member to own up like a gentleman to apologize for having misled the House for having raised what is a truly fabricated story. His view is that as an MP he can bring to this House any untruth or falsehood based on hearsay, rumours and third-party reports. His refusal to apologize, Mr Speaker, Sir, in any respectable Parliament in the Commonwealth would be considered a breach of privilege and so too our House must set certain standards in this regard, and I accordingly, Sir, wish to make a complaint of breach of privilege under Standing Order 95(7)(b).

For the last time, will the Minister perhaps answer my questions: Is he denying that the Police have prevented some persons, accused persons, from getting in touch with their families? Is he denying that the Police have ever arrested persons for not possessing identity cards?

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members and the press can refer to the exhaustive discussion on 18th March. I do not intend to allow the Member to wriggle out by sidetracking the issue.

Do you wish to refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges?

Yes, Sir. I make a complaint under Standing Order 95(7)(b).

I am satisfied. This matter will be referred to the Committee of Privileges under Standing Order 95(7)(d)(ii).

12.43 pm

'to give effect to the New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards", presented by the Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

'to amend the Port of Singapore Authority Act (Chapter 173 of the Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act (Chapter 172 of the Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Communications and Information (Dr Yeo Ning Hong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

'to amend the Pensions Act (Chapter 55 of the Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.'

'to amend the Jurong Town Corporation Act (Chapter 209 of the Revised Edition)', presented by the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

12.45 pm Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap. 277) was enacted in 1967 to make provision for the issue of subsidiary strata certificates of title for separate units called "strata units" in high-rise developments and to incorporate a management corporation for each development to take over the maintenance and management of the development from the developer. A management corporation comprises the owners of all the strata units in a development and therefore the owners of these units called "subsidiary proprietors" have a say in the management of their development and its common property. Sir, the Bill seeks to amend the Act for the purpose of providing solutions to problems which have come to light since its introduction. These are problems encountered by management corporations in the management and maintenance of the subdivided buildings and their common property. The Bill therefore seeks to make new provisions dealing with the internal management of the affairs of a management corporation, the management and control of the common property, the powers and duties of a management corporation and the enforcement of the rights of the subsidiary proprietors and of the management corporation. The changes are introduced for the purpose of ensuring that subdivided buildings will be better managed. I will now highlight some of the new provisions. Many strata units are owned by companies. At present, although these companies have been elected to serve on the management councils, the law does not expressly prohibit such companies from having different authorized personnel to attend meetings of management councils at different times. For better management of the affairs of the management councils, council members should, wherever possible, serve for a reasonable length of time. The Bill will require companies which are subsidiary proprietors to nominate individuals to represent them for election as members of such councils and these nominees when elected, will serve the management councils. A management corporation will be required to establish a sinking fund to meet expenditure which will be incurred for major repairs and renovations. This fund is in addition to the management fund which a management corporation is now required to maintain. Management corporations will also be given express powers to appoint managing agents to take charge of the management and administration of subdivided buildings and the affairs of a management corporation. The Act is now silent on this point. The Commissioner of Buildings will also be empowered to appoint a managing agent for a management corporation when he is satisfied that the management corporation is not carrying out its duties or functions satisfactorily and that it is in the interests of the subsidiary proprietors of the development concerned or the creditors of the management corporation to appoint a managing agent. The duties of subsidiary proprietors to their management corporations will be spelt out in greater detail in order to remove uncertainty. Sir, this Bill has attracted considerable public interest and since it will affect the rights of property owners and mortgagees, it is proposed that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee of Parliament to allow these people to air their views and for a more detailed examination of the provisions of the Bill to be made. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, That the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. - [Mr E.W. Barker].

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to give legislative effect to the stamp duty concession announced in the financial year 1985 Budget Statement. Opportunity is also taken to incorporate two other concessions and an amendment to the Act. Specifically, the Bill seeks to extend stamp duty exemption to include the following: (i) Other offshore Asian Currency Unit (ACU) credit facilities such as underwriting facilities, letters of credit (including standby letters of credit), guarantees and performance bonds. This was announced in the financial year 1985 Budget Statement. Clauses 2(b) and 2(c) of the Bill provide for this. (ii) Non-underwritten offshore ACU facilities for the issue of notes, bonds, certificates of deposit or other instruments of indebtedness. Clause 2(b) provides for this. (iii) Any assignment of an interest in a non-ACU offshore facility, provided the assignment is made by a person outside Singapore to an ACU in Singapore. Clause 2(b) provides for this. All the concessions will take effect retrospectively from 8th March 1985. The Stamp Duties Act will also be amended to make it explicit that any assignment of an interest in an offshore facility, where drawdown has not taken place, is exempt from stamp duty. Clause 2(b) provides for this. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the purpose of this Bill is to amend Section 2 of the Census Act by deleting the definition of the word "Minister". At present all references to the Minister in the Census Act 1973 mean the Minister for Finance. This was not amended when the Ministry of Trade and Industry was formed and the subjects covered in this Act brought under the portfolio of MTI. Currently, therefore, although MTI has been administering census matters, legal authority to direct that a census be taken, appoint a Superintendent of Census, etc, still lies with the Minister for Finance. This is obviously unsatisfactory, and the Bill seeks to rationalize this. To cater for possible future changes in portfolios, the definition of "Minister" is being deleted. The effect of this deletion is that, under the Interpretation Act, the Minister will be the Minister for the time being charged by the Prime Minister with the responsibility for the Act. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [BG Lee Hsien Loong]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, the purpose of this Bill is similar to the earlier Bill. It proposes to amend section 2 of the Statistics Act by deleting the definition of the word "Minister". At present all references to the Minister in the Statistics Act 1973 mean the Minister for Finance. Again, this was not amended when the Ministry of Trade and Industry was formed and the subjects covered in this Act brought under the portfolio of MTI. Currently, therefore, although MTI has been administering the collection of national statistics, the legal authority to specify the government agencies which can collect, prepare and publish statistics, and make appropriate rules for statistical collection, etc, still lies with the Minister for Finance. This again is obviously unsatisfactory, and this Bill seeks to rationalize this. Also, to cater for possible future changes in portfolios, the definition of "Minister" is being deleted. The effect of this deletion is that, under the Interpretation Act, the Minister will be the Minister for the time being charged by the Prime Minister with the responsibility for the Act. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [BG Lee Hsien Loong]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order. It is just after one o'clock. I suspend this Sitting and will take the Chair again at half-past Two. Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, 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. Sir, what is this debate and what is this motion all about? It is not about the Member for Anson. It is not about the Opposition. It is not about freedom of speech. Then what is the issue? Sir, the issue concerns a far more grave, a far more serious matter. The issue is about fundamental institutions and basic values of our society, an issue concerning standards of political integrity. It is about irresponsible attempts to bring into total disrepute our major institutions to destroy the integrity and thereby undermine the stability of our society's key institutions. Every society has its key institutions and fundamental pillars. Chip away at them, bring about cracks, and the whole fabric of our society may be brought to ruin. The Member for Anson's unfounded attack on the Judiciary is a clear example of this attack. His allegations, everyone must know and he must know, can have only two consequences. Within Singapore, it will undermine the confidence of our people in the integrity of our judicial system. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

That is the Prime Minister's speech?

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! 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. 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. 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. 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.

May I remind the hon. Member for Anson that if this Question is decided upon by the House, either in the affirmative or in the negative, the hon. Member's Motion which appears as item No. 11 on the Order Paper cannot be proceeded with. The hon. Member's Motion is the same, in substance, as the first part of the question. In accordance with Parliamentary practice, the same matter cannot be brought before the House twice in a Session. 2.59 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not rising to reply to this because I hope other Members from the Government are going to speak on this. I see the Prime Minister is here and I am sure he would not want to miss out on this. So I will give the Prime Minister particularly, and other Members of the Government a chance to speak on this Motion before I reply. But I want some clarification from the Minister for Home Affairs on what he has just told the House. First of all, he said it was an attack on the Judiciary by the Member for Anson. Would he be good enough to refer this House to the passages in my speeches made in this House on the 10th of January, and on the 19th and 21st of March this year, where such speeches amounted to an attack on the Judiciary. I hope the Minister understands "an attack on the Judiciary", not an attack on the Executive trying to interfere and District Judges carrying out their functions under fear of displeasing the Executive. So will he please be good enough to refer the House to the passages which he says "amount to an attack on the Judiciary." Secondly, would the Minister for Home Affairs also refer this House to the passages in my speeches of 10th January and the 19th and 21st of March which he says "amount to scurrilous comments on the Chief Justice"? These were his words that my speeches or parts of my speeches "amounted to scurrilous comments on the Chief Justice." Would he please refer us to them? Thirdly, may I ask the Minister for Home Affairs whether he has got with him the verbatim record of the proceedings before the Commission, everything taken down, what I said, what the Commissioner said, what Mr Glenn Knight said. Has he got that with him? Because I thought he referred to something I was supposed to have told the Commissioner in the afternoon? Was he reading from the Report of the Commissioner or was he referring to the verbatim record of the proceedings before the Commissioner? If it is from the Report, would he be good enough to refer me to it? These are the three clarifications I need from the Minister.

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.

Please tell us again.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not going to repeat because he should have heard me when I spoke. I gave quotations in my presentation.

All the speeches that I made were an attack on the Judiciary?

Attacks on the Judiciary were contained in the quotations, which I mentioned, on the 10th January.

Refer me to one particular passage.

I will do that, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Which one are you going to look at, 10th of January?

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 ---

Refer me to the passage ---

We will do that.

--- where you said there are scurrilous comments on the Chief Justice.

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 ---

Where are you reading from?

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 ---

I thought you are reading the Prime Minister's speech which says the CJ was astounded. That isn't scurrilous, is it?

The Member for Anson's scurrilous statement is that ---

You said "col. 913". Where is it?

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.

Where is that?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson should surely do his own homework.

You are referring us to passages. Tell us. Did you do your homework? Obviously, you haven't.

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 ---

May I seek clarification? Prof. Jayakumar resumed his seat.

Thank you, Mr Minister. Is the Minster saying that that passage amounts to a scurrilous attack on the Chief Justice? Does he understand the meaning of the term "scurrilous attack"? Is he also saying that the other passages amount to an attack on the Judiciary?

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?

The clarification I am asking the Minister for Home Affairs, the Professor of Law at the University of Singapore, is his own opinion, his own view. Does he say, standing there, that those words amount to a scurrilous attack on the Chief Justice? Let us have it without any equivocation.

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.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not a question of challenging. I hope the Minister does not get too defensive about this. The question I asked is: he read - I do not know from where - what I was supposed to have told the Commissioner that afternoon at the Commission of Inquiry. I asked him whether he has the verbatim record of the proceedings that afternoon, or was he reading from here. And if he was reading from here, would he be good enough to refer me to the passage which he read that I said in the afternoon? As for the record, I think it must be accepted by everyone that if you really want to rely on something what somebody said, or did not say, then you should produce the whole transcript. You do not just pick up one sentence and then come and say, "This is what he said", forgetting something that the man might have said earlier and afterwards.

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.

Can you tell us whether what you read appears here? Does it not, or does it? Can you please answer that question?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the quotations that I quoted appeared in a programme telecast in Singapore. It is public knowledge ---

Edited by the Government.

--- all viewers saw it, and it is on record.

You took it from the TV.

It is not quotations from the Report because there are very few quotations in the Report. The truth can be seen on videotape.

Was it an edited version by the SBC?

Have you finished?

Well, Sir, he still has not answered my question.

Well, I thought he had. So you are not speaking on his motion?

Well, is not any Member from the Government going to speak? Is not the Prime Minister going to speak in support of this motion?

Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter cannot be laughed away. I was not here in January this year, or those allegations would not have stood unanswered for two months, till March when I happened to be in this House. It therefore behoves me to remind the Member that, at the first opportunity, I offered him all facilities to pursue his allegations that there has been Executive interference with the Subordinate Judiciary. The words used, the quotations, the actual tone, facial expressions, are a matter of record and they are also available, as I understand it, at five minutes' notice. In fact, all the proceedings here are kept as a matter of record. So if he feels that any segment has done him an injustice, we can look through the whole programme. To recap, he asked for an inquiry. He proposed a Parliamentary inquiry. I pointed out the ludicrousness of he being the complainant and he being the judge sitting on that inquiry, and he eventually agreed that there should be a Commission of Inquiry with a High Court Judge.

I agreed?

"So be it" were his famous last words.

So be it. Yes.

There has been extensive time for proper consideration and garnering of evidence. Hearings have been held. The Report is before the House. This motion asks the House to accept the Report. The Member has a motion telling the House to reject it. By debating this motion, we are in fact also debating his motion. My position is clear. I have had my case investigated. I offered to be a witness. I was told by the learned counsel who conducted the Inquiry that it was not necessary. I am still willing to give evidence. I have never discussed, whether with the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, the Chairman of Public Service Commission or any member of the Legal Service Commission, the transfer of any member of the Subordinate Courts. I am still willing to subject myself to any examination by the Member whether in this Chamber or outside and on oath. They are very serious allegations.

I agree. Let us have another Commission, a proper Commission.

Am I hearing the Member right - that he wants another Commission?

Yes, Mr Prime Minister, you heard me right because it will be the burden of my speech when I come to make it - that this Commission did not carry out the terms of reference and therefore you should now consider whether there should be another Commission, forgetting everything about this Commission, and appointing a new Commission to inquire into the terms of reference properly.

I can hardly believe that I have heard the Member for Anson say those words. But he obviously is a very plastic man who can contort himself into new shapes and forms. I take him seriously and at face value that he is suggesting at this late hour that there has been skulduggery, that there was grave impropriety in the way in which he has been convicted of an offence in the Subordinate Courts, acquitted of several charges on the same trial, had his acquittal reversed, sent back for re-trial, and in the meantime we had fixed the Judge so that he would be under a different Judge and he would be convicted. They are very grave allegations and I am ready to be X-rayed, cat-scanned, taken apart. Is he alleging that what I have written to the Commission of Inquiry is false? That all the evidence that has been placed before the Commission is either false or incomplete? And that his original position still stands - that there was very grave impropriety? If so, let him say so. I will hear him out. Let me say that if he gives me half a chance, yes, I will agree to further inquiries, without hesitation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I indicated, it will be the burden of my answer to this motion.

Go ahead.

That if anyone prevented me from giving evidence at this Commission, it was the Commissioner himself. It will be the burden of my speech that the Prime Minister could have had all the evidence that I had. He could have had names of the two District Judges. I could have said everything but I was not allowed. And the only reason that I was not allowed is because the Commissioner refused to give me an assurance. So if the Prime Minister says now that he will appoint another Commission and he will have all these witnesses produced to me for cross-examination, I will accept it.

I am breathless, Mr Speaker, Sir. I do not know if the Member for Anson has cognizance of what he is saying. This is not braggadocio. His challenge is immediately accepted. He is persisting in his allegations, and I am saying - name your witnesses, you will have every one of them, without any hesitation. I have nothing to hide nor has anybody. Please, name them now.

First of all, the Prime Minister should clear his own mind as to what were my allegations made in this House on the 10th January 1986 and - perhaps I should correct myself here, I did not make any allegations on the 19th or the 21st March. It was the Prime Minister who came forward saying that his Minister had not dealt with the allegations in January, and so he proposed to deal with them. He raised them for the first time and referred to my statement made on the 10th January 1986. Well, if the Prime Minister will again read carefully what I said on the 10th January 1986, he will find nothing else but this, Mr Prime Minister, that the transfer of that Senior District Judge in August 1984 had raised disquiet in the minds of the public and I went on - you can read the whole of my speech, Mr Prime Minister, when you have got the time - I went on to say that this tended to erode the confidence of the public in the Subordinate Court Judiciary, not because of anything that the Judiciary was doing but by Government executive action in transferring these persons. And I wanted an explanation, an investigation into all the circumstances of the transfer. That is all, Mr Prime Minister. And of course I did say, I did say that the prosecution of me and my Chairman was politically motivated. I have very good reasons for saying that.

You must bear with us, Mr peaker, Sir. The Member wants to re-argue his position de nouveau. I am prepared even for that. I am prepared to ask this House to suspend judgment on the Report by Mr Justice Sinnathuray and to proceed to hear the witnesses or direct the Commissioner or a new Commissioner to hear the witnesses that the Member for Anson said were prevented from giving their evidence and that with this evidence, a completely new picture will emerge. Now, may I ask who are these witnesses besides the Member for Anson? Let us have them now, here. So we are quite clear in our minds who they are.

The Prime Minister will see, if he has read the Report of the Commissioner, that I named four witnesses.

Name them now.

And they are - I asked whether the Chief Justice would be giving evidence before the Commission. And I wrote to the Secretary of the Commission requesting that the Attorney-General be called for me to cross-examine. I also indicated before the Commissioner that I wanted Mr Michael Khoo. It is beyond my comprehension that a Commission set up to inquire into the transfer of this man does not even hear him. And that is the Report this House is asked to accept. So there is Mr Michael Khoo Kah Lip, the then Senior District Judge, Mr Tan Teow Yeow from the AG's Chambers; well, Mr Glenn Knight of the AG's Chambers.

Am I hearing you right?

I did not give this name to the Commissioner. But I am saying you want all the names now. Do you want all the names, don't you, or not?

I want the names of the people whom ---

Whom I told the Commissioner? All right, I will give that first to you.

--- you said were vital for the evidence. You never told the Commissioner about Mr Glenn Knight.

I will give you the names I mentioned to the Commissioner. But I thought you wanted all the names as well. You can have them, Mr Prime Minister.

The CJ, AG, Michael Khoo, Tan Teow Yeow ---

Mr Chandra Mohan.

Chandra Mohan.

Those are the names I gave to the Commissioner. I might have another one, but I think those are the four names I gave to the Commissioner. I think in addition to those four names, may I give you other names now?

The Member has already given me five names. Which are the four? He has given me five. He has given me the CJ, AG, Michael Khoo, Tan Teow Yeow, Chandra Mohan. Which four?

Those are the five names I gave the Commissioner, ie, the CJ, the Attorney-General, Mr Michael Khoo Kah Lip, Mr Tan Teow Yeow and Mr Chandra Mohan. But now may I add to that list? I gave five names. Mr Glenn Knight should also be called to testify at this inquiry.

What for?

Well, you will see when you appoint the Commission and the questions are put to them.

The Member does not understand. I am not playing a game with him. I am baring this Government and its workings and its inner proceedings open for examination. He is making a very serious charge of misconduct in high places. He is saying that he is going to give evidence that will involve the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, Michael Khoo, Tan Teow Yeow, Chandra Mohan, and now Mr Glenn Knight. Is he sure he does not want me or Mr Barker? Because we are the Executive. None of them are the Executive.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am indeed surprised to hear from the Prime Minister's lips that the Attorney-General is not a member of the Executive.

We will pass that for argument later. The Government, the Executive, consists of Ministers. He has alleged Executive interference. The Attorney-General is a member of the Legal Service Commission. It is his business to be on the Commission.

Is he not also the Chief Legal Officer for the Government?

That does not make him the Executive. But in a serious vein, I ask him because the consequences, the gravamen of all these charges leads either to the collapse of this Government or the total destruction of the credibility of the Member. So he is saying that he will give evidence on oath, he will waive his Parliamentary privilege and that these persons will then, together with his evidence, provide the total picture.

The Prime Minister need not ask me again. If he had followed the proceedings before the Commissioner, he will find that I said the same thing there. I told the Commissioner, I made it very clear, that I would give evidence if the Commissioner gave me the assurance that these persons would be called to testify. The Commissioner refused to give me that assurance and that is why I did not testify. So the Prime Minister need not ask me to repeat that in the House again. But if he would like it repeated, I will repeat it.

Yes, please.

Yes. But let us get this clear, Mr Prime Minister. You cannot try and manufacture something from what is not there. You must, as I said, look again very carefully, read very carefully, my speech in this House. It is a pity you were not here, Mr Prime Minister. You could have dealt with it then more efficiently than your Ministers could. You will see, if you read those speeches, that I was referring to the public disquiet. And I am sure the Prime Minister must be aware - if he is not aware, then perhaps he can call for it - there was a registered letter written to the Commissioner and a copy sent to me by a member of the public. And he said: 'It is not only Mr Jeyaretnam but thousands of Singaporeans are disquieted by this transfer of the Senior District Judge [after the case against me].' So there you have it. That is what I was raising before this House - the disquiet felt all over Singapore at this transfer. And it is not just that one man writing it.

You are sure it wasn't one of your supporters, Mr Lim Poh Huat?

Mr Prime Minister, that's very funny. Why don't you call for the letter? Hasn't the Commissioner sent you all the copies of the correspondence? It is a registered letter. I should have thought you would have had a look at all these. Well, he says that. And if you are not satisfied, Mr Prime Minister, why don't you go down to the market place? But for a minute, leave your bodyguards out. Just go and sit at the coffee shops and ask the people what they think. So it is that public disquiet that I brought before this House. And that is very important for the administration of justice in this country.

It is part of the tactics of the Member for Anson to shift the subject and move the ground whenever he finds himself in an uncomfortable position. He goes back again now and says there is grave disquiet, that the registered letter was sent and suppressed.

I didn't say "suppressed". It was sent to the Commissioner. I have a copy of that letter. You want to see it?

Yes, of course. Send it on to the Commissioner in case he has not received it.

He has received it.

In case he has not, because he has disclosed all the letters received.

No, he has not. I don't think he has.

Well, something must be wrong. On page 19, the Commissioner said: 'Except for Mr Jeyaretnam and the Law Society dealt with below, there were letters from four other persons. Of these only one, Mr A L Sundram pursued the matter beyond his first letter.'

There were four letters.

Those letters were not pursued. That was what the Commissioner ---

Why not?

Because they did not turn up. Because had they turned up, they would have been put on oath and given evidence on oath which the Member for Anson was invited to do, and he rejected.

I rejected?

I am asking the Member to give this House the assurance that he will waive his privilege, that what he said to the Commissioner in the afternoon of the first day, he no longer feels bound by, "that this is an absolute prohibition, section 4. It is not a privilege that can be waived. I will not answer any questions or give any evidence about what I said in Parliament because there is an absolute prohibition."

Where are you reading from, Mr Prime Minister?

Notes from the Minister for Home Affairs which he took off the videotape.

Oh, I see.

Yes.

Took off the SBC videotape.

We could produce them here.

It is not from here. All right.

Therefore, it is untrue? Is it untrue? SBC fabricated this?

Can we have the whole of that videotape?

But, of course, all of it, all of it. Is he denying that in the afternoon he said that he was absolutely prohibited? And does he now say, "No, that is wrong. I will give evidence?"

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I said in the afternoon of that 3rd of June this year was to try to put the Commissioner right on the interpretation of section 4 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. The Commissioner had proceeded on the assumption or his understanding that section 4 was on par with the Privilege, which is protected under the Evidence Act.

Let us not go into a legal argument, Mr Speaker, Sir.

It is because you asked me.

All I want is an assurance that he will give evidence, regardless of what he had said to the Commissioner.

I thought you wanted me to explain --

No, I want an assurance.

--- what I said on the afternoon. Because I say the Commissioner was all at sea over section 4 of the Act. I tried to put him right. And he did not want to listen to me that afternoon. That is all in the papers. He did not want to listen to me and walked out saying, "Get him out." You have asked me for an assurance that I will give evidence. I have given it to you, Mr Prime Minister. How many times do you want this assurance? I have given it to the Commissioner, except he did not want it. He refused to give me an assurance that these witnesses would be called.

Therefore all that transpired in the afternoon was an aberration?

Whose aberration? Yours?

Could we have the tape?

Yes.

Arrange for the videotape. The Minister for Home Affairs' notes are for the afternoon session: 'I think it will be a confusion to try and equate it as a privilege resting with a person. You see, you have under the Advocates and Solicitors Act a privilege of a communication made by a client to his advocate and solicitor. And that is the privilege of the client and he can waive it. But this is not that sort of thing.'

Exactly.

'This is an absolute prohibition. It is not a privilege that can be waived.'

But I said that in spite of that I will give evidence.

We are asking the Commissioner to break the law? Is that his proposition? I am suggesting that there is no such proposition; at any time the Member can give evidence, and he knows that. If he gives me that assurance, he will get full facilities.

The Prime Minister must be aware that I told the Commissioner that he was breaking the law and that, under the Act, he could be held to be in contempt of Parliament and he cannot plead the President's directive or order to him. The Prime Minister says he does not agree with my interpretation of section 4. Would he like to study it? Would he like to look at section 4 and contrast it with the sections in the Evidence Act which talk about communication which are privileged, and see the total difference in the wording?

I take the Member's words to mean that he will give evidence and that if we in this House give him the assurance that we will ask the Commissioner to waive or to overrule the normal, ordinary rules of procedure that require him to give a short summary of all that he wants of his various witnesses, that all he needs do is to go into the box, name those witnesses, give evidence and say, "they will confirm it", all those witnesses will be produced. It must be so. It must be so. No witness will be denied him. He has made his charges doubly grave because, having gone this far, I am now being accused of having shut out vital evidence because the Commissioner in his folly refused to give the Member an assurance that he can call his witnesses. I say, by all means. I therefore propose that the Member states his case now and we shall agree that he will give his evidence and that of the five witnesses he has named.

The Prime Minister keeps asking me to state again and again what I have already stated. I do not know why that is necessary, Mr Speaker, Sir. I should have thought once stated would be enough. Apparently not for the Prime Minister. I have said that I will give evidence and I will name the two members of the Subordinate Court Judiciary ---

Name them now.

--- who were transferred.

What is the mystery? Let us have them now. There is no mystery.

Sit down, Mr Prime Minister.

I will not, Mr Speaker, Sir.

What is it? Is it on a point of order?

He is making a mystery out of these missing names of District Judges who were transferred. He knows of three. He has named one; he has got two more. I say, just name them. Let us produce them. Are they Mr Chandra Mohan, Mr Tan Teow Yeow, Mr Michael Khoo? Name them.

[Pointing to a pile of notes] That is all that I had got prepared to give evidence before the Commissioner. So I was surprised to read the Commissioner's statement that I had no intention to give evidence. I have already named, before this House, witnesses that I think should be produced before any Commission appointed to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo Kah Lip. Those were the names that I gave to the Commissioner - the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, Tan Teow Yeow, Chandra Mohan, and, of course, Michael Khoo Kah Lip. Then I said I think Mr Glenn Knight should also give evidence. You ask me now to tell you who are the members of the Subordinate Court judiciary who were transferred. One goes back to 1972, Mr Prime Minister, and he is Mr Yong Yung Sui. Probably he was not a District Judge. He was sitting in the Subordinate Court and he heard a case in which I appeared as the Counsel for the accused. The accused in that case was none other than the brother of Mr Lee Tow Kiat, an advocate and solicitor, who had stood as a candidate for the Workers' Party in the 1972 elections. He was charged with using criminal force on a top ranking police officer, and I understood then that this top ranking police officer was one of the top police officers who accompanied the Prime Minister on his travels abroad. He was a very important police officer. The Magistrate acquitted my client, the brother of Mr Lee Tow Kiat, of the charge. Shortly after that he was transferred, taken out of the courts. And he has never returned to the court, as far as I know. He is now in the Legal Unit of the Development and Building Control Unit of the Ministry of National Development. That is Mr Yong Yung Sui. The other man is Mr Jeffrey Chan. He heard a case, again I do not know whether he was a District Judge; I think he probably was. He heard a case concerning entry into the CBD area by a police officer without displaying an area licence, and again I was the counsel for the accused, for this Inspector. I submitted at the close of the prosecution case that the whole scheme was ultra vires the Act. That the collection of the area licence fee was not authorized by the Act and therefore it was ultra vires. This was accepted. There was a DPP arguing for the prosecution. This was accepted by the Magistrate who acquitted the man. He was an Inspector in the Police Force. And throughout the case, I think it was raised as a preliminary point. This, of course, was not acceptable to the Government. I mentioned this in this House after I came here because the same evening, over radio and TV, there was an announcement, and in the press as well, by somebody from the Ministry of Communications saying, "We are not accepting that judgment. We will continue to collect charges and fees. We are going to appeal against that decision." That was a statement made by an official from the Ministry of Communications and I referred to that. I said, "That showed the contempt that the Government had for the administration of justice." Here is a Magistrate who makes a decision and the member of the Executive says, "Oh, forget that decision. We are not going to abide by it." What clearer contempt can there be for the administration of justice? This man was also taken out of the courts a few months later. So there are these two instances, Mr Prime Minister, and you can check them out. All I wanted to know, as I said on 10th January, is that there should be an explanation. There should be an explanation to the public why Mr Michael Khoo was transferred in August 1984. I said that was of vital importance if the public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained in this country and, of course, public confidence in the administration of justice, as the Prime Minister very well knows - it may not be accepted by the other Members but the Prime Minister, of course, is aware of that - is one of the strongest pillars of any democratic state or society.

Do I understand now that these two cases also - Mr Yong Yung Sui and Mr Jeffrey Chan - comprise the three Subordinate Court Judges against whom the Executive has interfered in the exercise of their duties and they would also be the subject of investigation besides Mr Michael Khoo?

I do not know whether the Prime Minister deliberately refuses to understand what I am saying in this House. It is not for me, Mr Prime Minister ---

On the contrary, it is for you. The Member has come here, made these allegations, and I am asking him whether he is prepared to give evidence of his disquiet and justify the disquiet, and all the records will be opened. It is not for him to come here and laugh hilariously when he is refuted and then expand his allegations into wider fields. It is not funny, Mr Speaker, Sir, because, at the end of all this, there must be a reckoning.

Yes, there must be a reckoning. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is only necessary for me, as a Member of this House, to come and inform the House of anything that is disquieting the public. I shall be failing in my duty if I did not do that. The Prime Minister must know that I do not have access to what goes on in Government offices. I do not have access to Government files. I do not have access to anything. Indeed I have complained about this. In this country, everything is kept behind closed doors. I have telephoned many a time to Ministries and asked for information and I am refused information. Let me give the Prime Minister one instance. Preparing myself for this Commission of Inquiry which the President, on the advice of the Prime Minister, had appointed and which I was determined should not be frustrated, that it should be allowed to carry out its tasks fully, I wrote to the Registrar of the Subordinate Courts a letter asking him whether he would give me a statement of all the holders of the post of District Judge and First Magistrate and Senior District Judge way back from 1955 or even before that, 1952, I think, after I joined the Legal Service and what happened to them when they vacated their offices. This is something which should be a matter of public record and I wrote to the Registrar of the Subordinate Courts, "May I have this information?" And what do I get? "Very sorry. We cannot give you this information because it only came to me in the course of my official duties as Registrar. So how can I give you that information?" or words to that effect. So I had to write to him again and tell him, "Surely these transfers would have appeared in the Gazette Notifications and therefore they are matters of public record." Even then he does not give me the information. He writes back and says, "Well, if you say they are matters of public record, you go and look them up yourself." That is the sort of cooperation I have had from Government Ministries and departments when I have asked for even the simplest information. So it is not for me, Mr Prime Minister - I hope you understand - to have to prove that anything was wrong with the Government, with the functioning of the Government machinery or with any other machinery. It is for the Government, once a matter is raised in this House, to lay bare before the House and the public, to show that there can be no question of any impropriety. There can be no question that might give rise to disquiet in the minds of the public. That is how democratic governments function. They are accountable to the people, and if you take that seriously, then it is the Government's duty to explain without hiding anything but to put everything in front of the people and to explain it. And that is all I asked for the last time. On 10th January I asked that there should be a proper explanation for the transfer of this man and that was not forthcoming and that does not amount to an attack on the Judiciary, as the Minister for Home Affairs has made it out to be. I cannot see by any stretch of imagination that that could be an attack on the Judiciary. So I hope the Prime Minister understands what is involved in all this. We are not, as the Prime Minister has said, playing a game here. It goes far beyond that. It is very serious, and it is the duty of the Government to explain and to satisfy the public.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we can argue the Member's position interminably and come back again round the mulberry bush. When he is about to be asked to produce his evidence, he says it is not for him to produce evidence. It is for him to just take a brush and tar it broadly and it is for the Government to clean itself up. I cannot accept the Member's words given in this House. He has given it to me once in March when he said "So be it" before the Commission of Inquiry. He has given it to me again now. He says, "Yes, I will appear." But he knows as well as I do that he can go before another Commission and plead privilege, and again we would not be able to have the valuable evidence which he keeps in his mind. I therefore suggest, Mr Speaker, Sir, that we proceed with this motion, hear the Member as to why it should be rejected and as a result of his arguments the Government will decide either to suspend this motion and proceed to ask the Commissioner to hear his evidence and waive the rules that normally require a statement from each witness, and provide him with all the witnesses that he requires in order that he will prove his case. Or if we are not satisfied, then we shall proceed with the resolution. I can assure the House that I have no intention of shutting out the Member because in this House in Committee we are empowered to summon witnesses and to hear evidence on oath and we will provide the Member with that opportunity. But we have this added advantage, Mr Speaker, that in this House in Committee the Member cannot avoid coming and giving evidence because he cannot plead privilege. He may not realize it but I am reminding him that perhaps before he makes his bold assertion that we intend to pursue these allegations to the end of the road, and I will briefly explain why. When these matters arose, I was nonplussed. Nonplussed because it made no sense to me. But he has persisted in them so I have now the advantage of a thorough review of the facts of the case and I like briefly, if I may, since he is asking the Government to clear itself and the Govern- ment will clear itself, and we will prove that Michael Khoo's transfer was not only the work of the Legal Service Commission, unconnected with the Government, but that, further, it was, as the Chief Justice had said it, initiated by the Chief Justice and, furthermore, I have a judgment of the Chief Justice which explains why he moved Michael Khoo. I have not discussed this matter at all with either the Chief Justice or the Attorney General. All I did was to call for the judgment. Let me explain. On 14th January 1984, Mr Michael Khoo gave judgment, orally. He acquitted the Member of one charge for swearing a false declaration because --- [Interruption]. Let us not go into fine legalities. I am talking to laymen here in the House. Swearing of false declaration, a very serious charge. He was acquitted because he decided that the declaration was not in the exact formula given in the schedule. He acquitted the co-accused, Mr Wong Hong Toy. Two charges. There were three other charges of defrauding creditors, not a piffling, minor charge of a traffic offence. He acquitted both accused on two charges and convicted them on one. An appeal was filed. On the 30th March, 1984, Mr Michael Khoo gave his grounds for decision, a written judgment. In May 1984, two months later, there was a hearing before the Chief Justice. Two months after the hearing, or less, in August 1984 Mr Michael Khoo was transferred to the Attorney-General's Chambers. On the 18th April 1985 - and I do not know and I have not asked the Chief Justice why he withheld his judgment for so long - he gave his written judgment. I called for this judgment. I think it answers all the things that I wanted to know. On page 13 ---

On a point of order, Mr Prime Minister.

What is your point of order?

The point of order is this, Mr Speaker, Sir. As the Prime Minister well knows, at the retrial we were convicted and there is an appeal pending against that, and at this appeal the judgment of the Chief Justice ordering the retrial will be very much an issue relevant. His grounds as to why he ordered the retrial and his findings - they will all be canvassed again before the Judge who hears this appeal. And here is the Prime Minister, with all his experience, referring in Parliament to judgments and proceedings in Court which are not over yet. Is he not aware of Standing Order which says that no reference shall be made to proceedings which are sub judice?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member should remember that I was trained in the law and I have two colleagues in this House - one the Minister for Law, the other the Second Minister for Law. This is the judgment of the Chief Justice sitting in appeal. His judgment was appealed against by the Member asking the Chief Justice to state a case to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Chief Justice refused. He went to the Court of Criminal Appeal for a case stated; it was refused.

And not for a case stated.

He went on to the Privy Council and it was dismissed.

You have got to get your facts correct.

This has nothing to do with the retrial. It explains why the Chief Justice reversed Mr Michael Khoo on two findings of fact, and convicted the Member ---

On a point of clarification.

Let me answer this point of order. I am answering the point of order first. Please.

Because you are going on without answering the point of order.

I am answering the point of order. Two charges on questions of fact. The Chief Justice reversed Mr Michael Khoo and found that on the evidence Mr Michael Khoo was wrong. And on the question of law ---

It is going to be argued, Mr Prime Minister, at the appeal that the Chief Justice was wrong.

No, it cannot be.

Yes. Are you going to be my counsel?

I would ask ---

So please do not refer to it now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not intimidated. I am sorry to say that I do know my position. There can be no appeal against the conviction for defrauding creditors. The case is closed. What was sent for retrial and it is the appeal on the retrial that the Member is talking about - is a finding of law which the Chief Justice reversed, that a statutory declaration need not be in the form in the schedule for it to be an offence under section 199 of the Penal Code. And he ordered that there be a new trial under a new Judge. There was this new trial. The Judge convicted the Member for Anson and the Member for Anson is appealing against this conviction of false declaration, not against defrauding creditors. He is therefore deliberately misleading us.

Mr Prime Minister, are you aware of the facts?

I am not giving way, Mr Speaker.

Are you aware of the facts of the charges?

I am now. I was not before, but I am now.

You are not, Mr Prime Minister.

And I am going to give it to the House.

You are not because ---

Please! Mr Speaker, Sir ---

Mr Jeyaretnam, will you sit down? There is no point of order.

Because the Prime Minister is not aware of the evidence and the facts.

Mr Speaker, Sir, do I have the right to carry on?

Carry on.

I have met the point of order and if I am wrong ---

You have not.

I have indeed.

I ask for a ruling from the Speaker.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before you rule, can I repeat it very briefly?

And I will reply.

I have also asked my colleague to get the grounds for appeal against the subsequent conviction. It does not contain any appeal against the Chief Justice's reversal.

There we are! This is on appeal.

It does not contain any appeal against the Chief Justice's reversal of the two defrauding creditor charges. So it has nothing to do with it. The case is closed.

I am sorry the Prime Minister shows such a poor comprehension of what is involved in this appeal. Has he studied the case?

I do not have to study the whole case to know where I stand - whether I am entitled to say this. Let me proceed why ---

I would like a ruling, Mr Speaker, Sir, on this.

I ask the Prime Minister to carry on.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

I want to reply.

This judgment explains why he transferred Mr Michael Khoo. It is simple. The Chief Justice quotes section 199, on page 13: 'Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any court of justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorized by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, shall be punished.' and so on. The Chief Justice, on page 19: 'In my judgement the trial judge [this is Mr Justice Khoo] erred in law in finding that the prosecution had failed to prove ---

Mr Speaker, Sir, I must persist in my objection on a point of order because he is going to read the judgment. If he wants to reply to my objection on a point of order, let him do so. Let him not read the judgment now.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the judgment has been read in Court to the Member.

You wanted the facts of the case.

No, Mr Speaker, Sir. I want a ruling on whether the Prime Minister is permitted under the Standing Orders to refer to judgments in cases which are far from over. There is an appeal. The Prime Minister keeps saying that what is on appeal is the conviction under section 199. That is, of course, true. But the Prime Minister should know if he has made a study of the case, and I am sure he has.

Thank you.

I am sure you have. He should know that the charge involves the questions as to whether those three sums of money on which the other three charges were founded were part of the Workers' Party's monies, and whether they were reflected in the accounts or whether they should be reflected in the accounts. So you cannot try and isolate one charge from the other three charges. It is all these questions - whether the amounts on those three cheques form part of the Workers' Party's monies - that will be canvassed at the hearing of the appeal. And now, what the Prime Minister proposes to do is to read the judgment of the Chief Justice. I tell the Prime Minister that the Judgment of the Chief Justice ---

Is sub judice?

--- will be the subject of comment in this appeal that will be heard. It will be severely criticized and shown to be wrong. So it is sub judice.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this judgment has been read by the Chief Justice in open court before the DPP and the accused and published in the newspapers, not all of it. I am just reading out the parts which laymen are usually not interested in but which I believe we in this House are interested in because it will show why Mr Michael Khoo was transferred. It is simple. I ask you to rule that I am entitled to read a document which is not sub judice but has been read and made public.

I agree with the Prime Minister. It has been published in the newspapers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, of course it is published. Of course it is published. It shows a complete inability to grasp the Standing Order in this House. Standing Order says that no Member shall refer to proceedings before a Court of law before they are over. That is what is contemplated by that Standing Order. And here the proceedings are not over.

We shall never have any finality, Mr Speaker, Sir. I ask you to rule and if you rule that I should not read the judgment of the Chief Justice which has already been read in court, then so be it. Am I entitled to do it?

I have not finished, Mr Speaker, Sir. I have a right of reply to this point of order that I raised. It is very much an issue and which will be before the court. The fact that it has been published is neither here nor there. It cannot be referred to in this House in its proceedings. You can read them outside but you cannot refer to them in this House, in proceedings before this House, because they are - I see the Member for Punggol would like to display his knowledge of the law. I will give him the rostrum. He can come and tell us where he learned his law.

4.30 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, before we continue, I think we should allow the Prime Minister to finish the statement that he is making. May I seek your consent and the assent of the House to continue the sitting until the Prime Minister has finished? With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present,

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, the Debate continue beyond 4.30 pm until the Prime Minister has finished his speech.

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, page 19 of the Chief Justice's ---

Are you ruling on this, Mr Speaker, Sir?

I thought you have.

It is public knowledge, Mr Jeyaretnam.

You have ruled?

I have.

All right.

In my whole experience in Parliament, I have not heard any Member say that a judgment on appeal already read is sub judice. And that we are entitled to read it outside but we must not know about it inside this House. We can break the egg and scramble it and pretend that the egg is still intact.

Have you looked at the Standing Order?

'In my judgment the trial judge erred in law in finding that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case under Section 199 and in acquitting Wong and Jeyaretnam without calling on each of them to enter upon his defence. In all the circumstances the order I make is that there be a fresh joint trial before another judge.' This is a very important point. The Chief Justice could have sent the case back to the same Magistrate or the District Judge who heard it and directed that he call upon the defence, which is one option open to him. He however chose, two months after hearing the appeal and reading the written judgment of the District Judge, to transfer him and ordered a retrial under another judge. In other words, giving the Member for Anson a chance, a clean chance, a trial de novo, right from the beginning, so that if he is innocent, he will be acquitted. Because the man who had heard him, Michael Khoo, must read this judgment which reversed him and when instructed to call upon the defence must convict ---

Who said that?

--- unless the defence is upheld.

Is it in the law?

Yes, it is in the law. When an Appellate Judge is directed to call upon the defence ---

He must convict.

--- unless he holds that the defence is valid, he must convict, yes.

This is something new.

I stand by a simple principle of law.

You tell me where it is found.

In page 20, the Chief Justice goes on to say, before he begins to upset Michael Khoo on a series of findings of fact: '... the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses.' He conceded that he would be slow in reversing Mr Michael Khoo on findings of fact because Michael Khoo had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. He went on, in page 23, about a cheque given by a Dr Ivy Chew to the Workers' Party, crossed, and he said: 'When it was issued by her [by Ivy Chew] it became prima facie the property of the Workers' Party.'

Couldn't he be wrong?

He is right, Mr Speaker, Sir, because ---

You say so.

--- the appeal is over. He was appealed against in the Court of Criminal Appeal. It was out. He was appealed against in the Privy Council. The Privy Council has no jurisdiction. It is out. It is the final word.

The Prime Minister is misleading the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask for some protection? I do not intend to shut out anything.

No. You are misleading the House.

I am reading the Chief Justice's judgment. Is the Chief Justice misleading all of us?

Mr Prime Minister, it was not appealed against. You are a trained lawyer, Mr Prime Minister.

Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, will you please sit down.

I am a man not without some determination. And I am determined that the House shall know why the Chief Justice transferred Michael Khoo. On page 26: 'It seems to me obvious that the best evidence to refute that clear inference would be evidence from Dr Chew. However, she was not called by the defence although she was available as a witness if the defence wished to call her. The defence chose to rest its case upon Jeyaretnam's evidence alone on the question of Dr Chew's intention. To refute Dr Chew's intention as expressed on the face of the cheque [which I thought was a very simple proposition] the defence relied on Jeyaretnam's bare assertion that there was a note from her to him accompanying her cheque and Jeyaretnam's assertion that he had a subsequent telephone conversation with her as to the use to be made of its proceeds.' The defence is not that the cheque did not belong to the Workers' Party and he defrauded the creditors by transferring it out from Workers' Party funds, but that there was a covering note from Dr Chew and a subsequent telephone conversation with her which enabled him to make use of it in a different way. 'It will be seen from the second passage that I have quoted, wherein the trial judge stated that the only evidence he had concerning Dr Chew's intention was the testimony of Jeyaretnam, that he ignored or failed to consider the evidence before him of Dr Chew's intention as expressed on the face of her own cheque. The failure to do so was in my opinion a serious misdirection.' And the Chief Justice went on: 'I am unable to accept Jeyaretnam's evidence that there was a note to him from Dr Chew and consequently I do not accept his evidence of their subsequent telephone conversation for the following reasons.' In other words, the Judge not having seen Mr Jeyaretnam, just with the evidence on the record, says the finding is contrary to the evidence on the record. And he explains why. 'It was highly unlikely that Dr Chew would write the words "Workers' Party" on the face of the cheque and send it to Jeyaretnam with a note, the contents of which were as related by Jeyaretnam, if she did not intend to donate the sum specified on its face to the Workers' Party. If her intention was different from that as expressed on the face of the cheque, her evidence was necessary to explain why she wrote the words "Workers' Party" on the face of the cheque when she intended someone else to be the donee of her $2,000 gift. And, if her intention was to donate the $2,000 to Jeyaretnam to be used by him for any purpose he thought fit, it was essential for her to give an explanation why she named the Workers' Party and not Jeyaretnam as the payee on the face of her cheque. Furthermore, in the two statutory declarations made by Dr Chew which were in evidence [Dr Chew made two statutory declarations on oath] she stated that she "volunteered the donation of $2,000 with the tacit understanding that it be used at Mr J B Jeyaretnam's discretion for the opposition" (the emphasis is mine). The ordinary meaning of the expression "tacit understanding" is an understanding that is not expressly stated but is implied. And it follows that she was in effect saying in her statutory declarations that she did not expressly tell Jeyaretnam, but it was implied, that she left it entirely to him to use her gift at his discretion for the opposition. In my judgment, her statutory declarations, correctly understood, contradicted Jeyaretnam's evidence ... It follows that the trial judge was wrong in his finding that her statutory declarations "substantially confirmed what (Jeyaretnam) had said regarding her donation.".' In other words, that was wrong. It was contradicted by the cheque which she wrote and by her statutory declaration which says there is a tacit understanding. So there could not have been a telephone conversation nor a note which was not produced. "Finally, on the question of Dr Chew's intention I feel I should deal briefly with a comment by the trial judge on the fact that the prosecution did not call her as a witness." "... It was ... most unfortunate that the Court was deprived of the opportunity of hearing their evidence,"' ---

Why didn't the prosecution call them?

"... the defence elected not to call them totestify in support of its allegations." I quote the Chief Justice. I did not try the case. 'In my judgment, it was sufficient for the prosecution to rely on the cheque itself as proof that the cheque was the property of the Workers' Party but, having regard to the nature ... of the defence on the issue of Dr Chew's intention, the defence should have called her as a witness.' In other words, here was a party supporter, signed this cheque, was alleged to have given a piece of paper, and said, "You do with it as you like", had a subsequent telephone conversation. Here was the Secretary-General of the Party about to be found guilty and she could not be produced. All that they could get was a statutory declaration in which she very carefully said "tacit understanding". In page 33: 'In my judgment, these passages disclose errors on the part of the trial judge. First, in the passage beginning "In the absence of any evidence to the contrary" it seems to me that he failed to take into consideration the undisputed facts relied on by the prosecution together with such inferences as may be drawn from the proved facts and failed to weigh that evidence against Jeyaretnam's evidence before coming to the conclusion that Jeyaretnam's evidence could not be untrue. In my judgment this was a serious misdirection [a serious misdirection]. Secondly, the trial judge [ie, Michael Khoo] erred in his finding that "there would have been no grounds for the prosecution to complain" had the cheques been first banked into the Workers' Party bank account and then paid out to Madam Chew's solicitors. In my judgment the trial judge misconstrued the evidence of Mr Keith Tay [an accountant]. It is clear that the answer [Mr Keith Tay's answer] was in response to the question which required the witness to assume as a fact that Jeyaretnam was entitled to pay Mdm Chew's costs "from a donor"'". Again, a finding of fact that the judge allowed extraneous and irrelevant material to influence his finding on the case. Page 35: 'The trial judge, in my judgment, was wrong in his conclusion that the evidence, inter alia, was favourable to the defence on the question of a fraudulent intention ... At best, it was ... neutral evidence. Lastly, ... the trial judge erred in law in relying on the Rangoon Case ... for finding that even though the cheque was the property of the Workers' Party, Tay Boon Too had not obtained any right or title to its proceeds and consequently had no right to the distribution of the proceeds according to law.' Let me count. Six findings that the man was wrong on facts, on the face of the evidence on the record, before the court. Two findings wrong in law. In one judgment, six findings wrong in fact, two findings wrong in law. 'He erred that there would have been no grounds for the prosecution to complain had the cheques been first banked. He misconstrued. He came to the wrong conclusion.' Then he dealt with another charge in which Michael Khoo acquitted both the accused of defrauding creditors. This was a sum of $200 from a Mr Ping. On page 61, the Chief Justice has to say this of his Senior District Judge who was, previous to that, his Registrar in the High Court: 'The trial judge appears to have failed to observe, analyse or consider all these material facts and circumstances and in failing to do so, in my judgment, erred in his approach to the evidence of Wong and in accepting Wong's account of what Ping said when he handed his cheque to Wong.' "Failure to observe, analyse or consider material facts and circumstances." These are not words tossed lightly in a debate in Parliament. The Chief Justice thought about these matters for many months and decided that he would say these words on the record, on permanent record, against the man who had served him as Senior Registrar and whom he had transferred as Senior District Judge. On page 62: 'In my judgment, on a full consideration of the material evidence and the circumstances and bearing in mind that an appellate court should be slow in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses but is nonetheless duty bound to review at large the evidence upon which that finding was reached, [in spite of his reluctance, the Chief Justice says] I am satisfied that the trial judge was wrong in accepting Wong's account and in finding that Ping had no intention of transferring the property in his cheque to the Workers' Party. ' 'It follows, in my opinion, inescapably, [these are the Chief Justice's words] that Jeyaretnam's recollection, as given in evidence by him, that Wong told him Ping wanted to give something for Madam Chew's costs must also be untrue as was his recollection that he endorsed it so that they could get the money for Madam Chew. Accordingly, I find that at all material times Ping's cheque was the property of the Workers' Party.' Very simple. The man gave a cheque. "Workers' Party or Bearer". He had cancelled "Bearer". In a private room, Mr Jeyaretnam, Mr Wong in a separate room, Mr Wong with Mr Jeyaretnam present asked the man, "revive the bearer and endorse it in order to defraud the creditors." The Member said he cannot remember. Mr Ping said the Member was there and Mr Wong was there. And the Chief Justice says that, on the evidence, Mr Michael Khoo was wrong in acquitting. He reversed him on facts and he convicted and let him off lightly with a $1,000 fine. $1,000 for fraud! That is how lenient our courts have been. But I hope the courts recognize that as a result of all this, the Member believes that he has now got such a halo around him that he can go around town pretending that he is a saint, that all these are calumnies. This is the same Michael Khoo that the Member feels should have been made a High Court Judge a long time ago.

I did not say that. Look up the passages.

That all his predecessors had become High Court Judges, except one who became a Solicitor-General, and that in the natural course of events his next progression was up to the High Court bench. Of course, what he did not say, but it must have been uppermost in his mind, was that the appointment to the High Court Bench is the duty of the Prime Minister who has to consult the Chief Justice. Let me explain briefly what I did. I made three appointments since Mr Michael Khoo became Senior District Judge in October 1978. My first appointment was announced in June 1981. With effect from 1st July 1981, Mr Justice Lai Kew Chai. Next, in November 1983, one month before Mr Michael Khoo heard the case against Mr Jeyaretnam, I announced the appointment of Mr Justice Thean Lip Pin with effect from 1st February 1984. Then on the 5th May, 1984, before Mr Michael Khoo was transferred in August 1984, I announced the appointment with effect from the 10th of September of Mr Justice P. Coomaraswamy. After Mr Michael Khoo was transferred and after Mr Foenander had got on the Senior District Court Bench, I raised Mr S.K. Chan, a practitioner, to be a Judicial Commissioner. Mr Speaker, Sir, I made these appointments without the advantage of reading the Chief Justice's judgment. It is my business. The Prime Minister's duty is to ensure that those appointed to the High Court Bench deserve to be there, will uphold the highest standards, and will ensure that the administration of justice is beyond reproach. They are appointed and cannot be removed until they reach retirement at 65. There is such a paucity of able men with the right character attributes that I told the House last year how many vacancies there were and why they could not be filled. There is nothing mysterious about Michael Khoo's transfer and I am prepared to have it examined, re-examined, further reviewed. I am suggesting now, having read this judgment, that perhaps the Chief Justice was remiss in waiting till August. He heard the appeal. He must have read the grounds for decision between March and May when he heard it. And there were very good grounds why, if a person can make such a series of misfindings of fact and two misfindings of law in one simple case, he should be transferred to the Attorney-General's Chambers. There is nothing mysterious. There is, of course, may I add, a natural reluctance of members of the Service to in any way impugn, stain, or mark the progress of a fellow member. And I fully understand that. I would have preferred not to have pointed these things out, but for the Member coming to this House and asking us to believe that here was an outstanding example of an independent judge who had acquitted him of four charges, but convicted him of one charge ---

He was fired. Is that what you are suggesting?

No, I am not. I am suggesting that the Chief Justice, in his judgment, incidentally gave his reasons why he transferred Mr Michael Khoo. I do not know Mr Michael Khoo. I have not met him. I have no desire to pry into his mind. But it so happens that he has become a bone of contention. And lest it be forgotten that he is being punished by the Chief Justice because he was on the side of the Member for Anson, let me read his judgment which he wrote for the appeal to justify the conviction, a conviction for defrauding a sum of $400 of his creditors, from a Willie Lim Thian Tze. Says Michael Khoo: 'It is not in dispute that the $400 cheque given to Willie Lim on the 22nd of May was intended as a donation to the Workers' Party. Willie Lim testified that after the donation he was asked by a friend [this is page 42, 43] to go down to the Party branch. He was met outside by Wong, the first accused, who told me that he had been looking for me. The first accused then brought me to the MP's partitioned office and asked me to cross out the words "Workers' Party" on the cheque and initial it. When asked what was wrong with the cheque, the first accused told him it was because the Party's funds were with the Official Receiver. The date of the alteration is in dispute, Lim having contended that it was some time in June 1982, whereas Wong had contended it was on the 27th of May 1982, which was the date on the receipt.' Page 44: 'Wong testified that on 27th May 1982, while in the office of the MP, Willie called and the accused Wong told him that since his cheque had been made out to the Workers' Party and the Workers' Party's account had been closed, I told him to change it to a "cash" cheque. Wong denied ever mentioning to Willie anything about the Official Receiver. Having regard to all the evidence, both oral and documentary, I disbelieve the first accused's version.' Page 46: 'I therefore accept Willie Lim's evidence that when the accused Wong asked him to alter the cheque it was for the reason that the Party's funds were with the Official Receiver, the Receiver having been appointed on the 3rd of June 1982. This being so, the alteration of the cheque could only have transpired after that date.' Page 47: 'Having regard to all the evidence the cheque for the $400 should have, in accordance with terms of the Order of Court, 11th June 1982, been given over to the Official Receiver but was not. When he delivered it to be cashed on 2nd July he had done so knowing it is likely to prevent its distribution by the Official Receiver according to the Order of Court to Tay Boon Too.' 'Was this act of the accused Wong done in furtherance of a common intention of both accused such as would make Jeyaretnam liable for that act? All that Jeyaretnam had to say in his defence to this charge was, "I really can't say if I saw a cheque [from Willie Lim] at all ... I can't recall seeing him at any time altering the cheque...I did not deal in any way with the cash that may have arisen from the cheque.' 'Willie Lim was emphatic that Jeyaretnam was present "to my front, to my left" when Wong requested him to alter the cheque in the MP's private office. I therefore accepted this evidence that the alteration of the cheque was done in Jeyaretnam's presence having found as a fact that this had occurred after the appointment of the Receiver and that the reason proffered by the accused Wong was because the Party's funds were in the hands of the Official Receiver. The only conclusion I could have come to was that the accused Jeyaretnam was fully aware of the transaction. [This is Michael Khoo whom he has praised]. I therefore have no doubts whatsoever [as a man who should have been on the High Court Bench] that from their conduct when this cheque was retained by the first accused and then handed to a person unknown to be encashed on the 2nd July 1982 instead of being handed over to the Official Receiver that both accused were acting in concert.' 'I am satisfied [page 50] on the evidence that the accused Wong at least was not telling the truth and neither was the defence witness Balakrishnan and accordingly I reject the defence on this charge and found both of them guilty. In deciding to accept the defence of the other two charges, [those were the two that the Chief Justice subsequently reversed] I am fully conscious of the lie told in explaining away Willie Lim's cheque and of the contradictions of the testimonies of both the accused, inter se, and with their statements. [Inter se, that means both the accused in court and with their statements made previously].' He then went on to quote a Judge in the Federation of Malaya in 1961 to say why, even though he finds witnesses lying on one point, he may accept their views on some other points. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have the bare bones of the Inquiry in the Report. Nobody gave evidence in its detail because everybody hesitated in wanting to bring out data which may be unfavourable to the District Judge. I regret that the Member persisted and I have a duty when I read the judgment because I think the matter should have been pursued at the Inquiry regardless of feelings. I therefore ask the House to consider this: that we hear the Member for Anson, his case for rejecting the Report. We have two choices. (1) send the case back, or (2) direct the Commissioner to waive, to ignore ---

The same Commissioner or another one?

--- all the rules of evidence and to hear the Member for Anson and all the witnesses. We could have it any way but the Member can easily go before the Commissioner and say, "I plead privilege." We can skip that phase. Move on this motion and refer it to a Committee of Parliament. It could be a Committee of Privileges. It could be any Committee. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, you have the power, as the Chairman of such a Committee, to summon each and every person required as a witness to clarify this and the Member has no privilege to turn down that request. We shall get to the bottom of this. I am prepared to submit myself to an inquisition. I had nothing to do with the case. I do not know what overcame the Member for Anson when he made these allegations and he persisted in it today. His distorted sick mind insists that this is a Government that manipulated the Judiciary. Well, let him prove it. But every time he is asked to prove, he wriggles out and says, "This is not really what I said." I have said that ---

I believe what I said.

People, generally. Disquiet. A Commission was set up. It was broadcast. All views were canvassed. Broadcast in the newspapers, on television, on radio. Four submissions. One was prepared to go beyond an anonymous letter, and that one, Mr Sundram, was a former Workers' Party candidate.

So? What is wrong with that?

Nothing wrong. But he did not turn up to give evidence because the Commissioner was there waiting for him and we will wait for him when we meet, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Did it occur to you that perhaps we were dissatisfied with the whole conduct of the inquiry?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that would not have prevented anybody from going there and satisfying himself that the world heard him. The world may disbelieve him after cross-examination but the world would have heard him. What is wrong with that? I am prepared to have myself heard and be cross-examined. If any word that I have uttered there is untrue, so be it. This is what we have as a responsibility. There must be finality in these proceedings. We will offer the Member every opportunity to prove the allegations and he can do all that he wishes, with all the witnesses he likes. But he will not in the electronic age be able to deny what he has said. That, of course, does not mean, Mr Speaker, Sir, he is not capable of going again before another Commission of Inquiry and say, "I plead privilege." But I am reminding him now that we will either have it in a Commission of Inquiry where he can plead privilege or if he waives his privilege, we shall meet him in this House in a Parliamentary Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not replying to the motion. I want clarification from the Prime Minister on some of the things that he said in his hour-long address this afternoon. The Prime Minister has spoken like a counsel arguing the prosecution's case before the Court of Appeal. I know you have ruled but it is still my view, Mr Speaker, Sir, that it was very wrong for the Prime Minister to have done this. It was sub judice.

You wanted to know the reasons why Mr Michael Khoo was transferred.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I only hope that the Prime Minister's speech is not going to be sent on to the counsel who appears for the Government to be read in court there, that the Prime Minister of the country agrees with the Chief Justice's views because, as I said, the Chief Justice's judgment will be taken to task at the hearing of the appeal. The Prime Minister, if I heard him correctly - I hope I heard him correctly - has now said to this House that the reason for Mr Michael Khoo's transfer was because of the errors he made in this judgment. Did I hear him correctly that that is the only reason why he was transferred?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I never have any doubts as to what I said. I weighed my words carefully. I was anxious to know why, but it is improper for me to discuss the matter with the Chief Justice or any member of the Judicial service. I called for the judgment. I felt I should know more about it and the dates were ignificant. All I am saying is, here was judgment in January 1984, written grounds by the same Judge in March, hearing of the appeal in May, transfer took place a few weeks less than two months after that. I ask the House to consider whether or not such a transfer was extraordinary. If the Chief Justice had upheld the judgment, that would have been extraordinary. I also read the appointments of the Justices of the High Court. It was quite clear that there was nobody on the Legal Service that was being considered for this appointment, including Mr Michael Khoo, and that each of the appointments made was the best in the circumstances. So what was the mystery? The judgment, Mr Speaker, Sir, is a finality. I have asked in the short while for a copy of the petition of appeal by the solicitors to Mr Jeyaretnam.

Here you go again.

This is a petition of appeal. It is a public document.

Public document, but it is before the next hearing of the appeal.

All I am saying is, nowhere on the grounds of appeal is the Chief Justice and his judgment mentioned. There are grounds (a) to (l) and they all have to do with the errors and the faults of the District Judge who heard the retrial, not the Chief Justice's ruling because that is an Appellate Court's decision and it is a finality. There is finality.

Is the Prime Minister seriously saying - I know it was some 30 years ago since he gave up his law practice - is he seriously saying that the judgment of the Chief Justice is binding on another High Court Judge, that the High Court Judge is bound to follow the Chief Justice's rulings when he speaks of finality, that it cannot be reopened? Is he saying that?

I do not know whether the Member has thought over the question he has posed. Nobody in the High Court can reopen the Chief Justice's decision because it has gone up to a Court of Criminal Appeal and that is the end of the matter. Full-stop, period.

Will the Prime Minister answer my question? Is he saying that the decision of the Chief Justice is binding on another High Court Judge who hears this appeal and that I am just wasting my time in appealing to the High Court? Is he saying that? Because if he is saying that, then let him say it categorically in this House. Then perhaps I will have to withdraw the appeal. Secondly, is the Prime Minister seriously saying that there was an appeal from the Chief Justice's decision? I am rather surprised, Mr Prime Minister, that with your training as a lawyer - I know as I said it was some 30 years ago - that you could fail not to see the difference. There was no appeal from the Chief Justice's decision. We applied to the Chief Justice for leave to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal for him to refer questions that arose at the hearing of the appeal for the determination of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the Chief Justice turned down that request. And when we went up before the Court of Criminal Appeal, it was not to appeal against the Chief Justice's judgment; it was to appeal against his order refusing to give us leave to refer the questions to the Court of Criminal Appeal. They are two different things. The Court of Criminal Appeal did not go into the merits, Mr Prime Minister.

It cannot.

Exactly. The Court of Criminal Appeal merely said, "Under the Singapore law, under the Statute [I wonder whether you had a hand in drafting it] there is no appeal once the High Court Judge refuses to grant leave." So for the last time, Mr Prime Minister, there was no appeal against the judgment of the Chief Justice. It just could not be heard. And from the Court of Criminal Appeal saying that the Singapore law did not permit an appeal against the refusal of the High Court Judge to refer questions to a Court of Criminal Appeal, we went up to the Privy Council. Because my counsel conceded that the Chief Justice was sitting in an appellate capacity when he heard the application, the Privy Council said, "Well, in that case we agree with the Court of Criminal Appeal that there is no appeal from the decision of the Judge if he refuses to give leave to refer the appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal." So it must become crystally clear to you, Mr Prime Minister, that there was no appeal. There is only the judgment of the Chief Justice. And the judgment of the Chief Justice is not binding on the High Court Judge who hears this appeal. You can ask any lawyer that. Secondly, the Prime Minister refers to one affidavit of Dr Ivy Chew. Is he aware that there are two affidavits filed or given by Dr Ivy Chew? Would he like to look at both those affidavits? Is he also aware, because he seems to imply that we got those affidavits from her, that that is not so. Those affidavits were, in fact, statutory declarations. They were given by Dr Ivy Chew to the Official Receiver. So we did not get them, and we did not even know that she had made those affidavits. The prosecution had to produce those affidavits because we forced them out of the Receiver's hands. And so there was not just my testimony before the Senior District Judge, he had the affidavits of Dr Ivy Chew to consider. Then there is the question about who should have called Dr Ivy Chew. The Senior District Judge held that the prosecution should have called Dr Ivy Chew and this man, Ping Koon Yam. Of course, the Chief Justice took a different view. But, perhaps, may I ask the Prime Minister, by way of clarification, is he also aware of the important rule that it is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and that there is no duty on the defence to supply any witnesses, to explain any deficiency in the prosecution's case? Is he aware of that rule? May I have clear answers from the Prime Minister before we finish this evening? Is he saying that the reason for Mr Michael Khoo's transfer was because of the many errors he had made in the judgment he gave in January 1984? I know he says the Chief Justice did not tell him that. But is he saying that that is the reason? Does he as the Prime Minister say in this House, "I say these are the reasons for the transfer of Mr Michael Khoo." And then perhaps you can ask the Chief Justice whether he agrees with that, or whether there were other reasons. Thirdly, would he answer the question about the judgment of the Chief Justice, whether it is binding on another High Court Judge? And fourthly, whether he is aware that there were no appeals. Does he not concede that? And finally, would he look at both the affidavits of Dr Ivy Chew?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not here to engage in a debate on legal points. I had to explain why there is no mystery to me as to why Mr Michael Khoo was transferred. Here was the decision, here is the written judgment, here was the appeal heard before the Chief Justice and he was transferred a few weeks later. Why was it the prerogative of the Chief Justice? He is the Head of the Judiciary and he moves people as he wishes.

But are you saying here ---

I am saying here that as a reasonable man, looking at the evidence, they are not unconnected. It is as simple as that. And I am quite prepared, when this thing comes up for further review, as it must, to have myself cross-examined as to my knowledge. My knowledge is from the records. Nor am I interested in the one or two affidavits. I have seen both the affidavits. They both said "tacit understanding", in both affidavits.

Would you like to read both affidavits?

It is irrelevant. We should know of them just enough to know why Michael Khoo was wrong, and held by the Chief Justice to be wrong in not knowing the plain meaning of words on a document. That is all. They are very significant findings. It is for the Member to decide why he is asking the House to reject the Report. I find the Report manifestly reasonable, given the fact that he was given no other evidence. But if the Member wants to give the evidence, let us hear him now and we can direct the Commissioner to waive ordinary rules or procedure and hear the Member and all the witnesses he wishes to summon. May I add that the fact he wants to call Mr Glenn Knight as a witness will not prevent Mr Glenn Knight from conducting the inquiry because Mr Glenn Knight does know the Member well and knows exactly all that has transpired and will therefore save the time of another counsel having to work out the case. That is all.

What case?

The case of conducting the inquiry to get to the bottom of it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I suggest that the Member for Anson make his speech as to why this motion should be rejected?

Would you do it now?

If you would like me, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Yes, that is sufficient.

But the motion from the Leader of the House was that the House would sit until the Prime Minister finished his speech. That was the motion, and now is he going to make another motion?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I distinctly heard him ask, "what about me?", that he also wants to speak. So I am giving him the opportunity.

I wanted to clarify on this objection that I raised under Standing Orders.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a very simple one. Does he want to carry on speaking or does he not want to? If he does not want to, we can carry on tomorrow.

All I said was I understood, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the House would sit until the Prime Minister finished. That was the motion before the House to which we agreed. I will speak.

Now?

We are anxious to hear him.

It is up to you.

I will speak tomorrow, Mr Speaker, Sir, because that was the motion.

All right. Debate to be resumed what day?

Tomorrow, Sir.

So be it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. 5.30 pm

I would like to speak this evening, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on resettlement problems in Chua Chu Kang. The development and progress of Singapore have impinged upon Chua Chu Kang. In the early 60s, farmers and squatters were resettled from Jurong into Chua Chu Kang to make way for the development of the industrial estate in Jurong. Now, because of other developments in Chua Chu Kang itself, eg, for housing and for commercial farms, the resettlement is reversed. People are being resettled out of Chua Chu Kang back into Jurong but this time into Housing Board flats. Resettlement, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, presents a traumatic experience for those who are affected. It uproots their way of life and for the farmers in Chua Chu Kang it also takes away their means of livelihood. In the circumstances, the least the Government can do is to ensure that resettlement is achieved with as little difficulty as possible for those who are affected. As I see it, there are the following four problems facing those who are resettled. These are: (1) The amount of compensation; (2) Delay in the payment of the compensation; (3) Delay in the allocation of flats and connected to that inadequate notice to move out; and (4) Resettlement where the area is really not immediately required for redevelopment. On the first point of the amount of compensation, certain practices of the Resettlement Department attract a great deal of complaint. One of these is the ceiling of $39,000 put on compensation for fruit trees. This can work tremendous injustice to the farmers. Take, for example, a fruit tree farmer. A good durian tree can in one season fetch the farmer as much as $1,000 and there are two seasons in a year. So a durian tree can fetch a farmer $2,000 in a year. And assuming that a fruit tree farmer has got 20 durian trees, in one year his takings could be as high as $40,000 and yet the ceiling for compensation on fruit trees is $39,000. Therefore, what the farmer takes in a year is more than what he gets for all his life's farming in cultivating those fruit trees. It is understandable that in some cases, for example, where all trees are really small trees, that the ceiling should be put on them. This is to prevent farmers from planting trees just for the sake of claiming compensation. But so far as mature trees are concerned, Sir, there is really no justification for this ceiling. And I would appeal to the Minister to lift this ceiling for mature trees. At the moment, there are also different rates for authorized structures. Some plans of farm structures are approved by the Primary Production Department. But before 1972, the approving authority was the Rural Board or some other Government authority. And yet in the payment of compensation, a different rate is paid depending upon whether the structure is approved by the PPD or by a Government authority other than the PPD. This is really not fair. It is not fair that for approved structures that some should get less while others get more. Also, trees and other structures on land acquired by the Government are not compensated. The reason for this is that the acquiring authorities say that the landowner had been compensated on vacant possession basis. But this argument, Sir, I submit, does not hold water. If the Government department has paid the landowner for improvements which do not belong to the landowner himself, then they have paid by mistake. They should really have enquired whether those improvements on the land belong to the landowner. And if those improvements do not belong to the landowner, the landowner should not be paid. In quite a few cases, squatters planted trees on land that has been acquired and when it now comes to claiming for compensation, the Government tells them, "Well, I have paid the landowner for your trees." But this is not fair because the trees do not belong to the landowner. The trees belong to the squatter and the squatter should be paid. If the Government had paid the landowner by mistake, I think the Government must pay again. It is the Government's mistake. Why should the squatter be made to suffer because of the Government's mistake? There is a very interesting case that I have here, Sir, and this is in respect of delay in resettlement. Land in my constituency was gazetted for resettlement in 1967 and yet no action was taken to move the persons affected out until 1985, some 18 years later. That in itself is bad enough. But when it comes to resettlement benefits, the squatters were compensated according to a survey done in 1967 and not on what was on the site in 1985. Furthermore, only those who were eligible in 1967 were given housing benefits. There was this young boy on the land. When the land was gazetted for resettlement, he was only 11 years old. He has since grown up and is married. He is, however, denied housing benefits on the ground that at the cut-off date, ie, in 1967, he was not married. I do not know how the Resettlement Department expects a boy of 11 to be married. He is denied housing benefits on that ground. His subsequent marriage, in spite of the fact that the marriage certificate was produced, did not cut any ice with the Resettlement Department. This is one of those absurd cases where the Resettlement Department adheres rigidly to the rules. I am happy, however, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that since the filing of this adjournment motion, the Resettlement Department has seen the light and I am told that the matter will be amicably settled. To that, I think I must thank the Minister and also must thank all the Resettlement officers concerned. Recently, I have received many complaints from farmers that no compensation was given for farm structures on the land. Pigsties and chicken runs have been left out in the assessment notice allegedly on the ground that the structures are unauthorized. These sort of complaints never happened before but they seem to be quite prevalent now. I would ask the Minister to look into this complaint. I suggest that the Resettlement officers should record all structures and other improvements on the land whether they are authorized or not. However, making a note against those that are not authorized so that there would be a record and when matters are taken further, the record can be looked into. The second ground of complaint is the delay in payment of compensation. There are many complaints of delay in the payment of compensation. And compensation money is often not paid when offers of flats are received by the person resettled. Farmers are self-employed. They have got no CPF. Many live from hand to mouth. They depend on the compensation money to pay for their flats. They dare not accept any offer of flats before receipt of the compensation money. But they are told by the HDB that if they do not accept after three offers, they would lose their right to the allocation of a flat and would therefore have to find their own accommodation. This seems to be a lack of coordination among departments in the Housing and Development Board. Both the Resettlement Department and the Sales Section are departments of the HDB. The Resettlement Department pays the compensation. The Sales Section offers the flat. Yet, invariably, offers of flats seem to come first before the payment of compensation money. I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is a case where the left hand does not seem to know what the right hand is doing. I would suggest that the Minister look into the matter. I do not really see any problem in this. After all, in these days of the computer age, we could simply "input" into the computer the data and the proper coordination is achieved. And where there is compensation money due to a farmer, surely this compensation money could be offset against the price of the flat. This leads on to the next point, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the allocation of flats in good time. Very often, a farmer would receive a notice to quit the land only days after taking the key to a Housing Board flat. I have got an actual case here, Sir. This is a case in which the squatter received his key on the 5th of June 1986. And on the 19th of July 1986, he received a notice to quit his land by the 31st of July, ie, hardly two weeks' notice was given for the squatter to move out and less than two months after he was allocated a flat. Surely sufficient time must be given to the people so that they could have time to renovate the flat and to make the flat habitable to move into. Now I come to the question that has been raised many times in this Chamber and this is the allocation of flats to single persons, persons who in the opinion of the HDB do not form a family nucleus. These are the single farmers. Two brothers may be farming on the land or a husband who has left the house leaving the wife with the children on the land. According to the present criterion, these people do not form a family nucleus. They are not allowed to buy a Housing Board flat. But why can we not relax the rules? These are special circumstances. They have been farming and staying happily on the land. It is through no fault of their own that you come to the place and say, "Look, I want this land. You get out." And yet you do not allow them alternative accommodation. You do not allow them to buy a flat to move into. Surely these people are entitled to be looked after and an exception should be made to the single person criterion that they cannot be allowed to buy flats. I would submit that these cases are really different from single person sub-tenants in tenements in the City area and therefore they should be allowed to buy flats so long as they have been farming on the land and meet all other resettlement requirements. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I must appeal to the Minister not to initiate resettlement before the land is really required for development. There are too many of these cases around. In the Murai area in Chua Chu Kang, for example, land was resettled more than three years ago which are still lying undeveloped. Lallangs grow on them and mosquitoes breed and all sorts of animals and insects and reptiles abound. I think it is this sort of inconsiderate action that turned the people against the Government. It may be convenient for the bureaucrats to get the site ready well in advance of requirement. But for the bureaucrats' convenience a farmer could lose his livelihood. Farmers and people in Chua Chu Kang have made their sacrifices. I think it is because of their cooperation that we could develop the Jurong Industrial Estate so efficiently and so smoothly. I think in that development they have made significant contributions. This is not meant to be a list of complaints against the HDB and HDB officers, most of whom I think really do a good job in very difficult circumstances. But there are a few black sheep and others who are the ones who really give the Housing Board, especially the Resettlement Department, a bad name. This afternoon's motion, Sir, is really a plea on behalf of the farmers and people in Chua Chu Kang who are affected by resettlement, a plea for better understanding and more consideration, which they richly deserve. 5.49 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will briefly answer the points by the Member for Chua Chu Kang. On the matter of compensation to farmers, generally the compensation to farmers by the Government at present is quite generous. I just want to mention simply that in the 1960s the Singapore Government had very little money to spend. In the first five-year housing programme, that is, from 1960-1965, Government had allocated $195 million for construction of public housing, for acquisition of the land, for compensation, and for all other things. At that time we considered this as a very generous allocation because at that time the financial resources of the Singapore Government was very limited. Today, as all Members understand, in the last Budget Government's allocation for compensation to resettlement alone is more than $200 million a year. So you can see the amount of increase by the Government to spend on resettlement cases. So compensation for resettlement, I would say, is very generous. On farming cases this year, the record shows that an average farmer is getting a compensation of $120,000. If we look at the early 1960s, usually compensation to farmers was only a few thousand dollars. So Members can see that the amount of compensation to farmers has increased enormously. The compensation for the fruit trees at $39,000 per hectare as a cut-off point is quite generous. But the Member for Chua Chu Kang quite cleverly talked about durian trees. For durian trees, perhaps one hectare of a durian estate is worth more than $39,000, if they are mature and fruit-bearing trees. I will ask my Resettlement Committee to look into this matter and see whether a special rate can be paid for mature durian plantations under clearance. But for other fruit trees, I think $39,000 per hectare is very generous. If we look at it, in Malaysia, a hectare of palm oil or a rubber estate is only a few thousand dollars. Moreover, the owner has to own the land. However, in this case, the squatters do not own the land and Government compensate them. And Government compensate them for the trees at $39,000 per hectare. Therefore, I think the compensation is quite generous. On the different rates of compensation, I think there is a misunderstanding by the Member for Chua Chu Kang. In fact, compensation for all the approved structures is paid in accordance with the approved rates. In other words, for farming cases they are paid a higher rate; and for residential cases they are paid a lower rate. However, in 1975 the Primary Production Department came out with a specially designed farming structure with anti-pollution measures built in. For this type of structure they would get a higher compensation. These structures are more costly to build. All these structures are recent structures. This type of structures was only approved in 1975. I think the farmers are confused with this because a higher rate of compensation is paid for this specially designed farming structure with anti-pollution measures built in, prepared by PPD. But as far as rates go, they are unchanged. The farmers are not paid a lower rate at all. On the compensation of vacant possession, I think there are some disputes. Some landowners are claiming vacant possession. When Government acquire their land, they say, "I not only own the land but I am also the farmer here. I own all the structures and I own all the trees." Then the landowner is paid the vacant possession rate, that means, a higher rate. This is because Government do not have to pay for the clearance cost of the squatters. Subsequently, some people come out and say, "No, no. The landowners do not own those improvements. I am the only one who really own the improvements." Therefore, there is a dispute. I would say that in cases of dispute of this type, the Resettlement Department is prepared to look into them. If a mistake has been made, and the squatters do, in fact, own those improvements, then compensation has to be paid to them. I think the Resettlement Department will pay the compensation to them. On the cut-off date, the Member for Chua Chu Kang has explained that in fact this matter has been resolved. However, what I would like to explain is this. Cut-off date is really the date of gazette notification. If the Government has gazetted the acquisition long ago, then the cut-off date is usually the date when the resettlement officers entered into the site to take measurements. In the example quoted, 1967 was the gazette date. We will however use 1985 as the cut-off date, that means, the date when the resettlement officers entered the site and do the measurements again. But as the Member for Chua Chu Kang has said, this problem has been resolved. On the dispute as to whether some structural improvements are authorized or unauthorized, whether the structure is built before the cut-off date or after the cut-off date, I think in every resettlement site there is this type of dispute. From our records, it takes a bit of time to resolve disputes but always the disputes have been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. I would like to assure the Member for Chua Chu Kang that this type of dispute will be resolved. And if it is not resolved to his satisfaction, I suggest he write to my Senior Parliamentary Secretary, and he will look into the case and have it satisfactorily resolved. On the delay in compensation, I can appreciate that because in Chua Chu Kang the number of resettlement cases involved is more than 4,000. And each case involves a lot of structures, a lot of improvements, a lot of plants, a lot of areas to be certified, to check and re-check. This takes a long time. I will not deny that there is some delay in awarding compensation. I have asked the Resettlement Department to send more people to Chua Chu Kang to help and hopefully it will speed up the compensation process. On the allocation of flats, I admit that if there is a delay in the allocation of the flats, certainly the right to purchase alternative flats will not be lost if the delay is due to a delay in the compensation. We do not expect the farmers to move out to the new area before they are compensated. If there is a case of a delay and the HDB threatening the squatters that their right to alternative accommodation will be cancelled, I suggest the Member for Chua Chu Kang take it up with the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. If the right to alternative accommodation has been cancelled, we will restore the right. On the allocation of flats to single persons, the Government's policy is this. We are very short of land in Singapore, so we cannot afford to allocate each individual person a separate flat. However, if the single person has no family at all, in other words, he is just by himself, he does not have brothers or sisters and is also not married, we can consider each case on its own merit. In certain situations, I think the Allocation Committee will be able to make a special concession. Again, I suggest to the Member for Chua Chu Kang to take it up with my Senior Parliamentary Secretary. On the delay in clearance, quite often in the development of the Chua Chu Kang area, the area for military training is very extensive. Again, the HDB new town is also very extensive. And this agro-technology farm, the new farm area, is also very extensive. The farmers do not see this - that because of the very extensive area, the clearance usually takes quite some time. Quite often, from the beginning to the end, development takes several years. Therefore, those people who have been cleared earlier feel that Government have cleared them too early. But, in fact, it is not so, because the development can only take place after the whole area has been cleared, and this takes several years. Therefore, those who have to move out earlier usually feel that the Government purposely chase them out and leave the land idle. That is not the case. Government actually requires the land. But the Resettlement Department can only hand the whole piece of land over to the Redevelopment Authority when the whole extent of the land area has been cleared. 6.00 pm The Question having been proposed at half-past Five o'clock pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned accordingly at Six o'clock pm.

asked the Minister for National Development if he will request the Housing and Development Board to allow occupiers of HDB apartments to have potted plants displayed outside their premises along corridors where the plants pose no danger or obstruction to other residents or passers-by.

It has always been the Housing and Development Board's policy to allow its flat dwellers to place potted plants along the corridors outside their flats, provided residents comply with safety and environmental requirements, e.g. (i) Not to place potted plants on parapet walls or other precarious positions as they could be toppled over accidentally, and kill someone below, (ii) Not to keep plants on top of racks such as to pose a danger to unwary children playing along the corridors, (iii) Not to give rise to breeding of mosquitoes or cause chokages to rainwater pipes, (iv) Not to cause obstructions or hinder conservancy works along the corridors.

asked the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry, in view of the present economic recession, will give due consideration to temporarily halting the complete phasing out of the pig farming industry as this will result in throwing out of business the businesses that service the pig farming industry.

Pig farming has to be phased out in Singapore because of its serious environmental pollution. The phasing out programme is being carried out in stages to ensure that there is no disruption to the supply of pigs and violent fluctuation in prices, and to allow adequate time for adjustment by industries that service the pig farming industry. There is no necessity to temporarily halt the phasing out programme. Agri-businesses such as feedmills that service the pig farming industry also serve other agricultural, fisheries and livestock industries. They can adjust to the phasing out of pig farms by providing more services to these other agricultural industries. Many of them are also exporting their products to the surrounding countries. This is in line with our plan to develop Singapore into a regional agro-business centre. We can supply agro-technology equipment, animal and fish feeds, pharmaceuticals, biologics and other agricultural services, including consultancy services, to other countries in the region.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) what are the allowances for floor area variation given to contractors for Housing and Development Board, HUDC and Jurong Town Corporation flats, HDB and JTC factories and other statutory board office buildings; (b) whether he will tabulate the actual floor area variations for these buildings built over the last five years, by type and by year; and (c) what are the guidelines governing the practices of construction contractors working on private sector projects.

Contractors must build in accordance with architectural dimensions subject to tolerances of measurements for building works which are spelt out in detail in the building specifications. In practice, variations are minor; and they depend on the type of materials used and method of construction. (b) The HDB and other statutory boards do not keep records of floor area variations in buildings constructed by them since construction is in accordance with actual architectural dimensions subject to the tolerances allowed in building construction. (c) There are no guidelines governing the practices of construction contractors working on private sector projects. However, the Controller of Housing allows housing developers to have a 3% margin for any shortfall in area. In the standard Sale and Purchase Agreement, the developer is required to adjust the purchase price in favour of the purchaser for any shortfall in area in excess of the 3% margin. However, the developer is not entitled to claim any adjustment in the purchase price if the actual area exceeds the contracted area.

asked the Minister for National Development what are the development plans for the piece of vacant land between the Bukit Timah Community Centre and Bukit Timah Plaza/Sherwood Towers and when the government proposes to carry them out.

The vacant land, between the Bukit Timah Community Centre and the Bukit Timah Plaza/Sherwood Towers, is earmarked for the development of the Bukit Timah bus interchange. Detailed plans for this interchange have not yet been finalised.

asked the Minister for National Development what are the proposed development plans for the two vacant plots of land adjacent to Upper Serangoon Road at the Potong Pasir Estate.

The two vacant plots of land adjacent to Upper Serangoon Road at the Potong Pasir Estate are reserved sites intended for future development. Plans for these sites have not yet been finalized.

asked the Minister for National Development what is the number of flats built at the Yishun New Town and what is the number of flats which are currently vacant there.

As at 2 May 1986, a total of 26,643 flats have been completed in Yishun New Town. Of these, 22,433 flats, representing more than 84% of those completed, have been sold. Thus, 4,210 flats are currently vacant. As at 2 May 1986 there are 2,996 applicants in the Yishun Zone awaiting allocation of flats.

asked the Minister for National Development what are the development and implementation plans for the piece of land between Radin Mas Primary School and Block 112 at Bukit Purmei Estate.

The piece of land between Radin Mas Primary School and Block 112 at Bukit Purmei Estate is a reserved site for future development. The Housing and Development Board has no immediate plans for the area.

asked the Minister for National Development what are the redevelopment plans for the one-room and two-room rental flats in Boon Teck Constituency which are currently under clearance by the Housing and Development Board.

The one-room and two-room rental flats in Boon Teck Constituency are not under clearance. However, as and when the occupancy rate of any rental block there falls below 50% through natural termination, the Board will request the remaining tenants to vacate the block for other premises. Only when the HDB is able to amass a sizeable piece of land from the demolition of old blocks will the HDB be able to make plans for redevelopment.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the pilot six-month free parking scheme on Sundays and public holidays, which has been tried out in Ayer Rajah Constituency, has been found successful and whether the scheme will be implemented immediately in some selected constituencies or in all other constituencies.

The pilot scheme at Ayer Rajah Constituency to test out the feasibility of free parking on Sundays and public holidays was monitored closely by the Housing and Development Board during the past six months. The results revealed that during the free parking days on Sundays and public holidays: (a) there was an increase of about 17% in occupancy level of the car parks; (b) the number of vehicles found parked indiscriminately on a Sunday/public holiday increased from an average of 74 to 130 vehicles, i.e. an increase of 76%. It was evident from the pilot scheme that free parking on Sundays and public holidays may give rise to more congestion and indiscriminate parking, especially in car parks where the demand for parking space is high. It is, therefore, not surprising that not all residents in HDB housing estates want to have this free parking scheme. In view of this, the Advisers to the grassroots organisations have been asked whether they want to implement the scheme in their constituencies. If they wish to have the scheme, they can write to me or my Senior Parliamentary Secretary. The scheme can be implemented within one month of request.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) how many people have been injured as a result of being hit by objects flung by motor grass-cutters up to the latest convenient date; and (b) what measures he proposes to take to ensure that users of such machines will strictly observe safety requirements so as to prevent these ugly incidents from happening again.

Our records show that for the three-year period from 1 January 1983 to 15 July 1986, a total of 10 members of the public have been injured as a result of being hit by objects flung up by rotary open blade grass-cutters used by contractors engaged by the Parks and Recreation Department (PRD) and the Housing and Development Board (HDB). (b) The PRD and HDB require several safety measures to be observed by the grass cutting workers: (i) All grass cutting machines must have protective guards. (ii) Grass cutting workers must carry on their back warning signs to warn passers-by. (iii) Grass cutting workers must stop operating the rotary open blade grass cutters when there are people within reach of the grass-cutters. PRD and HDB carry checks on the grass cutting workers. Penalty actions ranging from imposition of fines to debarment will be taken against those found contravening the safety rules. PRD and HDB are at present testing a new model of grass cutter which is fitted with an all-round plastic guard to prevent objects from being flung up by the rotary cutting blades. If found suitable, grass cutting contractors would be required to use it.

asked the Minister for National Development (a) if the Housing and Development Board will give, block by block, (i) the numbers of one-room and two -room flats that are vacant in the Anson Constituency and (ii) the periods they have been vacant, splitting the periods into three-monthly intervals; and (b) what the HDB proposes to do with these vacant flats.

As at 30 June 1986, there are 1,743 units of one- and two-room rental flats in Anson Constituency, of which 419 units (24%) are vacant. The details of the vacant units and the period of void are shown in Annexure A (Cols. 209 - 210). Annexure A - DETAILS OF THE VACANT 1 & 2-ROOM RENTAL FLATS AND THE PERIOD OF VOID IN ANSON CONSTITUENCY (Cols. 209 - 210) With the improvement in the incomes and standards of living of Singaporeans and with the assistance given by Government, more and more tenants are leaving rental flats to become home owners. As soon as the majority of the units in such blocks become vacant, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) will transfer the remaining tenants to other blocks to allow the vacated blocks to be demolished for redevelopment. A detailed programme will be announced when it is finalised.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) whether the Indonesian Government had discussed with the Singapore Government its plans to set up a nuclear plant; and (b) whether the proposed plant will present a hazard to Singapore; and, if so, what has the Government done about it.

The Indonesian Government has not discussed with us any plans it may have to set up a nuclear power plant, nor are we aware of the details of such a plant.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will state what stand will be taken by the Singapore Government on the question of sanctions against South Africa at the next Commonwealth meeting: whether the government will support the call for total sanctions now or it will support the stand taken by the British Prime Minister.

Singapore supports the call for sanctions against South Africa. We have supported the United Nation's resolutions calling for sanctions against South Africa. This has been our position at Commonwealth meetings. We last made this call in a statement issued at the 19th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Manila in June 1986.

asked the Minister for Education whether children of members of Citizens' Consultative Committees, Community Centre Management Committees and Residents' Committees, by virtue of such membership only, are automatically accorded priority of admission to primary one in any school of their choice under Phase 2B.

Children of members of Citizens' Consultative Committees, Community Centre Management Committees and Residents' Committees are not automatically accorded priority of admission to primary one in any school of their choice under Phase 2B but they can register their first, second or third child for admission to primary one in a school within the constituency they are serving or residing under Phase 2B.

asked the Minister for Education whether he will table a Paper in Parliament for a full discussion on the Government's plans to overhaul the pre - university education announced in the press on the 29th May 1986 before any steps are taken by the Government to reform the present system.

The reasons for the changes in the criteria for admission to junior colleges and pre-university centres have been fully explained in the press. There is no need to table a paper in Parliament.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information if he will explain (a) why the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation found it necessary and desirable to order wall cladding material for Bishan Depot from abroad when the same could have been obtained locally and much cheaper; and (b) whether the Corporation has been asked to encourage local manufacture even if the materials may not be of the same aesthetic standard as foreign materials.

The wall cladding material for Bishan Depot was supplied as part of the overall contract for the construction of Bishan Depot. For design purposes a particular wall cladding material was specified in the contract but there was a standard statement that equivalent materials could be used. The Mass Rapid Transit Corporation encourages contractors and their sub-contractors to use local products where they meet technical specifications. Contractors are aware that Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) contracts are awarded on the basis of competitive bids. Therefore, it is in the contractors' interest for them to choose any product or material that is competitive in price and meets the tender specifications. In the case of the Bishan Depot, the lowest tenderer did not offer local wall cladding.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will give the number of employment passes that have been issued month by month from April 1985 to March 1986 under the following categories:-

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.

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.

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.

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 Government's decision to phase out the Multi-Revenue Collection (MRC) centres and other cash payment counters stems from the need to reduce manpower and increase productivity. The quantifiable savings from the closure of the 19 MRC centres are estimated at $710,000 per annum. More important, however, are the savings to the public. Rather than travelling to such centres and queuing up to pay bills, workers can spend their time more productively, whether in their workplaces or in their homes. Imputed savings on travelling and queuing time by the public, if they switch over to a cashless means of payment for just four bills, viz Income Tax, Property Tax, Public Utilities Board and Telecom bills, are estimated at $6 million per annum. The Government has, at the same time, tried to minimise the inconvenience to the public by the following measures: (a) MRC centres were closed in stages. In February 1986, only five of the 19 counters were closed. In July 1986, another seven were closed. The remaining seven will be closed only in January 1987. (b) Care is taken to structure the closure of the centres such that those in the central business district (CBD) were closed first, followed by those on the fringe of the CBD. The centres in the outlying areas will be closed last. (c) A three-month publicity campaign beginning in March 1985 was conducted to inform the public of the merits and rationale of cashless transactions. Various media of communication were employed. These include mobile exhibitions, TV and Radio advertisements, bus panel posters and advertisements in various publications. It was supplemented by an instructional publicity campaign at the end of 1985, outlining in some detail the cashless alternatives available and how to effect such payments. (d) Payment of the common Government bills can now be effected through GIRO, Interbank GIRO, telephone banking, and Electronic Funds Transfer at Point of Sale cards.

asked the Minister for Health whether and when the Government will introduce an "Opting-out" law in respect of organ donation and whether Muslims will be affected.

The Government is in favour of the introduction of legislation for organ donation. Government is finalising the details of the proposed legislation. It will introduce the Bill in Parliament when it is ready. The legislation will make provisions for persons who do not wish to donate their organs after death to register their objections. Safeguards will also be incorporated to ensure that no organ will be improperly removed. After consultation with the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS), it has been decided that Muslims will be excluded from the proposed legislation. For purposes of receiving transplants Muslims who opt in under the existing Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) Act will be treated on the same basis as non-Muslims who have not opted out under the proposed legislation.

asked the Acting Minister for Labour whether he will give the number of work permits issued month by month from April 1985 to March 1986 under the following categories:-

It is misleading to consider only work permits issued without realising that simultaneously other work permits are being cancelled as foreign workers return home. Some workers leave Singapore without returning their work permits or informing Work Permit Department. In other cases work permits which expire are being renewed for those who continue in existing jobs. Others may decide to change jobs and require new work permits. The approximate net position is that there has been a fall in total foreign workforce by an estimated 50,000 workers between April 1985 and March 1986. Despite the recession and rising unemployment, foreign workers still have to be admitted for jobs which are shunned by Singaporeans.

asked the Acting Minister for Labour whether the Government intends to carry out its announced policy to phase out all foreign workers by 1990 in view of what the Prime Minister said during his recent visit to the Philippines that "the Government would not phase out foreign workers from non-traditional sources in five years".

The Government's policy is to progressively reduce our dependence on foreign workers. The policy is however administered flexibly. Foreign workers have been admitted in large numbers in the past to solve our labour shortage. We cannot phase them out abruptly without affecting economic growth. Moreover, as shown by recent experience, a pool of foreign workers helps to cushion the impact on Singaporeans of job losses during a recession. The government is however mindful of the potential adverse social, economic and political consequences of having a large number of foreign workers especially unskilled ones in Singapore. The Ministry of Labour has a programme to phase out non-traditional source workers in the manufacturing and commerce sectors. The programme is almost completed. The target date is 1992 not 1990. Non-traditional source workers are however still allowed in construction, shipbuilding and domestic service, where the jobs are shunned by Singaporeans. Our dependence on foreign workers in these and other sectors will be gradually reduced as and when there are enough Singaporeans willing to take up these jobs. We will continue to allow the recruitment of skilled foreign workers of economic value to Singapore. Those who will raise our productivity and contribute towards economic growth will be considered for employment on a longer-term basis.

asked the Acting Minister for Community Development if he will explain why halls in community centres may not be made available for the holding of public forums for citizens.

Community centres are government agencies. They organise social, cultural, educational, sports and recreational activities in accordance with the government's objectives and regulations. Forums and dialogue sessions, initiated by the Community Centre Management Committees (CCMCs), are held periodically to allow government leaders and officials to exchange views and explain government policies and issues to the public. No political party is allowed to hold its political activities in the community centres. Annexure A - DETAILS OF THE VACANT 1 & 2-ROOM RENTAL FLATS AND THE PERIOD OF VOID IN ANSON CONSTITUENCY (Cols. 209 - 210) tables - AVERAGE HEIGHT/WEIGHT OF SCHOOL CHILDREN 1970-73 and 1983 (Cols. 211 - 212) table - PERCENTAGE PREVALENCE OF OBESITY AMONG SINGAPORE SCHOOL CHILDREN OF YEAR, SEX AND LEVEL OF EDUCATION 1976 TO 1985 (Cols. 213 - 214)